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 cuм 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: cathman7 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, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, 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, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, 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 Jєωιѕн 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 on March 10, 2018, 08:50:50 PM
And again....

THE THESIS OF CASSICIAcuм
  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 Cassiciacuм”, 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 Cassiciacuм” 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 circuмstances, it would seem to have abandoned it completely”. Saint Bede (In Marcuм, 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 "Cassiciacuм", 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 ѕуηαgσgυє to proclaim the Jєωs ‘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 Cassiciacuм', 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 Cassiciacuм", 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 circuмstances, it would seem to have abandoned it completely." (In Marcuм, 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 Cassiciacuм" 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 Cassiciacuм" ("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 Cassiciacuм," 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 Cassiciacuм", 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 Cassiciacuм' 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-ecuмenical" 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 Cassiciacuм" 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 cuм' 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 cuм"(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 (cuм 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 cuм 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 cuм 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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, ecuмenism, 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 cuм, 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 docuмent (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: cathman7 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 Jєωry (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: cathman7 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, Jєω as a Jєω, 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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/docuмento-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: cathman7 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/docuмento-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: cathman7 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 Cassiciacuм 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: Ecuмenical Councils approved by a Pope are infallible.

This is a gross over generalization.  Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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: cathman7 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 Ecuмenical 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 circuмstances 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 circuмstances. 
 
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 Jєωry (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: Ecuмenical 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, "Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 ʝʊdɛօ-masonic infiltration of the Church is a fact well docuмented. 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 Ecuмenical 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: cathman7 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.  Ecuмenical councils historically begin with the common recitation of the Credo and then affirm the dogmatic declarations of previous councils. What these ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 Cassisiacuм 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 Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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 docuмents 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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/docuмents/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: cathman7 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 cuм 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 cuм 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 Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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: cathman7 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 Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 circuмstances. 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 ecuмenical 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: cathman7 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: cathman7 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 Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical councils about 200 years apart. It is unfortunate that others have tried to excuse this fact or mitigate its implications because, if these two ecuмenical 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, Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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, Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical councils about 200 years apart. It is unfortunate that others have tried to excuse this fact or mitigate its implications because, if these two ecuмenical 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, Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 docuмents, 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 acuмen ... 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 Jєωιѕн people and the
pagans.  Thus, Arianism was the first "ecuмenical" 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 [nαzιanzen]'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 docuмents 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 cuм 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, cuм 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; cuм 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 Jєωs, 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 docuмent this lie in detail. So when I call you a liar, it is docuмented 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 docuмents 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 Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 docuмent (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 docuмents 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 Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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/docuмents/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 docuмent.

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 docuмent 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 docuмent, 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 cuм 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, cuм 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; cuм 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 Jєωs, 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 docuмents of the ORDINARY PAPAL MAGISTERIUM that had far less authority than an Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenism 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 Ecuмenical 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 docuмents 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 Jєω, 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/docuмents/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 authenticuм, 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 Ecuмenical Councils? Must Catholics scrutinize the narrative of every single dogmatic docuмent, 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 ecuмenical 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 docuмents.  There are NO OTHER ecuмencial councils which ONLY require CONDITIONAL assent.  None.  So if you won't admit that V2 is different than all other ecuмenical councils you have no integrity.

Quote
If an Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 docuмents.  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 Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical Council to be declared "pastoral" rather than "dogmatic" if other councils, did have pastoral propositions, they were nevertheless dogmatic Councils. 

It was the first Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 docuмents 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 docuмent 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 ecuмenical councils.  This fact, that V2 is different in teaching authority and intent from all other ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical Council of Trent.

Is your indefectible Magisterium limited to ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 EcuмENICAL COUNCILS.  Apples vs oranges comparison.  ALL previous ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 docuмents, 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 Ecuмenical 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 acuмen 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 circuмstances, 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 ecuмencial 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 docuмents, 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 Ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical Council can teach heresy or even grave error to the Universal Church, and that we must reject the teachings of an Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 circuмstances, sometimes assembling Ecuмenical 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 docuмents 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 Jєωs. 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 ecuмenical 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 docuмents 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-ecuмenical-councils-are-not.html (http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/08/berry-ecuмenical-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 docuмent 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 docuмents of Trent memorized?  How about all the other ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical Council there could be a small mistake?  Theoretically, yes, although even this is unlikely as Catholics have always believed that Ecuмenical Councils have been under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.  But while there could theoretically be some small mistakes, for an Ecuмenical 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 Jєωs, 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 Ecuмenical Council to teach HERESY to the Church, as you have claimed.
V2 is an ecuмenical 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 Jєωs, 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: cathman7 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 circuмstance 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 accuмulation 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 cuм 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: cathman7 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 cuм 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 docuмents with 'certainty of faith' shows that it's a ecuмenical anomoly.  Its docuмents are not matters of salvation, nor matters of sin.  All previous ecuмenical 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 docuмents 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 circuмstances 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 circuмstances 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 authenticuм, 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/docuмents/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. (docuмent) 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:

authentĭcuм
neutral noun II declension

1 original or authentic docuмent, the original
2 docuмent certifying relic genuine

..which also is officially (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/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 succuмbing 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 "authenticuм" 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 docuмents 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 docuмents 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 Ecuмenical 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.
Cantarella, same answer as above.  The pope/magisterium HAVE NOT REQUIRED SUBMISSION therefore no one is REFUSING SUBMISSION.  

You falsely attribute to V2 authority which it does not have, which it never claimed to have, and which Paul VI and all V2 theologians agree CANNOT claim to have.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 06:25:37 PM

Quote
Quote
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 docuмents does the Synod openly declare that such and such a doctrine is being defined.


Nobody cares about such distinctions except for "Lefebvrists". The Church does not promulgate error or anything harmful to the faithful in a General Council, period. 
So it doesn’t matter that the V2 docuмents admit that unless they say they they are binding on the faithful (which they never said) that they are not binding?  THIS DOESNT MATTER?!

Of course it matters.  Laws, canons, dogmas are only binding if they are known to be, openly.  Rome cannot issue secret rules or doctrine.  And there is NOT ONE V2 official who has ever said that V2 was binding in the same manner as previous ecuмenical councils.  They’ve gone out of their way to say its PASTORAL (which to them means it only requires CONDITIONAL assent).

Until you find someone who says V2 is binding with ‘certainty of faith’ then the facts prove 100% it’s not.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 04, 2018, 08:01:28 PM
Also Samuel, it is not like we are talking about the latest imprudent interview Bergolio just made, or a silly error here and there caused by distraction or something minor. That would not make him a false pope. We are dealing here with the possibility of heresy in an Ecunemical Council, a schismatic liturgy, modernized catechism, a complete swift in the Magisterium, a demolition of the Catholic dogmas of salvation, etc.

And this is not even about a single pope promulgating error like in the times of Arch. Lefebvre. R&R really keeps adhering to the idea that after more than half a century, the consecution of the last 5 - 6 latest "popes" have all become heretics and enemies of the Faith. The legitimate successor of St. Peter keep becoming heretics one after another one.

Impossible.

Cantarella,

Which of these two mutually exclusive positions do you believe is the correct one:

1. A validly elected pope can fall into heresy.

2. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.

Keep in mind that in #1 we're not talking about what happens if or when he falls into heresy, we're only talking about whether it is possible or not that a pope can fall into heresy.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 04, 2018, 11:26:50 PM
Neither one is an "error" at this time.  I explained it as a difference of opinion that the Church has allowed.  Do you even know what an "error" is from a theological standpoint?  Look up the "theological notes".

BoD is taught in the Roman Catechism. It is not “a difference of opinion which the Church has allowed.”
 

It is a teaching that the actual receipt of the sacrament of baptism is not required for justification in a Catechism directed to be written by the Council of Trent to explain the “operation and the use” of the sacraments. According to the CE, “in the [m]ind of the Church the Catechism . . . was also intended to give a fixed and stable scheme of instruction to the faithful, especially with regard to the means of grace.” If it is teaching falsely by teaching BoD in that Catechism, I say it's indefectibility (as you have presented it to us as encompassing its "non-infallible" teachings being "free from error" or "unable to be mistaken") is undermined. 
 

The teaching on BoD in the Roman Catechism is not the Church allowing a difference of opinion such as the Church did in the de Auxiliius controversy between the Jesuits and Dominicans on grace. The Church didn’t teach either position, but allowed both in that instance. Obviously one of them is wrong, but since the Church didn’t resolve the “speculations,” its indefectibility is not at issue: it truly allows both views and allows speculation.
 

Again, this is not what happened with regard to BoD: the Church not only allows it, it teaches it in the Roman Catechism.
 

Now you bring in your “theological notes” and say this is not theological “error,” which would be a contradiction of a truth of divine faith, a part of Revelation, that has not been solemnly or formally promulgated as dogma. And so you make the distinction that the Church has not taught theological error in the Roman Catechism.
 

This is hardly what the popes you quoted teach about the indefectible Magisterium, which “can not be mistaken” in its teachings on the faith. Is “mistaken” now, like “error,” a theological note?
 

Your latest attempt to justify your inconsistency totally undermines the purposes of the Church’s indefectibility in teaching the faith. That indefectibility does not only ensure us that the Church will not teach something contrary to divine faith, but that it teaches us the faith without “error,” that is a reliable guide that can be trusted and not one that blunders so fundamentally by teaching on the issue of justification and grace that the actual receipt of the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for justification and the translation from the alienation from God in the original sin brought about by Adam to adoption as a son of God.
 

As Stubborn said in Reply #768 in this thread regarding you: “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.”
 

So you decide this issue of BoD and the real possibility of justification/salvation without the receipt of the sacrament of baptism (the teaching of the Roman Catechism) is “inconsequential,” and the Magisterium’s teaching of it – not “allowing” of it as opinion – does not compromise its indefectibility.
 

I’m sorry to hear this, but thank you for the clarification.
 

As someone who believes the receipt of the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation and that a teaching contrary to that is not “inconsequential” but substantial error that would compromise the indefectible Magisterium were it part of its teaching, I remain on the side of the “heretics,” Drew, Stubborn, and Pax on this one.
 

I do hope you see someday that you do in fact rely on dogma as your rule of faith, and that without doing so you could not “disagree” with the teaching of the Roman Catechism on BoD nor reject the post-Vatican II regime of novelty.
 
 
 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 05, 2018, 10:54:49 AM

Quote
Tell that to +Lefebvre, +Fellay, et al.  
No, I'm telling you.  This is a fact.  The reason +Lefebvre continued to separate from new-rome is the same reason that Fr Chazal outlines - they don't have the faith; they are dangerous.  We must separate from them to keep the Faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 05, 2018, 10:59:45 AM
If V2 requires submission, then why haven't trads been accused of 'sin', 'heresy', and 'excommunication'?  (and don't mention the sspx excommunications - those had nothing to do with V2, but with the ordinations).  The reason they won't charge trads with the above is because they can't.  And they have admitted this after the fact.

Those quotes by Cardinal Ratzinger and Paul VI were just political posturing, to keep those conservative novus ordo-ites from leaving and joining Tradition, which was gaining ground at the time.  Notice that they never point to any "facts" or "laws" when they talk about disobedience; it's all a non-specific threat, which history now shows, was empty.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 05, 2018, 11:59:22 AM
Thanks, BD.  This quote exposes Pax's lie.  Sadly, on this point at least, Paul VI is MORE CATHOLIC than a lot of the R&R folks here.

It is obvious that he certainly believes the rule of faith is the magisterium, unlike you who only say it is your rule of faith.

If the magisterium actually is your rule of faith, then it is with magisterial certainty that you must believe that Pope Paul VI is infallibly correct and all trads, including you, are indeed outside of the Church.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 05, 2018, 12:50:51 PM
How many times does it need to be explained to you that we don't believe that Paul VI has Magisterium?  That is the very point of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism.
You have no right to believe your rule of faith is not the rule of faith when it comes to V2, because to do so means the magisterium is not your rule of faith.

It's very simple.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 05, 2018, 01:11:27 PM
Stubbornian Logic --

assumes that the V2 popes are legitimate in order to prove that they are legitimate.

Premise 1:  V2 Popes are legitimate popes.
Premise 2: [insert any nonsense here, whether true or false]
Conclusion:  V2 Popes are legitimate popes.
No, I gave you logic, what is apparent, is you have no faith to see it.

FYI, it is illogical (not to mention iniquitous) to say the magisterium aka pope / hierarchy is your rule of faith, then say you don't believe the pope / hierarchy is the magisterium. 

Perhaps if you think of it along the lines of The Ten Commandments. We are bound to the commandments, not to Moses. We are bound to dogma, not to popes - ergo, the rule of faith is dogma, not the pope.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 05, 2018, 01:30:13 PM
Cantarella,

Which of these two mutually exclusive positions do you believe is the correct one:

1. A validly elected pope can fall into heresy.

2. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.

Keep in mind that in #1 we're not talking about what happens if or when he falls into heresy, we're only talking about whether it is possible or not that a pope can fall into heresy.

Cantarella, did you forget about answering this question, or would you like me to leave you alone?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 05, 2018, 01:33:36 PM
Stubborn, in the attached screenshot of Danzinger dogmatic definitions it is clearly read:

About the infallibility of the church dispersed throughout the world to propose the traditional doctrine of Christ. I have already translated it but for some reason, cannot copy it here so I am just attaching another screenshot where the doctrine is explained. See #1683. (this is because of your issue with the infallibility of bishops throughout the world).
Is this the translation you are trying to get? This is almost the same translation that Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter here (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/). I see nothing whatsoever regarding the NO's "totality of bishops doctrine". This part teaches the absolute necessity of using dogma to refute errors.

1683 (http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n1600) While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 05, 2018, 01:42:29 PM
Stubborn, in the attached screenshot of Danzinger dogmatic definitions it is clearly read:

About the infallibility of the church dispersed throughout the world to propose the traditional doctrine of Christ. I have already translated it but for some reason, cannot copy it here so I am just attaching another screenshot where the doctrine is explained. See #1683. (this is because of your issue with the infallibility of bishops throughout the world).

Pius IX is talking about the Ordinary Magisterium, and not about the Authentic Magisterium. Read the whole section #1683, especially the last part:

"..but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 05, 2018, 01:49:58 PM
How many times does it need to be explained to you that we don't believe that Paul VI has Magisterium?  That is the very point of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism.

Sedeprivationism.

Before Vatican II the law of identity excluded partially pregnant and partially pope. 

At least one cannot still be partially pregnant. 

For now. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 05, 2018, 01:50:34 PM
It ALWAYS boils down to the same problem: a failure to distinguish between the Ordinary Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 05, 2018, 02:23:16 PM
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Today at 01:49:58 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg602898/#msg602898)
Quote
Sedeprivationism.

Before Vatican II the law of identity excluded partially pregnant and partially pope.

At least one cannot still be partially pregnant.

For now.

So you make it clear that you don't understand the concept of a distinction.

This is one rough crowd.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 05, 2018, 02:31:53 PM
He's talking about the ORDINARY UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM ... which is by definition of course authentic.

Quote
Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter:
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 Ecuмenical 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.
Note the submission of faith is not limited to defined dogma, but also to teachings of the Ordinary teachings of the Universal Magisterium - WHICH MEANS: our submission of faith is also owed 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."

A few examples off the top of my head of the Ordinary teachings of the Universal Magisterium that the pope is talking about:

Doctrine of Divine Providence
Limbo
St. John the Baptist born without Original Sin
Doctrine of our Guardian Angels
Doctrine of the Church's Indefectibility


These are all "...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: Samuel on April 05, 2018, 03:28:25 PM
This would be the answer:

2. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.

However, I do believe that it is within the realm of possibility that an impostor (or in this case, a marrano) can be elected to the Papacy as it occurred with antipope Clement VII or antipope Alexander V.

Thank you for the clear answer. Please bear with me, I am trying to fully understand your position.

Which of the following mutually exclusive statements is your position:

1. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic can determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.

2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 05, 2018, 07:37:47 PM
Mr. Drew,

If your rule of Faith is "dogma" as you say, then in order to be truly consistent, you need to adhere to the dogma that Ecunemical Councils are infallible, and therefore, they require absolute obedience; not selective. The Denzinger's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04736b.htm) edition "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum" by Professor Ignatius Stahl, I think the 9th edition published after Vatican I Council, lists the heading "Concilium generale representat Ecclesiam Universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience).

I have a copy of the 10th edition, dated 1910, attached is a screen of the index concerning infallibility under Potestas Docendi (See II.). It is impossible that R&R can prove that General Councils ratified by the Pope, even if they do not pronounce infallible "canons and anathemas", do not fully represent the Ecclesiam Universalem and thus, require absolute obedience and assent.  

This is a dogmatic truth.

Cantarella,

This is terrible argument.  You are not citing a dogma.  You are citing the opinion of Professor Ignatius Stahl, who may have been the editor of this particular edition of Denzinger's, and pretending that must be dogma too.  Are you willing to do the same thing with the early 1960s edition?  It was Fr. Karl Rahner who edited the early 1960's edition of Denzinger's where he inserted his own comments on the question of Baptism.  Are those comments now to be considered "dogmatic"?  

There is no dogma that claims that everything in every ecuмenical council is infallible.  And there never will be because it is not true.

You are not seeking truth.  You are trying to bend it to your will.  

You are a member of a church that is not the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and He constituted His Church with a pope.  You do not have one and you have no means of ever getting one.  The church you belong to is missing an essential attribute of the Catholic Church.  To this fact you offer no reply.  Why?  Is it that you recognize that you have a dirty face and there is nothing more to do than to try and make sure everyone is just as dirty? The real problem for you is that the dogma I am citing is a real dogma.  The "dogma" you are citing is make believe. The punishment for failing to keep the dogma I am citing is heresy.  The punishment for not keeping your "dogma" is nothing.  This kind of argument you are offering is no better than your last one claiming the Pastor Aeternus defends sedevacantism when, in fact, it condemns it directly because the Catholic Church will and must have perpetual successors in the papacy until the end of time.

Now you and Ladislaus have argued in different posts that everything in an ecuмenical council is necessarily infallible.  You have argued that the pope possess a personal never-failing faith.  You have argued that the pope is infallibly infallible when he wants to be infallible, and he is fallibly infallible when he does not want to be infallible.  All this is possible because he possess a personal Indefectiblity called "infallible security."  So you claim that the pope is not your rule of faith but rather the magisterium, but everything your pope does is infallible and the magisterium is meaningless without a pope, so, your rule of faith is the pope by default whom who tuned into a god. The pope is always infallible until you catch him making a mistake and then he is no longer the pope.  In the end, the only rule of faith you have is yourself.

The only thing you can do in conscience is return to the Novus Ordo Church.  Every Catholic must try his best to form a true and certain conscience and then is morally bound to follow that conscience.  You have made the pope infallible in everything. You have made the magisterium infallible in everything.  It is not possible, under these claims, that the Novus Ordo Church could possibly be in error.  If it is as you claim, "General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience," then you are morally obligated to return to the Novus Ordo.  Your arguments are the same arguments that conservative Catholics like Emmett O'Regan take such complacency.  

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 05, 2018, 09:29:40 PM
Quote
Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976

It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?  For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience.  And this is said openly.  It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions.  

As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…
This whole address is full of half-truths and contradictions.  "Par for the course" for a modernist.  

1.  Traditionalism is not "outside of obedience/communion" with the Successor of St Peter.  They ARE outside of communion with 'new rome'.  Paul VI did not use his papal authority to AUTHORITATIVELY declare doctrine, nor did he teach with CERTAINTY OF FAITH.  Ergo, V2 requires only conditional assent.

2.  Name me ONE, just ONE, obligation that V2 imposes upon the faithful.  (hint, there is none).  Therefore, no Trad is "refusing to give her effective obedience".  Notice, too, that Paul VI talks in the 3rd person here.  He argues that Trads are not giving obedience to "her" (meaning the Church).  He does not say that Trads are disobeying "him", because he knows that he did not require any such obedience through V2.  MIND GAMES AND WORD TRICKERY!  What the modernists are known for...

Notice also, another common trick of new-rome - to use the false and novel idea of "collegiality" (i.e. the pope + all bishops) to confer some new type of "authority" which will replace the authority that Paul VI did not use, and knew he could not use, on V2 docuмents.  This is a way to confuse the faithful that the magisterium was "in effect" since the council was "ecuмenical" even though it was the first ecuмenical council EVER to fail to define anything.  The lack of definitions/canons/authority was the FIRST NOVELTY in a council FULL OF NOVELTIES.  It wasn't like ANY of the previous ecuмenical councils in any way, shape or form.  Anyone who will not admit this has no integrity.

3.  "It is affirmed (by Trads)...that V2 is not binding".  No, it's only affirmed that V2 requires "religious CONDITIONAL assent" and nothing more.  Modernists want to setup this binary, either-or, mindset where you either 1) accept V2 100% or 2) you reject it 100%.  "Religious conditional assent" doesn't work that way.  V2's docuмents don't read that way.  V2 theologians don't explain things that way.  Neither did Benedict XVI, when he was finally elected...he admitted that the "apparent errors" needed to be understood in the "light of tradition" and for those errors that cannot, that the Church will continue to let the Holy Ghost guide Her in explaining these apparent contradictions.  ...Still waiting 50 years later...

4.  (It is wrong to say) "that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions".  Well, again, disobedience does NOT enter into the conversation because V2 did not BIND anyone to believe anything "with certainty of faith", under "pain of sin" as a "matter of salvation".  All else is accepted CONDITIONALLY, and it is NOT wrong to "stick with tradition" when certain traditions are OBLIGATORY according to PRIOR INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUMS.


Quote
A full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X…

Define "recognition".  Anyone who accepts V2 with 'religious conditional assent' recognizes it for what it is - a non-dogmatic, non-infallible, non-binding, non-authoritative, ambiguous collection of rambling, long-winded theoretical ideas on why/how the church should be "updated" at a pastoral level.
We are not bound to give it anymore recognition than that.

Quote
Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report
 
It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II.  Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.
One who gives V2 the required 'religious conditional assent' does not deny V2 nor the authority of the pope; they just realize that he did not USE his authority in the same manner as at Trent/Vatican I.  Ratzinger here tries to connect the authority of Trent/Vatican I with being equal to that of V2.  Of course, it's not, as he later admitted when he became pope.
----
Overall, when these modernists make accusations about 'obedience' and 'denial of authority' what they are really referring to is not V2, but the new mass.  V2 is the constitution which attempted to change the mentality of the faithful; the novus ordo is the vehicle to get them to ACTIVELY change.  V2 is related to ideals; the new mass is putting those ideals into practice.

It's really simple for someone to say "Hey, I accept V2 with conditional assent." and the modernists know that.  Because who can't accept the truths in V2 and say they "aren't sure" about the proposed novelties.  Anyone can do that.  And it's impossible to prove that one rejects a series of ambiguities.  

What they are referring to, when they talk about "obedience" is the rejection of the new mass, for the acceptance/rejection is measurable, actionable, and visual.  For them, the new mass is the "fruit" of V2, so to reject the new mass is to reject V2.  Of course, in their demented logic, V2 authorized a new missal and the new missal was authorized by V2 (not the pope's authority), which is a case of SUPER SPECTACULAR circular logic, and also a novel and never-before-seen-trick-of-a-lack-of-papal-authority and it violates Quo Primum (which Benedict XVI admitted was never abrogated and still in force).

So this explains what the modernists mean when they talk of "obedience".  They are referring to ACCEPTING the new mass, which is the culmination of their freemasonic, satanic plans to destroy the Church.  As Martin Luther said:  "If you destroy the mass, you destroy the Faith."

Yet the modernists don't have any arguments/facts to back up their assertions (and they know it, so they resort to half-truths, emotion and misdirection) - the new mass is wrong liturgically, legally and morally.  Both V2 and the new mass are not obligatory (and in many areas have already been condemned) so we Trads can, and should, ignore them as an attack on the Faith - in all the ways in which they change, trample upon and destroy the Traditions and Truths which are mysteriously taught through the Divine Sacrifice.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 05, 2018, 09:50:19 PM
Quote
Now you and Ladislaus have argued in different posts that everything in an ecuмenical council is necessarily infallible.  You have argued that the pope possess a personal never-failing faith.  You have argued that the pope is infallibly infallible when he wants to be infallible, and he is fallibly infallible when he does not want to be infallible.  All this is possible because he possess a personal Indefectiblity called "infallible security."  So you claim that the pope is not your rule of faith but rather the magisterium, but everything your pope does is infallible and the magisterium is meaningless without a pope, so, your rule of faith is the pope by default whom who tuned into a god. The pope is always infallible until you catch him making a mistake and then he is no longer the pope.  In the end, the only rule of faith you have is yourself.
This is a very accurate summary of Ladislaus/Cantarella's arguments, and logical conclusions to which they lead.  ...If the above is wrong, now is the time to clear this up, guys.

Secondly, even if the "pope siri" thesis were true, it can't be proven, so we can't say for sure.  Even if we allow for it to be true, that still doesn't solve your problem of WHY didn't you consider Benedict XVI a pope?  Siri was long dead before Benedict was elected, so he would be valid - unless you hold to the "hidden pope" theory where Siri's cardinals held a conclave.

If you would just admit the above, I could understand your arguments better.  I wouldn't agree with them, but at least they wouldn't be so contradictory.  As they are now, absent the multiple thesis related to Siri, they have many logical holes.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 06, 2018, 05:52:49 AM
It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible. They do not contain error against the Faith.  This truth is part of the Apostolic Tradition and it means that your position is not really traditional, but quite a novelty, indeed.
This is not true Cantarella because it is not the constant teaching of the Church that the resolutions of General Councils are infallible - what that is, is NO speak, not the teaching of the Church. That EXACT wrong thinking is what originally swayed many otherwise faithful Catholics to abandon their faith and join the NO. I saw it happen in real time with my own eyes.  

As regards infallibility, there has only ever been one Council that spelled it out, i.e. infallibly defined the extent of the Church's infallibility - and that was The First Vatican Council, whose teachings, which entirely omit the above thinking, effectively and infallibly destroy the above belief.  



Quote
I ask then, why should I put in doubt all the resources I have clearly cited in this thread, from Pope St. Hormisdas, Bellarmine, Pope Leo the Great (who by the way, explicitly taught that those who reject Councils "cannot be numbered among Catholics"),...

You gave a blatant misquote from Pope Leo the Great. The correct quote is: "whosoever resists the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics". I trust you see the error by omission in your above quote as well as it's inevitable repercussions.

Please note that you will find this to always be the case whenever you come across papal encyclicals regarding the necessity of our submission to the decrees from Councils - they will *always* be referring to past councils - not to future councils. It is important for you to always make this distinction and always remember this.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 09:05:38 AM
Quote
On top of that he blends me and Cantarella together.
You consistently answer for her, and you've never called her out on her numerous contradictions, so it's safe to presume you sympathize with some of her arguments.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 09:19:28 AM
Quote
It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible.
You have provided NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that V2 taught infallibly.  Not one.  You have no integrity.

As V1 defined, all clear, authoritative, 'under pain of sin' and "of the faith" teachings are infallible (solemn or non-solemn).
All pre-V2 ecuмenical councils fulfilled V1's requirements, therefore they contained infallible teachings.
V2 did not fulfill V1's infallible requirements, and Paul VI and many theologians admitted this.
Therefore, V2 did not contain any infallible teachings.

It's that simple.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 06, 2018, 09:44:07 AM
You consistently answer for her, and you've never called her out on her numerous contradictions, so it's safe to presume you sympathize with some of her arguments.

I agree. He's always defending her and her ridiculous views.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 06, 2018, 09:46:00 AM
This is not true Cantarella because it is not the constant teaching of the Church that the resolutions of General Councils are infallible - what that is, is NO speak, not the teaching of the Church. That EXACT wrong thinking is what originally swayed many otherwise faithful Catholics to abandon their faith and join the NO. I saw it happen in real time with my own eyes.  

As regards infallibility, there has only ever been one Council that spelled it out, i.e. infallibly defined the extent of the Church's infallibility - and that was The First Vatican Council, whose teachings, which entirely omit the above thinking, effectively and infallibly destroy the above belief.  



You gave a blatant misquote from Pope Leo the Great. The correct quote is: "whosoever resists the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics". I trust you see the error by omission in your above quote as well as it's inevitable repercussions.

Please note that you will find this to always be the case whenever you come across papal encyclicals regarding the necessity of our submission to the decrees from Councils - they will *always* be referring to past councils - not to future councils. It is important for you to always make this distinction and always remember this.

Good points above. But Cantarella is not going to pay any real attention to them. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 09:50:20 AM

Quote
You, on the other hand, are a heretic who needs to convert back to the Catholic faith.  So you are not in any position to judge anyone else's integrity.
Lack of facts and personal attacks (hey, that rhymes).  That’s all you have. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 06, 2018, 09:57:49 AM
So now you call traditional Catholic theology a set of "ridiculous views".  Cantarella, unlike you R&R types, has a strong Catholic sensus fidei.

You only THINK that you have a strong sensus fidei. When in fact you only have a strong attachment to your opinion. Same with Cantarella. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 10:03:43 AM
Pax said:
Quote
As V1 defined, all clear, authoritative, 'under pain of sin' and "of the faith" teachings are infallible (solemn or non-solemn).
All pre-V2 ecuмenical councils fulfilled V1's requirements, therefore they contained infallible teachings.
V2 did not fulfill V1's infallible requirements, and Paul VI and many theologians admitted this.
Therefore, V2 did not contain any infallible teachings.

It's that simple.


Ladislaus said:

Quote
Idiot.  V2, as a Council, most certainly did fulfill the requirements for infallibility.

What you're bumbling about trying to say is that there are no TEACHINGS within Vatican II that have the notes of infallibility, whereas some of the teachings in Vatican I did have these notes.  It's not about the form of the Councils, as V2 meets all the conditions require for a Council to be infallible ... as Cantarella has demonstrated.

You can't even properly articulate your arguments, so I have to help you.

No, I wrote what I wrote for a reason.  You had to "fix" it because you still don't grasp what Vatican I teaches about infallibility.  The pope can be infallible INSIDE or OUTSIDE of an ecuмenical council, so the reality of an ecuмenical council DOESN'T MATTER (it only matters from an efficiency and procedural aspect, since having most cardinals all together can make the research and precision needed for forming the infallible teaching easier on the pope.  Whenever the Church issues an official teaching, it's usually HIGHLY researched and takes time so that exactness in the whole docuмent can be achieved as much as possible).  

Nowhere in Vatican I (or anywhere else) is it explained that an ecuмenical council is AUTOMATICALLY infallible.  Just because all previous ones were, doesn't mean all future one's will be.  As V1 explained, what matters to infallibility is the intent, wording and authority used, not when, where or with whom the pope teaches.  A council is irrelevant to the pope teaching infallibly, as Pius XII's papal bull shows clearly.

V2 meets the conditions for an ecuмenical council, but NOT for any infallible statements.  V1 met the conditions for an ecuмenical council AND for infallible statements, but infallibility is INDEPENDENT OF a council and not dependent upon it in any way.

A plain reading of V1, along with all the commentary, proves these facts.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 10:16:08 AM
Quote
Idiot.  V2, as a Council, most certainly did fulfill the requirements for infallibility.
Would also like to point out the most obvious error you made - you falsely think that a council, which is is an INANIMATE OBJECT, can be infallible.  No, a council cannot be infallible, only the pope can.  A council is just a method, vehicle, or instrument USED by the pope to teach infallibly.

It's like saying "The car took me to the grocery to get food."  No, the car didn't get you food, WHOEVER DROVE THE CAR took you to get food.

In the same way, a council is not infallible, it does not teach.  It is a VEHICLE used for teaching, if THE POPE, who presides over the council, uses his power to teach infallibly.  Paul VI did not use his power to teach authoritatively and infallibly at V2, therefore the fact that it was ecuмenical (i.e. worldwide collection of Cardinals) is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 11:01:17 AM
Quote
Councils are more than just an extension of papal infallibility.  You're trying to pretend that an Ecuмenical Council is no different than, say, an Encyclical letter.
I'm trying to distinguish between the POPE and a COUNCIL.  There is a difference.  The POPE has the power of infallibility, not a council.  The pope can use his infallibility at a council, in an encyclical letter, in a papal bull, etc.  To teach infallibly, the pope has to fulfill the conditions set down by V1.

Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption in a Papal Bull (which is a legal docuмent).  Are all Papal Bulls, then, infallible?  Of course not.
All previous Ecuмenical councils are infallible BECAUSE THEY TAUGHT INFALLIBLY, not because they were ecuмenical.  Does that mean that all future councils are infallible?  No.

So, what are the CONSISTENT characteristics between all previous ecuмenical councils, and Pius XII's papal bull?  Both have this in common -  THE POPE used the specific, required language that V1 defined as necessary for his infallibility.

Quote
You are constantly being exposed as simply making sh*t up as you go along.
Another empty comment from you.  "Lack of facts and personal attacks".
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 11:19:21 AM
Quote
But you just said that Councils essentially don't exist and are inanimate objects.
I never used the phrase "don't exist".  Here is what I said:

...You falsely think that a council, which is is an INANIMATE OBJECT, can be infallible.  No, a council cannot be infallible, only the pope can.  A council is just a method, vehicle, or instrument USED by the pope to teach infallibly.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 11:20:58 AM
Can. 749 §1 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ's faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.

**§2 **The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecuмenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.

*§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated. *

---
#3 above agrees with what V2 explained in its footnotes, it agrees with what Pope Paul VI said in his explanation of the council, it agrees with the MANY theologians who have explained that it is NOT REQUIRED to be held with an "assent of faith", hence it's not infallible.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 06, 2018, 11:44:57 AM
Absolutely right.  When someone doesn't accept the Magisterium as their rule of faith, they invariably fill the vacuum with their own private judgment.

Again, Cantarella, you're too kind.  What does that make him?  A HERETIC.  (you softened it by saying he's an oxymoron who holds a position unheard of except from heresiarchs).

While only God can make the determination of whether he's a formal heretic in the internal forum, he's obviously a manifest heretic in the external forum who pertinaciously adheres to various Protestant heresies.  And Drew is the same.  You show him too much respect as well ... just because he outwardly lives a good Catholic life.  Same could be said of many heretics throughout history.
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 06, 2018, 11:45:19 AM
Why don't you just plainly say that your Rule of Faith is actually the dogmatic canons of Trent exclusively, and your own personal interpretation of Vatican I Council, in particular, the canons that you "think" may construct a theological foundation which would justify disobedience to the Roman Pontiff and a complete rejection of an Ecunemical Council?

You are a Roman Catholic who do not trust the Pope of Rome nor the Ecunemical Councils. What does that make you? an oxymoron. The fact that this position is unheard of -except from arch heretics such as Luther- before Vatican II Council, reassures me that indeed it is not traditional. It is not the authentic Catholic position.
:facepalm: :pray:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 06, 2018, 11:46:40 AM
Good points above. But Cantarella is not going to pay any real attention to them.
I see that.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 06, 2018, 12:53:46 PM
Wrong.  Said sensus fidei comes from simply reading Traditional pre-Vatican II theology about the Church and the Magisterium.  Try it sometime and see if it lines up with your twisted heretical spin on Catholicism.

Wrong.

Error comes from simply reading... (i.e. Sedevacantism)

Sensus Fidei
comes from simply understanding... (i.e. R&R)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 06, 2018, 12:56:48 PM
Thank you for the clear answer. Please bear with me, I am trying to fully understand your position.

Which of the following mutually exclusive statements is your position:

1. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic can determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.

2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.

Cantarella,

Are you willing to answer this question?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 02:56:18 PM
Ok, everyone.  Let's sum up the facts of the case.  We're not dealing with interpretations, or opinions but FACTS. 

1.  CANON LAW SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT V2 WAS NOT INFALLIBLE, IN ANY WAY.

Canon Law 749 says that if something is not EXPRESSLY SAID to be infallible, then it's not:
*§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated. *


2.  VATICAN II'S OWN DOcuмENTS ADMIT IT WAS NOT INFALLIBLE.

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.

My note:  As a matter of fact, nowhere in the council docuмents does the Synod openly declare that such and such a doctrine is being defined.



3.  POPE PAUL VI ADMITTED PUBLICLY THAT VATICAN 2 WAS NOT INFALLIBLE -- THREE TIMES!

“Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.”
(Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6tolast.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6tolast.htm))

---

" There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification , the council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council , it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner and dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."
(General Audience , December 1, 1966 published in L'Oservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

---

"Differing from other councils , this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral."
(General audience August 6, 1975.)



4.  MANY, MANY OTHERS IN ROME HAVE SAID IT IS NOT INFALLIBLE.

Cardinal Ratzinger stated:
"Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it , which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has changed , and what preceded it has no value or, at best , has value in the light of Vatican II..... The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level , as merely a pastoral council."

( Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference , II Sabato 30/7 5/8/1988


---

Cardinal Felici elaborated on this to Archbishop Lefebvre († 1991), who narrated his experience.

“These events I was involved in. It is I who carried the signatures to Mgr. Felici, the Council Secretary, accompanied by Mgr. de Proenca Sigaud, Archbishop of Diamantina: and I am obliged to say there occurred things that are truly inadmissible. I do not say this in order to condemn the Council; and I am not unaware that there is here a cause of confusion for a great many Catholics. After all, they think the Council was inspired by the Holy Ghost.  “Not necessarily. A non-dogmatic, pastoral council is not a recipe for infallibility." When, at the end of the sessions, we asked Cardinal Felici, “Can you not give us what the theologians call the “theological note of the Council?”” he replied, “We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”

(An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.”, p. 107)

---

John Cardinal Heenan of England stated as follows.
“It deliberately limited its own objectives. There were to be no specific definitions. Its purpose from the first was pastoral renewal within the Church and a fresh approach to the outside.” (Council and Clergy, 1966)

---

Bishop Butler of England publicly spoke to the matter twice.
“Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecuмenical 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)

---

Bishop Rudolf Graber wrote as follows.
“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)

---

Bishop Thomas Morris expressed his relief on the matter.
“I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council docuмents as tentative and likely to be reformed.” (Catholic World News 1,22,1997)




5.  POPE PAUL VI REQUIRED "RELIGIOUS SUBMISSION" TO V2, WHICH IS CONDITIONAL ONLY

Paul VI gave the theological note of the revolutionary Council in his Apostolic Brief for its closing, “In Spiritu Sancto”(December 8, 1965), which was read at the closing ceremonies of that day by Archbishop Felici, the General Secretary. Paul VI had already stated in his address concluding the Council the day before that the Council had not “wish[ed] to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and therefore was not infallible; Felici went on to explain that Paul VI was making the Council a matter of religious submission, which is the assent given to non-infallible material, as we shall see.

“And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family. […] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. […] Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.”

(In Spiritu Sancto, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Docuмents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)

Paul VI established at the Council’s end that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed”. The 1983 Code of Canon Law distinguishes the matter of religious submission from infallible, definitive teaching.

---

“Can. 752. While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

So, “religious submission” is given when the Pope, either alone or with his bishops in a council, does not intend to “proclaim doctrine by a definitive act”: therefore the matter of religious submission is not infallible, which is why it does not require “the assent of faith”.  IT IS CONDITIONAL.


6.  CAN A NON-INFALLIBLE EcuмENICAL COUNCIL ERR?

Dr. William H. Marshner, Professor of Theology at Christendom College and Theological Editor of Faith and Reason, considers Vatican II’s authority in the Fall, 1983 issue of that journal. The issue was dedicated to Dignitatis humanae and whether it represents continuity or rupture with previous teaching. Marshner concludes that the Declaration on Religious Liberty is consonant with perennial doctrine, but he goes on to acknowledge certain other possibilities:

“At the same time, however, I join with all other theologians in saying that the new ground is non-infallible teaching. So when I say that the possibility exists that Vatican II is wrong on one or more crucial points of Dignitatis humanae, I do not simply mean that the Council’s policy may prove unfruitful. I mean to signal a possibility that the Council’s teaching is false.

But may a Catholic theologian admit that such a possibility exists? Of course he may. The decree (sic) Dignitatis humanae is a non-infallible docuмent, and the teaching which it presents is admitted to be a “new development,” hence not something which is already acknowledged dogma ex magisterio ordinario. Therefore the kind of religious assent which Catholics owe to that teaching is the kind of assent which does not exclude the logical possibility that the teaching is wrong; rather our assent excludes any probability that the teaching is wrong. (http://catholicism.org/vatican-ii-and-the-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html#_ftn20)[20]

---

This synthesis agrees with that of Mr. Michael Davies, a Traditionalist apologist, where he cites a pre-Vatican II Benedictine theologian to this same effect:In a profound study intended to enhance the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium, Dom Paul Nau, O.S.B., cites a number of authors who reckon the duty of Catholics when confronted with a docuмent of the Ordinary Magisterium “to be that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught.” (http://catholicism.org/vatican-ii-and-the-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html#_ftn23)[23]

---

The final theologian we will cite regarding the possibility of error in Vatican II is Cardinal Avery Dulles. In discussing the four categories of Church teaching we have employed, he labels Vatican II’s teachings exactly as we have:
The third category has long been familiar to Catholics, especially since the popes began to teach regularly through encyclical letters some two centuries ago. The teaching of Vatican II, which abstained from new doctrinal definitions, falls predominantly into this category. In view of the mission given by Christ to the hierarchical magisterium, it is evident that when the magisterium formally teaches something as Catholic doctrine, it is not uttering a mere opinion that Catholics are free to disregard. The teaching has a real, though not unconditional, claim on the assent of the faithful. (http://catholicism.org/vatican-ii-and-the-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html#_ftn24)[24]

---

J. Robert Dionne, who produced “the most exhaustive investigation of the so-called ‘reversals’ of ordinary papal teaching”:
Dionne maintains that reversals occurred in Catholic doctrine regarding non-Christian religions, religious freedom, the ideal of church-state relations, the identity (or non-identity) between the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church, and the theology of church membership. On these and other issues, he contends, historical scholarship does not support the “maximalist” position that the ordinary magisterium of the pope is equipped with the charism of infallibility. To deny on principle that ordinary papal teaching can be corrected would be, in effect, to assert that all of it is definitive, and that none of it can pertain to the third and fourth categories in the CDF instruction. (http://catholicism.org/vatican-ii-and-the-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html#_ftn29)[29]


7.  CONCLUSION:  VATICAN 2 IS NOT INFALLIBLE, ONLY REQUIRES "CONDITIONAL" RELIGIOUS ASSENT, AND THUS, IN ITS NOVELTIES, IT CAN ERR.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 06, 2018, 03:16:47 PM
I believe that also.  I suspect that the V2 papal claimants were never legitimate to begin with.  I believe that Siri was elected and illegitimately/illegally replaced by Roncalli.

There's this prophecy, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi --

John Vennari wrote a very good article on the Siri Thesis for CFN back in 2006 that examines the facts in a soundly reasoned analysis. It is short and wrote reading for anyone tempted to give any credibility to this absurd theory.  A theory is supposed to provide an explanation for known facts.  Any legitimate theory will necessary limit possibilities of explanation for given facts. When a theory expands the possibilities beyond known facts, it enters the realm of fantasy.  The theory was also panned by Atila Guimaraes posted on Tradition in Action with some picture of Cardinal Siri and the conciliar popes. Links to both are provided below.

Drew

http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page77/cardinal_siri_thesis.html

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A441-Siri2.html
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 06, 2018, 03:18:38 PM
7.  CONCLUSION:  VATICAN 2 IS NOT INFALLIBLE
Good post Pax, a shame to spend the time you did on it proving the painfully obvious.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 06, 2018, 03:35:53 PM
How many times does it need to be explained to you that we don't believe that Paul VI has Magisterium?  That is the very point of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism.

"How many times does it need to be explained to you." The Magisterium is the "authoritative teaching" of the Church that can only be engaged by the pope.  So if the each one of the conciliar popes "has (not) Magisterium" who does?  And if no one does where is your rule of faith?  No pope, no access to the Magisterium, no rule of faith.  Then you are left only with yourself as your only rule of faith, with "your own private judgment."  Sounds just like Protestantism.

As you already said:
Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 09:18:46 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg602981/#msg602981)
Absolutely right.  When someone doesn't accept the Magisterium as their rule of faith, they invariably fill the vacuum with their own private judgment.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 06, 2018, 03:42:06 PM
Good post Pax, a shame to spend the time you did on it proving the painfully obvious.

I would like to second Stubborn's endorsement of your post Pax.  It is incredible that such evident truths still need to be repeated.  But this is really true of all the posts explaining the errors of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. They have to go back and restate the most elementary truths of our faith which these errors corrupt.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 03:46:12 PM
Quote
How many times does it need to be explained to you that we don't believe that Paul VI has Magisterium?
Ok, so Paul VI didn't have a valid Magisterium.  Is that because you believe in the Siri thesis?  If not because of Siri, then why wouldn't Paul VI be valid?  And, further, why didn't JPI, JPII, Benedict or Francis have a valid magisterium?

I'll repeat what I asked earlier ... I received no response:
Even if the "pope siri" thesis were true, it can't be proven, so we can't say for sure.  Even if we allow for it to be true, that still doesn't solve your problem of WHY didn't you consider Benedict XVI a pope?  Siri was long dead before Benedict was elected, so Benedict would be valid - unless you hold to the "hidden pope" theory where Siri's cardinals held a conclave.

If you would just admit the above, I could understand your arguments better.  I wouldn't agree with them, but at least they wouldn't be so contradictory.  As they are now, absent the multiple thesis related to Siri, they have many logical holes.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 06, 2018, 04:10:57 PM
"How many times does it need to be explained to you." The Magisterium is the "authoritative teaching" of the Church that can only be engaged by the pope.  So if the each one of the conciliar popes "has (not) Magisterium" who does?  And if no one does where is your rule of faith?  No pope, no access to the Magisterium, no rule of faith.  Then you are left only with yourself as your only rule of faith.  Sounds just like Protestantism.

Drew

They look to dogma as their rule of faith now, with no Magisterium to guide them. They look to dogma to determine that the current hierarchy, which should be their Magsterium, is heretical, and therefore a bunch of "masqueraders." And they accuse others who recognize the truth of using dogma as the ultimate authority -  basically doing what they do in practice (just don't say it - hypocrites!) - as if it were some offense against the faith.

And they have no sense of the irony of it all.  

You have to see it to believe it, and even then you scratch your head.

They have made the Church their God, as the theologians they swear to made the Church their God. The Church is God's surrogate, and the pope is His vicar. They have made this means established by God, and the organ of His Revelation, into their idol. They worship the Temple and not the God of the Temple.

So the judgment came, and cometh.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 06, 2018, 04:19:33 PM
I believe that also.  I suspect that the V2 papal claimants were never legitimate to begin with.  I believe that Siri was elected and illegitimately/illegally replaced by Roncalli.

There's this prophecy, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi --

I would also add that the belief of Cantarella and Ladislaus that a validly elected pope could not fall into heresy is untenable with their belief that everything from an ecuмenical council is infallible, either directly by infallible infallibility, or indirectly by "infallible security".  Two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes personally anathematized by name Pope Honorius as a heretic.  If a "validly elected pope cannot not fall into heresy," then two infallible ecuмenical councils have erred which they deny can happen.

And for the record, it does not matter to anyone except Pope Honorius himself whether or not his heresy was formal or only material.  Since when does the Church "anathematize" anyone for merely material heresy?  There must be some degree of personal culpability and imputability to Pope Honorius in what he did or failed to do regarding the dogmas of our faith.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 06, 2018, 05:36:21 PM
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Today at 04:10:57 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg603046/#msg603046)
Quote
And they accuse others who recognize the truth of using dogma as the ultimate authority -  basically doing what they do in practice (just don't say it - hypocrites!) - as if it were some offense against the faith.


Since you just joined in, why don't you tell me where did you get this "truth" from?

It was in my post. The truth is, you, Ladislaus, - everyone in truth uses dogma as their ultimate authority. If you didn't, you would have no ground upon which to judge the heretics in the Vatican. There is no Magisterium that has made that judgment for you; you did it on your own. With what? Previously infallible dogma that has been contradicted and betrayed.

You can do all your pretty little semantic somersaults about "rule of faith" and declare this or that, accuse so in so of heresy and being against this and that theologian, say this or that person's formulation of what is their "rule of faith" is heretical . . . but it's all semantics.

Everyone uses dogma as their ultimate authority. All you have to do is look at the fruit on every tree.

That's the truth.

Some get bent out of shape if someone outright comes out and fesses up and declares it, like Drew. They like to play their little semantic games and play pretend with language.

That's their problem, for the truth is the truth: dogma is the ultimate authority.

The Church's privileged role in all of this is, the Church proclaims the dogma, and is the organ that delivers the ultimate authority.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 05:50:27 PM

Quote
Where are your traditional, pre-Vatican II Council, Catholic sources that support that a General Council ratified by the Pope can teach heresy?
Well, let’s see.  There were 3-4 St Bellarmine quotes but you ignored them.  Then there were a few from theologians in the 1920s but you must not like those either.  

Secondly, the fact that Modernists who created, wrote and promote V2 admit that it only requires CONDITIONAL assent is a GOOD thing.  But you can’t admit that because you have an agenda and aren’t open to the truth.  

Finally, you’ve yet to explain how/why Paul VI was not the pope.  You’ve yet to answer 3-4 outstanding questions I and others have asked you.  

You have no integrity.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 06, 2018, 05:54:09 PM
A good description of this from MHFM, from there book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation :


Quote
3.  Believe Dogma as it was once declared
 
     There is only one way to believe dogma: as holy mother Church has once declared.
 
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Churchhas once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[xviii] (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn18)
 
     This definition of the First Vatican Council is critically important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way the Devil attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to recede (move away) from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared.  There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how holy mother Church has declared them. 
 
     Many of us have dealt with people who have attempted to explain away the clear meaning of the definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation by saying, “you must understand them.”  What they really mean is that you must understand them in a way different from what the words themselves state and declare.  And this is precisely what the First Vatican Council condemns.  It condemns their moving away from the understanding of a dogma which holy mother Church has once declared to a different meaning, under the specious (false) name of a “deeper understanding.”
 
     Besides those who argue that we must “understand” dogmas in a different way than what the words themselves state and declare, there are those who, when presented with the dogmatic definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation, say, “that is your interpretation.”  They belittle the words of a dogmatic formula to nothing other than one’s private interpretation.  And this also is heresy.
 
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[xix] (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn19)
 
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned[xx] (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn20)
 
     Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven; they are not interpretations.  To accuse one who adheres faithfully to these truths fallen from heaven of engaging in “private interpretation” is to speak heresy. 
 
      The very point of a dogmatic DEFINITION is to DEFINE precisely and exactly what the Church means by the very words of the formula.  If it does not do this by those very words in the formula or docuмent (as the Modernists say) then it has failed in its primary purpose – to define – and was pointless and worthless. 
 
     Anyone who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of the Chair of Peter, Papal Infallibility and dogmatic definitions.  He is asserting that dogmatic definitions are pointless, worthless and foolish and that the Church is pointless, worthless and foolish for making such a definition. 
 
     Also, those who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter.  They are subordinating the dogmatic teaching of the Chair of Peter (truths from heaven) to the re-evaluation of fallible human docuмents, thereby inverting their authority, perverting their integrity and denying their purpose. 
 
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug. 15, 1832: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[xxi] (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn21)
 

    Thus, there is no “strict” or “loose” interpretation of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as the liberal heretics like to emphasize; there is only what the Church has once declared

In the Holy Office letter, those cardinals declared that dogmatic truths must "be understood in the sense in which the Church herself understands it," as if the words themselves weren't clear enough. That quoted phrase is code for "it is what we say it is," and we know what fallible popes (when not engaging the charism given to them under circuмstances defined and limited by God) and bishops have said some of those dogmas "really" mean over the last 50 plus years. 

Some perpetuate the "it is what we say it is" fraud of the Vatican II hierarchy when they say that the "rule of the faith" is the Magisterium, without defining that phrase to where there statement would only make sense: the Church speaking infallibly. They are committing the same errors that got us here and which enabled V2. 

And, as I said, they act otherwise anyway and treat dogma as their ultimate authority anyway, unwittingly revealing the truth. 

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 08:55:16 PM
Oh, Cantarella, you can’t even make a simple distinction that not everything in a council is infallible.  Even your buddy Ladislaus agrees you’re wrong on this.  

Women have no business discussing theology, philosophy and especially, logic.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 06, 2018, 09:45:52 PM
It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible. They do not contain error against the Faith.  This truth is part of the Apostolic Tradition and it means that your position is not really traditional, but quite a novelty, indeed.

I ask then, why should I put in doubt all the resources I have clearly cited in this thread, from Pope St. Hormisdas, Bellarmine, Pope Leo the Great (who by the way, explicitly taught that those who reject Councils "cannot be numbered among Catholics"), the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vatican I council, The 1800's Denzinger version, my Bible, etc. (in fact, if you notice, every single one of my thoughts are backed up by an ecclesiastical source). Why should I put all those behind to trust and follow Mr. Drew, instead ? Everyone is wrong except Mr. Drew?

I am still waiting for a single reputable Catholic source that is in agreement with your theory on the Rule of Faith being "Dogma". No Council, no Pope, no saint, no priest, not even a known theologian is in agreement with you.

I am always welcome to be proven otherwise, though.





Tell me, what really makes your assertion any different from Luther's here above?

I think you should change your name to Won'tarella. 
 
Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Magisterium ("teaching authority") of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority.
The causes of Dogma:
The formal cause and the final cause of Dogma is God.
The material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma is the Magisterium.
The Magisteriuim is necessary but insufficient cause of Dogma.
The Magisterium can only be engaged by the Pope.
Therefore, whoever holds dogma as the proximate rule of faith must necessarily accept the pope, his office and the Magisterium without which there would be no dogma.
 
Luther denied dogma; he denied the papal office; he denied the Magisterium.  If you are unable or unwilling to understand the difference between those who hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith from Martin Luther then you have a lot more serious problems than sedevacantism and sedeprivationism.
 
Your charge of Protestantism is based upon your belief that dogma is not a settled question but rather is always evolving new and deeper meanings.  Therefore, the literal meaning of dogma is insufficient to its real meaning which must be always reinterpreted by the "magisterium." Therefore, anyone who takes dogma in its literal sense as once defined infallible truth is guilty of "private interpretation."  This is what you mean by the "magisterium is your rule of faith."
 
This is essentially a denial that dogma is divine revelation constituting the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. This is a grave error that you share with every Modernist and Neo-modernist heretic.
 
Lastly, you were given a lengthy quotation from the Fourth Council of Constantinople where the Council Fathers cited dogma as their rule of faith. You were also given the evidence from the regional council approved by Pope Zosimus using "dogma" and "rule of faith" as synonyms. You have also had it explained to you that the very definition of heresy is the rejection of dogma as the rule of faith.  Luther did not keep Catholic dogma and was formally declared a heretic.  You are going down the same road by rejecting dogma which necessarily happens with sedevacantism and sedeprivationism.
 
I do not know what your motive is in this but I know it will not end well for you.  This is as certain as death itself.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Motorede on April 06, 2018, 10:52:53 PM
Oh, Cantarella, you can’t even make a simple distinction that not everything in a council is infallible.  Even your buddy Ladislaus agrees you’re wrong on this.  

Women have no business discussing theology, philosophy and especially, logic.  
PAX: I think you owe Cantarella an apology for your last statement. Criticize her errors and arguments,yes, but leave the insults/name-calling to the ignorant and impolite. Calm down! She isn't your enemy. "In all things charity." Too, Holy Mother Church has honored a woman, Saint Catherine of Alexandria, with the title "Patroness of Philosophers".  And Edith Stein was no petit intellectual, even before her conversion. Sleep on this and I think you'll feel differently about your last sentence. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 07, 2018, 04:29:06 AM
Don't you realize that you are praising Pax for citing a bunch of Novus Ordo, indult-like individuals, including Cardinal Ratzinger? If you are leaning indult, then plainly say so. At least that position is consistent. Otherwise, I do not understand your support. I mean, all these people are saying Vatican II was a pastoral, NOT infallible Council, they admit that the Council narrative may have some misworded controversial sentences here and there; yet they all remain in COMUNION WITH ROME and SUBMISSION TO THE POPE. They assent to Paul VI  when he says "all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed”.

You are praising Pax for citing the 1983 catechism? Come on!
Cantarella, did you take some course? - or who/what/group did you get involved with? - or did you attend some NO classes within the last year or so or what is it? Something happened to you within the last year or so to spin your head as it did and I would like to know what it was so that I avoid whatever it was that changed you. I hope you will at least give answer to this.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the conciliar popes themselves believe the same as you? That whatever they do is infallibly safe? That whatever he and the totality of bishops preach is infallible?

With that belief, they lived their conviction and opened up the flood gates for the salvation of everyone they possibly could, did away with fasting, sacrifice, penance and all the other Catholic treasures, replacing them with people friendly attractions. Why wouldn't they? Why would they need to define any dogma when whatever they say is infallibly safe? "We all worship the same God" is infallibly safe. "There is no hell" and poof, that's infallibly safe to believe. "Follow the dictates of your conscience" is infallibly safe. "Kissing the Koran" is infallibly safe. And on and on.

What is it that you are debating anyway?


 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 07, 2018, 04:38:53 AM
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.

Thank you.

In that case, which of the following mutually exclusive positions do you believe is the correct one?

1. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.

2. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as an invalid pope, unless and until he is proven valid.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 07, 2018, 05:03:41 AM
Cantarella, did you take some course? - or who/what/group did you get involved with? - or did you attend some NO classes within the last year or so or what is it? Something happened to you within the last year or so to spin your head as it did and I would like to know what it was so that I avoid whatever it was that changed you. I hope you will at least give answer to this.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the conciliar popes themselves believe the same as you? That whatever they do is infallibly safe? That whatever he and the totality of bishops preach is infallible?

With that belief, they lived their conviction and opened up the flood gates for the salvation of everyone they possibly could, did away with fasting, sacrifice, penance and all the other Catholic treasures, replacing them with people friendly attractions. Why wouldn't they? Why would they need to define any dogma when whatever they say is infallibly safe? "We all worship the same God" is infallibly safe. "There is no hell" and poof, that's infallibly safe to believe. "Follow the dictates of your conscience" is infallibly safe. "Kissing the Koran" is infallibly safe. And on and on.

What is it that you are debating anyway?


 


Sounds to me that she is debating her own conscience.

Cantarella,  have you been going to the Greek Orthodox church?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 07, 2018, 10:03:41 AM
Quote
PAX: I think you owe Cantarella an apology for your last statement. Criticize her errors and arguments,yes, but leave the insults/name-calling to the ignorant and impolite.

There are very few women who can be involved with such intellectual matters, as this site continually proves and history shows with the cases of women who can being very, very small.  And as St Paul told them to not teach, even if they have the mental capability they are not to teach men, for understanding and teaching are 2 different talents.

It is more charitable to presume one lacks the intellect to discuss such matters than to presume one is bad willed and has no integrity. So I apologize for repeatedly saying she has no integrity.  As for the former charge, I think this thread speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 07, 2018, 10:17:09 AM

Quote
That's the nail in the coffin to discredit you ... your endorsement of the inane nonsensical ramblings of Stubborn and Pax.
Haha, Ladislaus.  The post they are agreeing with was 99% NOT from me.  It was 99% quotes and FACTS to support my viewpoint, unlike your view, which is “supported” by 1 Fenton quote, and even in that one he’s talking about an official teaching of the pope, not the contradictory ramblings of V2.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 07, 2018, 11:31:33 AM
Quote
Indeed, the living Magisterium has gone dormant.  You're unable to comprehend that we still believe all that has been taught previously by said Magisterium.  
Ahh, Lad, but you contradict yourself.  You have repeatedly argued against the TIME factor when it comes to the magisterium.  You have repeatedly said that we all must submit to the PRESENT magisterium and if we refer to the past, we are heretics for pitting magisterium vs magisterium.  


Quote
You are absolutely fixated on infallibility in the strict sense, but you ignore the indefectibility of the Magisterium ... and of the Church.
The magisterium is ONLY indefectible when it is teaching with AUTHORITY, as OFFICIALLY binding, on matters of faith/morals, to be believed by all the faithful, AS A MATTER OF FAITH, under PAIN OF SIN.  V2 is not indefectible.


Quote
What's contrary to all Catholic teaching ... and is heretical ... is your allegation that an Ecuмenical Council has taught heresy and grave error to the Church that endanger the faith if submitted to.
V2 is not obligatory, so your use of 'submit' is incorrect.  Those that follow V2 do so of their own accord, because they know not the Faith, as they are obligated to for their own salvation.  If they knew their Faith, or had the desire to, God would give them wisdom to see that V2/new mass is not obligatory.


Quote
It's a completely different ballgame when you're claiming that the Universal Magisterium has gone corrupt and has defected by the embracing and teaching of heresy and error, endangering the faith and very salvation of all who would adhere to it.
This is one of your main errors...using the term 'Universal Magisterium' improperly.  It causes you all kinds of problems.  You use 'universal' as having the same meaning as 'ecuмenical' (i.e. that universal means 'all the bishops and pope' together).  It doesn't mean that at all and it's not synonymous with 'ecuмenical'.  Or you use it to refer to the 'universal' teaching of a council, i.e. it is a teaching "for all".  This is incorrect too.

Universality of the magisterium has to do with a teaching being CONSISTENT and CONSTANTLY/UNIVERSALLY HELD.  As I constantly repeat, a teaching is only universal if it agrees with "what has always been taught".  As the latin phrase goes: ubique, semper et ab omnibus which is latin for "everywhere, always and by all".  Unless a teaching is consistent with "everywhere, always and by all", which refers to the CONSISTENT understanding of Scripture/Tradition, throughout the ages, then the teaching is not universal, and it is not part of the Universal Magisterium.

This is why Bishop Butler of England said the following:
“Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecuмenical 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)

He was explaining that all truth of our Faith COMES FROM THE PAST, because THERE IS NO NEW DOCTRINE, THERE ARE NO NEW TRUTHS.  All that we know, is the 100% Faith, which is from Scripture/Tradition, which make up Divine Revelation, which ended with the Apostles, who learned directly from Christ.  The Catholic Faith is from Christ, and He created His Church perfect, in the sense that all of Her Truths and Her Faith were perfect AND COMPLETE when He handed them down to the Apostles.

Thus, V2 is not a consistent understanding of the Faith, thus is it not part of the Universal Magisterium, which can only be engaged if it is teaching "de fide" that a certain truth has always been held and MUST continue to be held, for salvation.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 07, 2018, 11:34:23 AM
Indeed, the living Magisterium has gone dormant.  You're unable to comprehend that we still believe all that has been taught previously by said Magisterium.  Similarly, a LEGITIMATE pope could go 30 years without even exercising Magisterium.  I'm sure we've had a few of these during the darker periods of Church history.  This does not mean that the Magisterium is not the proximate rule of faith.

You again have ZERO comprehension of what "rule of faith" even means, and you keep babbling like an idiot with one incoherent post after another.  You fail to understand the basic terms involved, and have therefore degenerated into Protestant heresy.

"Indeed, the living Magisterium has gone dormant.  You're unable to comprehend that we still believe all that has been taught previously by said Magisterium."
Ladislaus

I GUESS YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT WHAT "HAS BEEN TAUGHT BY SAID MAGISTERIUM" IS CALLED DOGMA. So either dogma is your rule of faith or it is you yourself since your rule of faith has "gone dormant". I think you prefer yourself over dogma. We shall see. At least you are not saying that the "Magisterium is not part of divine revelation" anymore.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 07, 2018, 01:25:30 PM
Quote
Don't you realize that you are praising Pax for citing a bunch of Novus Ordo, indult-like individuals, including Cardinal Ratzinger? 
Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. (James 2:19)

To whom He said: I say to you, that if these (men) shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.  (Luke 19:40)


Even the devil and his followers on earth know the truth and must proclaim it, from time to time.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 07, 2018, 02:42:22 PM

Sounds to me that she is debating her own conscience.

Cantarella,  have you been going to the Greek Orthodox church?


Cantarella,
Yes? No? Sometimes? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 07, 2018, 03:22:29 PM
Drew, how many times do I have to explain it to you that ... AS ST. THOMAS AQUINAS TAUGHT ... the dogma is the formal object of our faith, i.e. WHAT we believe with supernatural faith, and the Magisterium is the rule of faith, i.e. WHY we believe it?

St. Thomas also taught that those who do not have the Magisterium as their rule of faith invariably substitute some other rule, invariably their own private judgment.  So St. Thomas teaches that it is YOU who "prefer yourself over dogma".

Vatican I clearly taught the difference between Magisterium and Divine Revelation.  Look into it.

Ladislaus,

You keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over and over.  Supernatural faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God the revealer. Now, you have in the past denied this definition of supernatural faith. Should I re-post your denial of this truth?  I thought you had corrected this error just as I thought you had corrected your error of claiming that the Magisterium was not part of divine revelation. Apparently, I am wrong on both counts. The what we believe and the why we believe are two necessary and inseparable attributes of supernatural faith. You cannot divide the what we believe from the why we believe without destroying the definition of supernatural faith.

The "difference" between the Magisterium, that is the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, and "Divine Revelation" is that the Magisterium is only a part of Divine Revelation.  This you have denied several times.  If you are claiming now that Vatican I or St. Thomas support your assertion that "the Magisterium is not part of divine revelation," then produce your evidence.  

As I have already said, you do not even know the definition of supernatural faith.  You do not even know that the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.  It is therefore understandable that you do not know the rule of faith even when Magisterial docuмents are offered in support of this truth.  

I am suspecting that you are malicious. You corrupt the most elementary fundamental truths of the Catholic faith without regard for damage for which you may be responsible. Just what is your purpose in posting anything? Are you trying to get fitted for a millstone? Just as your rule of faith has gone "dormant", so has your faith.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 07, 2018, 05:46:49 PM
Quote
If there WERE current Magisterium, as you claim there is, and said Magisterium were to teach something to the Universal Church, then that something cannot and does not contradict past Magisterium.

Quote
If Vatican II was a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, then I accept all of its teaching as being in harmony with Revealed Doctrine

You said the above 2 quotes.  There is no point in debating anymore, if you don't distinguish (or don't believe in the distinguishment) of the Magisterium.  


Quote
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 authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff)


You erroneously separate infallibility from indefectibility, as if one can have a fallible indefectible teaching.  This is wrong.  The catholic encyclopedia explains it below.  The magisterium is not indefectible unless they are infallible.  They both go together; you cannot separate them.


Quote
Now, as we have already seen, doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) indefectibility is certainly implied in Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) promise that the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against His Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), and cannot be effectively secured without doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) infallibility; so that if Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) promise means anything — if Peter's successor is in any true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) sense the foundation and source of the Church's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)indefectibility — he must by virtue of this office be also an organ of ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) infallibility.

If the Church teaches AUTHORITATIVELY (either through ex cathedra infallible statements, or non-ex cathedra infallible statements) then it's indefectible.  Outside of this, it's not.  That's why V2 is not protected by indefectibility, as ALL V2 churchmen have admitted.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 07, 2018, 05:50:57 PM
Hey Cantarella,
Ran across this explanation in the catholic encyclopedia of your oft-quoted and erroneously interpreted scriptural passage:


Quote
Luke 22:31-32
Here Christ says to St. Peter and to his successors in the primacy: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

This special prayer of Christ was for Peter alone in his capacity as head of the Church, as is clear from the text and context; and since we cannot doubt the efficacy of Christ's prayer, it followed that to St. Peter and his successors the office was personally committed of authoritatively confirming the brethren — other bishops, and believers generally — in the faith; and this implies infallibility.

So, outside of infallibility, the pope can err and is not protected from either satan or his personal faith failing.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 07, 2018, 06:07:38 PM

Cantarella,
Yes? No? Sometimes?

Yes? You have been attending a Greek Orthodox church? If not, say so.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 07, 2018, 07:35:20 PM
That's because it's NOT.  I guess that you are not capable of reading even the English translation of Vatican I.

Revelation produces new doctrine, while the Magisterium religiously guards and faithfully expounds it.  When the Pope and bishops teach, they are not revealing but expounding and guarding.

Oh, wait, you fail to comprehend this passage because you DISTORT its meaning to pretend it means that IF the Pope makes "new doctrine", then we are free to reject it.

Ladislaus,

Just for clarification before a detailed response is offered, is this quote from Vatican I the evidence from which you have concluded that the Magisterium, that is, the "teaching authority" of the pope to engage the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority, is NOT part of divine revelation? Is this it?

 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 07, 2018, 10:12:54 PM

Quote
The Church is indefectible PERIOD. 
What does this even mean, in the context of our debate?  This is the most general, overly-simplistic statement I’ve ever read.  It doesn’t answer any of the points I made. 

To answer your comments fully, yes, I know the Church will never defect.  What I’m arguing is that, per the encyclopedia, it says that this indefectibiity is ONLY in use when the pope is engaging his infallibility.  When the pope is NOT engaging infallibility then he is NOT speaking as part of tbr official Church, but from his personal office as bishop/theologian.  Ergo, in his personal offices, he is not protected from indefectibility either.  

Not my words, but the encyclopedia.  
 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 08, 2018, 04:05:44 AM
Thank you.

In that case, which of the following mutually exclusive positions do you believe is the correct one?

1. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.

2. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as an invalid pope, unless and until he is proven valid.

Cantarella,

Which position do you believe is the correct one?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 08, 2018, 01:42:57 PM
Ladislaus,

Just for clarification before a detailed response is offered, is this quote from Vatican I the evidence from which you have concluded that the Magisterium, that is, the "teaching authority" of the pope to engage the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority, is NOT part of divine revelation? Is this it?

 
Drew


Once more. Is this (reply 927)  your evidence?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 08, 2018, 03:52:47 PM
Catholic Encyclopedia --

Quote

Quote
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm) of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end oftime (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm), but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) or in morals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm); nor can it ever lose the Apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm) hierarchy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm), or the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) through which Christ communicates grace to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). The gift (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm)of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm), i.e. the powers of evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm), would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm) change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) the school (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13554b.htm) of holiness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm). This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm) and corrupt moral (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm) standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) to the world, and charged it to warn all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) of revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) err (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm). By the hierarchy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm) and the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm)Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), further, made the Church the depositary of the graces (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) the treasures of grace.


Does anyone think that the Conciliar Church meets these requirements?

Is the Conciliar Church this "school of holiness" which "dispense to men the treasures of grace", not "corrupt in faith or in morals"?

I think the "Conciliar" Church still meets these requirements. 

Quote
This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm) and corrupt moral (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm) standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm)to the world, and charged it to warn all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) of revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) err (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm). By the hierarchy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm) and the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm)Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), further, made the Church the depositary of the graces (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) the treasures of grace.

The only close call is whether it has "set up a false and corrupt moral standard." As of now, it has not "set up" such. 

I trust that God will not allow it to, which is why there are winds of change blowing, finally some response from true descendants of the apostles. Things are going to change dramatically soon - Bergolio will not continue with his wreckage. 

I hope I am not alone here in believing that, but am prepared to stand alone on this. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 08, 2018, 05:46:41 PM
Quote
Pax, you avoiding this?

No sir, I will respond on the morrow.  


Quote
there are winds of change blowing
I agree.  There is MUCH evidence that a pushback against satanism in politics is happening in the US and on other parts of the world. Also, hopefully, in Rome.  I think that Satan’s 100 years of special influence promised in Pope Leo XIII’s vision, is over.  1917-2017. Masonic power is still widespread but their path to victory will face a growing opposition, and of course, we know they’ll lose in the end.  Although this opposition is hopeful, I fear the short term future for us will be chaotic, as the mason’s will be forced to use every demonic back-up plan they have to achieve victory.  Our Lady will win the war, but the battles may be ugly.    
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 08, 2018, 08:01:46 PM
Thank you, that explains everything.

All the following quotes are from the Dimond's website (emphasis mine) :
 (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-glossary-principles/#.WsQcxp9fhhF)
And so are these quotes:

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
There is no contradiction there at all. Popes are not infallible in everything they say, nor are they guaranteed to always be right. A Pope can absolutely be a material heretic(although not a formal heretic). However, a Pope cannot be in error when speaking ex cathedra, and any teachings or dogmas defined as such are guaranteed to be true cannot be in error. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 08, 2018, 08:26:56 PM
I don't need "evidence".  It's Catholic Theology 101 that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostles, that Magisterium does not reveal doctrine but safeguards and expounds it.

And, furthermore, I don't particularly care about what you have to say about this.  It has precious little to do with the argument on this thread.

Ladislaus,

You said:
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg603212/#msg603212)
« Reply #927 on: Yesterday at 07:09:31 PM »

Quote from: drew on Yesterday at 03:22:29 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg603190/#msg603190)
Quote
You do not even know that the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.

"That's because it's NOT.  I guess that you are not capable of reading even the English translation of Vatican I."
Ladislaus

In support of this claim you cited the docuмents of Vatican I.  All I have asked so far is whether or not the quote you offered from Vatican I was the evidence for your claim that the "Magisterium is not part of divine revelation."  I actually am looking for all your evidence for this claim so it can be addressed in its entirety. 

Now you say, "I don't need 'evidence'".  But you most certainly do.  There is not an accepted authoritative expert in theology that does not produce evidence for his claims and most often, the evidence is graded on its relative strength.  So please don't try to muddle the question.  You have claimed repeatedly that the "Magisterium is not part of divine revelation."  That is the assertion of yours that I will be answering in detail. 

So, if you have any other evidence for this claim I would like to have it up front to insure that the reply is complete in addressing all the grounds for your belief, the evidence against this your claim, and some of the important consequences that follow from your belief. 

Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 08, 2018, 09:29:50 PM
So, then, you're fine with . . .  ?

You're fine with . . . ?

And you have no problem with . . .?

No.

Pay attention to your own language. You quoted a CE article about indefectibility, and then asked:

Quote
Does anyone think that the Conciliar Church meets these requirements?

I answered. The Church has not defected.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 08, 2018, 09:39:17 PM

Quote
So, then, you're fine with the fact that Bergoglio says that adulterers can receive Communion?

You're fine with the fact that the V2 papal claimants have all participated in and endorsed participation in false worship?

And you have no problem with their false doctrine?
Ladislaus, the pope and his new-rome hierarchy can say, believe or preach whatever they want.  Catholic doctrine is only what is REQUIRED to be believed.  New-rome has not changed, added to, or deleted any catholic doctrine AS A REQUIREMENT, using their APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY.  Therefore, their new beliefs are not part of the Faith.   

You keep presenting this false picture where new-rome's heresies MUST be followed.  Only those things which are taught with "certainty of faith" must be followed.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 09, 2018, 02:33:46 AM
I would say this one:

However, after some time (and this is when it gets problematic) I do think that it is possible for Catholics to begin discerning an invalid pope over his heretical external actions, even before an official ecclesiastical declaration occurs, and during this period, perhaps subtract obedience from him in good conscience, especially when the actions of the antipope are so evident and the Faith itself is endangered.

Actually, I could make the same question to you regarding your rejection of Vatican II Council and the R&R position.

After the promulgation of an Ecunemical Council (Vatican II), do you think a Catholic must treat it as a valid Council unless and until it is proven invalid?

Thanks for your answer to my question.

In answer to your question: the teachings of a Council, like any other teachings of the Magisterium, must be accepted with varying degrees of assent, corresponding to the theological notes (http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/what-are-theological-notes-28450) attached to them. Anything that is infallible must be accepted without question, because it is guaranteed to be free from error. Anything that is not infallible must also be accepted unless one has a sufficiently grave reason for rejecting it. Contradicting Tradition is such a sufficiently grave reason.

So, the correct formula I believe is this : After the promulgation of an Ecuмenical Council, a Catholic must give his full assent to it's teachings, unless and until the teaching in question is proven to be questionable.

I believe Vatican II did not come with any theological notes.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 09, 2018, 03:27:21 AM
Cantarella,

Given that your position is that..

1. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
3. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.

.. what would you answer to the following questions?

A. Because a validly elected pope can not fall into heresy (#1), if ever we come across a pope that falls into heresy, it can only because he was never valid to start with. But since immediately after the election, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid or not (#2), the impediment that caused the election to be invalid must be a hidden or secret impediment. Can you give me an example of such a hidden impediment that causes a papal election to be invalid?

B. Since after the election of a Pope a Catholic may not be able to immediately determine whether the election was valid or not (#2), and since a Catholic must treat such a pope as valid (#3), do you believe that it is possible for the whole Church to follow an invalid pope?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 09, 2018, 05:46:25 AM
Quote
I asked:
Cantarella, did you take some course? - or who/what/group did you get involved with? - or did you attend some NO classes within the last year or so or what is it? Something happened to you within the last year or so to spin your head as it did and I would like to know what it was so that I avoid whatever it was that changed you. I hope you will at least give answer to this.

It is very simple, really: I now have the certainty that General Councils ratified by a Pope cannot err. In view of this fact, the only way to say that Vatican II was not an Ecunemical Council of the Church is that the authority (pope) who promulgated it was false. Or, that it did not teach heresy.

Cantarella, the truth is, you only *say* that you have "the certainty that General Councils ratified by a Pope cannot err", because if you actually trusted that idea, if you actually had faith in that idea, if you actually believed that idea yourself, if that idea is actually what the Church teaches, then being a General Council, V2 did not err, rather V2 was infallible and it is you in fact err by claiming V2 erred or was not a General Council.

Do you understand that? Do you understand that if it is a teaching of the Church, then the only thing you are proving with certainty, is that it is you who are terribly wrong?  

If the Church teaches that all General Councils ratified by a Pope cannot err, then V2 did not err, because that is the teaching of the Church. If *for any reason whatsoever* you say that V2 was not a General Council or that V2 erred, then you are word for word contradicting the infallible teaching of the Church. That's the way that works.


The fact is, the Church has NEVER taught such a thing. The NO believe it is a teaching of the Church because it *is* a NO teaching, that's why there are so many NOers - they *really* believe it is a teaching of the Church - but it is not a teaching of the Catholic Church - V2 itself indisputably proves it is not a teaching of the Church.




Quote
Given that the Council of Trent is your true Rule of Faith, then what do you have to say about the following Tridentine dogmatic truth which directly condemns your position:

Quote
Quote
Condemned:

 29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of Councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved, or disapproved by any Council whatsoever.
I say that according to your understanding of the above condemnation, that you indisputably prove that you are absolutely guilty of "weakening the authority of [the Second Vatican] Council, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved, or disapproved by [the] Council.

According to your own idea that you say you hold with certainty, you have convicted yourself of being absolutely guilty of the above condemned error.

Once again, you are taking the above condemnation out of context, the same as you have taken other teachings out of context. As I told you already - "Please note that you will find this to always be the case whenever you come across papal encyclicals regarding the necessity of our submission to the decrees from Councils - they will *always* be referring to past councils - not to future councils. It is important for you to always make this distinction and always remember this."


 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 09, 2018, 11:06:03 AM
No, I don't need evidence because this is a non-issue for me.  And I'm not going to spend any of my time digging up quotes to prove it to you.

This is like asking me to prove that Our Lady was immaculately conceived.

No Catholic theologian disputes the fact that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.  Magisterium does not reveal anything but proposes revealed truth to us for belief, explains it, and guards it.

Ladislaus,

You have affirmed several times that “the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation.”  Now you claim that you “don’t need evidence” for this opinion and that it is a “non-issue” for you. So why are you trying to muddy the question by stating an uncontested truth that “revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle”?  That has nothing to do with your claim that “the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation.”

And evidence should not be hard to find if what you are claiming it true but, then again, it’s hard to find evidence to support an evident error.

This is not like “asking you to prove that Our Lady was immaculately conceived”!  That would present no problem for me.  I would simple quote Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffability Deus on the Immaculate Conception, 1854, and for those who accepted dogma as their rule of faith, it would be received as overwhelming evidence “that Our Lady was immaculately conceived.”

No, it would more like my asking you to prove that “Our Lady was NOT immaculately conceived.” That would be impossible to prove because it is not true.

Your belief that the “Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation” is a doctrine that is professed by Protestants and unites all Protestant in a common profession.

The implications of your error are manifold and uniformly destructive to all divine revelation and go a long way in explaining your defense of the errors of sedeprivationism.

You offered only one quote from Vatican I as evidence for you belief that “the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation.”  I will assume then that that is all you have.

Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 09, 2018, 11:24:41 AM
I am afraid you do not understand. What we say is that Vatican II was NOT an Ecunemical Council at all; because it lacks papal approbation, which is the crucial element that makes the Councils infallible. (Given that the pope who promulgated it was false, an impostor).
I completely understand. I know that you decided that the pope was not the pope and it was not an ecuмenical council, that's a terribly lame opinion to have in light of infallible teachings that all councils are infallible.

So you think God let a fake pope have the power to thwart God's own infallibility?  That is where your belief, which is to say, that is were your complete lack of faith in your false idea of the Church's infallibility, leads. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 09, 2018, 11:25:26 AM
Are you, Stubborn, from all people, really telling me not to trust in this Tridentine dogmatic statement, as written?

How could I ever take this "out of context"?. This is a dogmatic teaching and it is clear as water. Are you telling me I have to distrust the Council of Trent as well, or that, as Modernists do, accommodate the teaching to the appropriate context?. Perhaps this Council was not infallible, either?
"Please note that you will find this to always be the case whenever you come across papal encyclicals regarding the necessity of our submission to the decrees from Councils - they will *always* be referring to past councils - not to future councils. It is important for you to always make this distinction and always remember this."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 09, 2018, 11:57:50 AM
I thought that a Tridentine dogmatic teaching was true for all ages.
So did I.

But since the pope, or the pope in union with all the bishops are always infallible, and since that obligates us all the "corresponding duty to believe whatever they teach", then each pope infallibly and independently decides what's infallible, and he may do so without regard to the teachings of previous popes - previous popes have nothing to say about it - this is according to your own false belief, as taught by some post V1 theologians whom you regard as the teachings of the infallible Church.

By quoting teachings of past popes and councils, all you are doing is proving that you have no faith in your own belief. Do you understand that?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2018, 12:02:50 PM
Quote
OK, so you give the Syllabus (a non-infallible teaching) as grounds for rejecting Vatican II (a non-infallible teaching).  How do I know which one was right?  
The Syllabus is not infallible entirely, but there are many errors it condemned which have already been infallibly condemned. 


Quote
What if Pius IX, in his excessive zeal, went a little bit overboard, and Vatican II simply moderated his teaching?  
Same answer as above. 


Quote
So what if Vatican II was similarly correcting Pius IX?  How do you know Pius IX was right and Vatican II wrong?  What if Pius IX was simply condemning some very specific errors that were a little different than what Vatican II was teaching?  What if the two can be reconciled by making the appropriate distinctions?  How do you know that they can't be?
 V2's errors are easily shown to have been infallibly condemned in the past.  There are multiple websites out there, as well as many books, which prove this.  V2 is partially condemned by the Syllabus, but mostly through previous infallible statements from Councils.  The Syllabus is not the ONLY source which condemns V2.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2018, 12:14:57 PM
Catholic Encyclopedia --


Quote
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm) of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm), but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally.

V2 did not change the constitution of the Church.  Only those beliefs which are taught with "certainty of faith" are part of Church doctrine.  V2 did not teach with a "certainty of faith".


Quote
It can never become corrupt in faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) or in morals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm); nor can it ever lose the Apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm) hierarchy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm), or the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) through which Christ communicates grace to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm).

V2 did not corrupt faith or morals, because it's novelties are not "authoritatively taught, under pain of sin, with certainty of faith, as necessary for salvation."  Any changes made to the mass and sacraments are not binding.  In fact, they are illegal and sinful and violate Quo Primum.



Quote
The gift (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm) of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm), i.e. the powers of evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm), would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm) change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) the school (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13554b.htm) of holiness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm). This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm) and corrupt moral (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm) standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) to the world, and charged it to warn all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) of revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) err (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. Nobody could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm).
(Pertaining to the sentence I underlined):  V2 does not enforce, under any penalty, that anyone accept its errors.  By definition, then, its novelities are not protected by indefectibility.


Quote
Quote

Does anyone think that the Conciliar Church meets these requirements?
No, the conciliar church is not the true church.  As Our Lady said at LaSalette, "The Church will be in eclipse."  The conciliar church has obscured, but not changed, the true doctrines of the Church.  Thus, such novelties are not an affront to indefectibility.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2018, 12:17:04 PM

Quote
Also all other things taught, defined, and declared

V2 did not teach, define or declare in the same way as Trent, which taught, defined and declared truth "with certainty of faith, under pain of sin, as necessary for salvation".  V2 does not carry the same moral weight; not even close.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 09, 2018, 12:31:09 PM
This is the Council of Trent, regarding the errors infallibly condemned (including #29)

Quote
Quote
Also all other things taught, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ecuмenical Councils, and especially by the sacred and holy Synod of Trent, (and by the ecuмenical Council of the Vatican, *particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching), I without hesitation accept and profess; and at the same time all things contrary thereto, and whatever heresies have been condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, (and) which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold.
Here yet again Cantarella, you are quoting something 400 years old - since that time, the conciliar popes in unison with the totality of all the bishops did away with it some 60 years ago. That makes it null and void and infallibly safe to boot! Per your own belief, their disposal of this abjuration is an act of the Church's infallibility. Per your own belief, it is infallibly safe to abandon all thoughts related to your above obsolete quote. By their infallibility, your above quote is obsolete because they infallibly obsoleted it - does it comfort you to know that it was infallibly safe to obsolete it?  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2018, 01:37:45 PM
Quote
29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of Councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved, or disapproved by any Council whatsoever.

Decree definition:  an official order issued by a legal authority.
Synonyms:  order, command, rule, dictate, pronouncement

V2 did not do any of the above, contrary to all previous ecuмenical councils.  Nothing from V2 is required, unlike previous ecuмenical councils.  You've yet to accept reality about this fact.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 09, 2018, 02:01:08 PM

B. Define "whole Church". After an infiltration has occurred, yes I think it is possible for the majority of unsuspected bishops to follow an anti-pope, at least for a while. We know it is possible because it has happened before during the Great Western Schism. There is historical evidence therefore, that the situation may arise, and please keep in mind that all of the anti-popes actually professed the Roman Catholic Faith!

Will respond to A, as time permits.

The problem with this is that because of your answer #2 (Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.) , we are talking about the whole Church, i.e. all bishops and all faithful, without exception. I don't think that is possible. Not even during the Great Western Schism that has happened, and neither during the Arian Crisis, or any other time in the history of the Church, including Vatican II.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2018, 03:03:11 PM
The title of the V2 docuмents is not the same use of 'decree' that was used in the past.  From the Catholic encyclopedia:


Quote
Decisions referring to dogma (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm) were called in the East diatyposeis (constitutions, statutes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm)); those concerned with discipline were termed kanones (canons, rules),

In the West no careful distinction of terms was observed: canones and decreta signify both dogmatic and disciplinary decisions.

V2 issued no dogmatic decisions nor liturgical disciplines.  One can call the docuмent a 'decree' if they want, but what matters is what the docuмent actually says or decides, which is in the case of V2, was nothing obligatory.  This is different than all other ecuмenical councils of the past.
 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 09, 2018, 03:55:33 PM
Yes, we know.  You claim that it's possible for the Magisterium to be totally corrupted by modernism and heresy ... so long as a small handful of dogmatic definitions remain intact.
You have a Church that has been taken over by the enemies of Christ, and defeated Him. 

You can think your position is so much more righteous, pure, "Catholic" than his, but your head would be up a certain orifice that shouldn't be visited by any body parts, much less the head of the body. 

But then again, considering your viewpoint, your "head" up that particular orifice would be apt. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2018, 03:59:04 PM
The word "magisterium" comes from the latin word "to teach".  Ergo, your use of the word is incorrect when you apply it to the V2 hierarchy, because V2 did not teach in the same way as the Apostles did, who do so with authority, with certainty of faith.

Quote
You claim it's possible for the Magisterium to be totally corrupted by modernism and heresy...
I claim that the fallible magisterium, which is another word for the current hierarchy, can be corrupted because there is nothing in church history or tradition which says otherwise.  A non-certain teaching, which is conditional and can be rejected without sin, having no bearing on one's salvation is NOT A TEACHING because it's not part of the faith.  The UNIVERSAL magisterium can never be corrupted, of which V2 was not related to.

Only those teachings which are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN are part of the faith, which are relatively few, and can fit in a catechism and be memorized by a 5th grader.  The faith is not complicated. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: songbird on April 09, 2018, 05:39:31 PM
Christ said, "when I return, will I find Faith?"  Do we know this answer?  Remnant?  Where is Faith?  Mass, has the Deposit of Faith. 

Should we not be looking for the Pelican?  Our major concern is our Salvation is it not?!  We should cry to Our Lord, "Where are You?"  We more than need the Precious Blood!  To have it, we need valid priests/clergy.  

We must read prophecies and understand.  The Mass will come to an end, Chpt 12 of Daniel. The enemy wants authority, Powers of the Blood, True Presence destroyed.
Christ is not present is the enemies goal.  Is that not Marxist Communism"  Sure it is!  We should be crying, "Where is My Lord?!"  This is what we should be is desire of right?

That is the root of this forum is it not?  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2018, 08:58:55 PM
Quote
2) Your allegation that the Magisterium has been corrupted is heretical.
The Universal Magisterium can never be corrupted because these teachings are with “certainty of faith”.  

The ordinary, fallible magisterium does not teach with certainty therefore it can err.  The pope, when teaching as a private theologian, (as when he says “there is no hell”) is not protected by the Holy Ghost at all, nor does he intend to be.  Why do you refuse to make this distinction?

The word “magisterium” has multiple meanings because there are different levels of authority it requires.  You use it too generally in order to misconstrue my argument, which is dishonest.  

It is only within the last hundred years that modernists started “muddying the waters” and referring to non-certain, fallible teachings as the “ordinary magisterium”.  If you took any time to research this, you’d see there’s all kinds of articles on this topic.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 08:49:30 AM
Quote
So 99.5% can be completely wrong, corrupted, filled with heresy, and leading to hell any souls who submit to those teachings. 
Never said that.  You erroneously assume that the magisterium ONLY concerns itself with matters of faith/morals.  In many previous ecuмenical councils, the topics were a wide variety, with many matters needing to be addressed that had nothing to do with faith/morals (i.e. liturgical abuses, jurisdictional or legal matters, etc.)  These, by definition, aren't matters of infallibility, which only deals with defining faith/morals.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 09:48:05 AM
Quote
Show me the dogmatic condemnation of Religious Liberty
A negative condemnation may not exist (I don't know), but the positive teaching (which does not allow religious liberty) DOES exist.  
For example:  To infallibly state that the sky is blue, logically disallows any viewpoint where the sky is said to be any color other than blue.  It is not necessary for the Church to condemn every color that is not blue.  This is not practical.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 10, 2018, 10:54:55 AM
Feel free to explain what you mean at any time with YOUR evidence, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Protestantism.  It's Catholic Theology 101 that revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.

What unites Protestantism, on the contrary, is the notion that Dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... YOUR heretical principle.

You are correct in saying that it is “theology 101 that revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.” That is a dogma. But what is your point in repeating this fundamental truism?  It is unrelated to the issue.

You are not correct in your claim that the “Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation.” It is a fundamental doctrine of Protestantism that the “Magisterium is Not part of divine revelation.”  In this you are in agreement with at least someone but they are not Catholics.

Now since Protestants rejects the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ, they necessarily reject Dogma because the Magisterium is the necessary material and instrumental cause of Dogma.

The Magisterium is the “teaching authority” of the Church grounded upon the Church’s Attributes of Infallibility and Authority. When “Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: 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.” (Matt 28: 18-20), is a direct quote cited by the Church Fathers and the Council Father at Vatican Council I in support of the doctrine that that Jesus Christ instituted a “teaching authority” in his Church. He commanded all the faithful to hear this “teaching authority,” saying, “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).

Vatican I says that the primacy of jurisdiction was conferred directly by Jesus Christ on St. Peter:


Quote
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.
Vatican I

The Vatican I also says that the “primacy of jusridiction” includes the “teaching authority” of the Church saying:

Quote
“That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This holy see has always maintained this, the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and the ecuмenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.”
Vatican I

Your claim that the “Magisterium is not part of divine revelation” is grave error.  It is a grave error that you have repeated many times. It explains why you reject Dogma as your rule of faith for if the Magisterium is not from divine revelation, it is not from God, and neither is dogma, which is the fruit of the Magisterium. That makes Dogma part of ecclesiastical tradition which, since the Church created it, the Church is free to reform it any way it likes. Which in end explains your charge that anyone who takes Dogma literally is guilty of “Protestantism” because they are following “private interpretation.” In the end, you have no problem embracing sedeprivationism that fractures the form and matter of the papacy thus causing a substantial change destroying the office because the dogma that it will continue until the end of time makes no impression on you.

Ladislaus, you really are rotten to the core corrupting the most elementary first principles of the faith.

Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 11:11:20 AM
Quote
Since the only thing in the Magisterium guaranteed to be correct are those .5% of dogmatic definitions, then 99.5% of it can become corrupt.  There's nothing to stop it.
"CAN" become corrupt doesn't mean it will.  Secondly, there is more to infallibility than dogmatic definitions; you can have non-solemn infallibility, where church teaching is shown to agree with Tradition and the CONSTANT teaching of the church.  In this case, the magisterium is also infallible.

Your fear-mongering of "there's nothing to stop (the corruption)" is just emotional.  You act like the Church would cease to exist and could never be resurrected, while the times we are living in prove the contrary.  You are THEORIZING and EXAGGERATING about a situation in which you have ACTUAL PROOF, since you are living through the ACTUAL situation you describe.  You THEORIZE that the Church would cease due to corruption, yet, the current ACTUAL times are proof that even in the worst situation possible (I can't think of anything worse than our times) the Church still exists, Catholics still know their faith and still practice it.  And even the apocalyptic V2 council is admitted by its authors to be 'conditional'.

Finally, except for your Fenton quote, you have no facts to prove your assertion that there is such a thing as non-infallible infallibility.  I've posted 20+ quotes to back up my case.

Quote
When, some day, God willing, the Church is restored and we have a Pius XIII reigning uncontested as Pope, when he releases an Encyclical, how will formerly-known-as-R&R receive it?  Will they receive it with the docility of a Catholic hearing the Shepherd's voice ... or with skepticism, and subjecting it immediately to their judgment and even perhaps criticism?
A non-infallible encyclical requires 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.  You still don't know what that means.  It means that we ASSUME it's correct, we ACCEPT the teaching as orthodox, unless questions arise, and we are allowed to ask for clarification.  It doesn't mean we totally ignore the docuмent and act like it doesn't exist. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 11:13:51 AM
Quote
Fine.  Please cite that then. 
No.  Not wasting my time.  There are so many websites/books dedicated to this topic; you can research yourself. 
In fact, it would be a useless exercise since you agree that V2 contradicts Tradition.  We just disagree with the implications of this fact.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 12:02:27 PM
Quote
No such solemn condemnation (or affirmation of the opposite) exists.  Period. 
??  So you think V2's "religious liberty" novelty is ok?
Just because I'm not going to waste my time proving something that you can find in a 2 second google search doesn't mean I'm a liar.  It's like you're asking me to prove EENS.  Religious Liberty is so uncatholic it's ridiculous and it's been proven to be an error for the past 50 years.  So search google; I'm not going to hold your hand on something this elementary.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 12:06:01 PM
Ladislaus,
Why don't you prove, outside of Fenton, that the pope is infallible in fallible things, i.e. that indefectibility protects him from error, even when infallibility is not in use.  Your entire argument rests on this case and if Fenton is your only source, and if it can't be shown to be a CONSTANT teaching, then it's a theory, no more no less, and one that others disagree with.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 10, 2018, 01:03:33 PM
You are correct in saying that it is “theology 101 that revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.” That is a dogma. But what is your point in repeating this fundamental truism?  It is unrelated to the issue.

You are not correct in your claim that the “Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation.” It is a fundamental doctrine of Protestantism that the “Magisterium is Not part of divine revelation.”  In this you are in agreement with at least someone but they are not Catholics.

Now since Protestants rejects the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ, they necessarily reject Dogma because the Magisterium is the necessary material and instrumental cause of Dogma.

The Magisterium is the “teaching authority” of the Church grounded upon the Church’s Attributes of Infallibility and Authority. When “Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: 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.” (Matt 28: 18-20), is a direct quote cited by the Church Fathers and the Council Father at Vatican Council I in support of the doctrine that that Jesus Christ instituted a “teaching authority” in his Church. He commanded all the faithful to hear this “teaching authority,” saying, “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).

Vatican I says that the primacy of jurisdiction was conferred directly by Jesus Christ on St. Peter:


The Vatican I also says that the “primacy of jusridiction” includes the “teaching authority” of the Church saying:

Your claim that the “Magisterium is not part of divine revelation” is grave error.  It is a grave error that you have repeated many times. It explains why you reject Dogma as your rule of faith for if the Magisterium is not from divine revelation, it is not from God, and neither is dogma, which is the fruit of the Magisterium. That makes Dogma part of ecclesiastical tradition which, since the Church created it, the Church is free to reform it any way it likes. Which in end explains your charge that anyone who takes Dogma literally is guilty of “Protestantism” because they are following “private interpretation.” In the end, you have no problem embracing sedeprivationism that fractures the form and matter of the papacy thus causing a substantial change destroying the office because the dogma that it will continue until the end of time makes no impression on you.

Ladislaus, you really are rotten to the core corrupting the most elementary first principles of the faith.

Drew


^^^This ^^^ Reply #988
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 10, 2018, 01:31:55 PM
No.  Not wasting my time.  
Anyone who continues to actively take part in a 67 page, 1,000 post thread has no problem wasting time.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 10, 2018, 01:50:58 PM
Ladislaus,
Why don't you prove, outside of Fenton, that the pope is infallible in fallible things, i.e. that indefectibility protects him from error, even when infallibility is not in use.  Your entire argument rests on this case and if Fenton is your only source, and if it can't be shown to be a CONSTANT teaching, then it's a theory, no more no less, and one that others disagree with.
The magisterium is free from error.

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18 ), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “… the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”

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.”

Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8 ), May 26, 1910: “… only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church… from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine…”


Your belief that 99% of the Magisterium could be corrupted is completely false as is evident to anyone who does the slightest bit of research on the matter. Even a quick google search could show you how untenable and ridiculous your position is, and how contrary it is to what the Church has always taught(although I guess the Church's teachings matter little to you if you believe the vast majority could be false).

You can whinge and whine all you like and try to get us banned for supposedly calling this site's userbase heretical, but we have not. The only accusation of heresy is the one from Pope Leo XIII against you. As I quoted him saying above, ANYONE WHO DEPARTS FROM AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM IS TO BE BARRED FROM COMMUNION. Here are some bonus quotes to really drive the point across, in case you still don't get it

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”

Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 02:50:06 PM
Quote
I'm demanding that you clarify your principles.  You claim that V2 is fallible.  If you cite previous Church teaching against Religious Liberty, then you need to be able to find some INfallible teaching that condemns religious liberty or defines the opposite as true  Otherwise, you're simply pitting one fallible teaching against another ... without any reliable rule to determine which one is right and which one is wrong.  Or could they both be wrong?  Or both be right?  You have NO way to prove it.  You just go by what you feel like believing.
Ideal x is fallible and does not have to be held with 'certainty of faith'.  Therefore it has no bearing on my salvation.  I don't have to prove it has been condemned if it's not binding and part of the faith.  If it's not part of the faith, then i am only required to give CONDITIONAL assent?

You're the one who says that V2 is binding, not me (and you've yet to prove it).  I'm saying it's not binding AND it's also been condemned.  I only need 1 of these to be true.  The previous condemnation is just icing on the cake, but not necessary.

p.s. Religious Liberty is contrary to the doctrines of the 1) Social Kingship of Christ, and 2) EENS (at least these 2, probably more).  These truths have been taught CONSISTENTLY/CONSTANTLY throughout the ages of the Church and are thus part of Her infallible universal magisterium, because they agree with Tradition, even though never solemnly defined.

V2 is not consistent with Tradition; ergo it's anathema (even if not declared so solemnly).
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 10, 2018, 07:52:48 PM
My best guess is that your understanding of the phrase "part of Revelation" has Revelation meaning the body of revealed truths, and the phrase meaning that the existence of the Magisterium is revealed truth.  That's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about the process or act of Revelation ... as distinct from Magisterium.  No Catholic can dispute that the existence of the Magisterium is revealed.  It would be heresy to say otherwise.  But that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread or what we're talking about.

You are a liar, Ladislaus.  You first claimed that the Magisterium was “extrinsic” to divine revelation so that it could stand outside of revelation to act as the judge of revelation.  This theory you unthinkingly lifted from the Catholic Encyclopedia.  

You have repeated many times that the “Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation,” and now you want to lie your way out of it by pretending that others are not bright enough to understand your more nuanced interpretations.  This time your lie is even more stupid than your original error. You now say, “I'm talking about the process or act of Revelation ... as distinct from Magisterium.”  The Magisterium is part of the “act of Revelation.” Those that claim that the “Magisterium …. is distinct from the act of Revelation” are heretics.  

You are one big lying phony.

Your “magisterium is dormant” and therefore, so is your rule of faith. You refuse dogma as your rule of faith even going so far as to call anyone taking dogma literally as being “Protestants” for “private interpretation.” You are stuck with yourself as your own rule. You with yourself have made one erroneous claim after another.  You claimed that “not all things infallible are de fide.” You denied the correct definition of supernatural faith. You further corrupted the very definition of supernatural faith by dividing its two necessary attributes. You corrupted the papacy by cleaving its form and matter leading to a substantial change in what God has promised will stand to end of time. And you did not even know that the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.  

Maybe at least we have seen the last of at least this one particular idiocy.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 08:11:54 PM

Quote
You're too lazy to actually read Fenton ... because he cites the prior theologians who hold the same position.
Did Fenton cite EVERY theologian of his time?  If there wasn't a consensus then and also agreement with Tradition, then his theory is just that, a theory and no more.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 08:33:46 PM
Quote
My argument is based on papal teaching (often repeated) that the Magisterium is free from error.
Let me re-phrase this whole question.  
1.  The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church.
2.  Only the Pope can teach INFALLIBLY to the Church (whether solemnly or non-solemnly).
3.  The Magisterium, outside of the pope, cannot teach INFALLIBLY.
4.  The Magisterium, outside of the pope, can only re-teach "that which has always been taught" since they do not have the power to clarify or define truths 'with certainty of faith'.
5.  Only the pope's magisterium can declare teachings that have 'certainty of faith'.
6.  If the pope is not infallible and indefectible in all things (and he's not), then the neither is the Magisterium.
7.  The magisterium is only infallible/indefectible when SOLEMNLY declaring a matter 'with certainty of faith' or that it is 'consistent with Tradition'.

Ergo, your belief that the magisterium is 'free from error' only applies if you are talking about the 2 situations in Pt #7.  Outside of these situations, the Magisterium CANNOT be infallible/indefectible because IT IS NOT ABLE TO CREATE NEW DOCTRINES.  So, if a teaching is new or novel (like in V2) it is not "free from error" because that's impossible.  If the Magisterium is to be free from error, outside of infallibility, IT HAS TO PROVE THAT THE TEACHING IS CONSISTENT WITH TRADITION.  If it cannot prove this, then IT'S NOT AN APOSTOLIC TRUTH, and thus, IS NOT CATHOLIC.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on April 10, 2018, 11:35:16 PM
http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html (http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html)

 D. M. Drew comment


Quote
It is calumny to assert that I "reject the Magisterium of the Church." That would be rejecting dogma which I have already explained to you is the "proximate rule of faith.


How can dogma be a rule of faith? It's one thing to say the Apostles Creed, or the Athanasius Creed is a rule of faith, and another to say dogma is that rule of faith.

How do we differentiate ourselves from Protestants? They claim, do they not, to believe in dogma? They seek it through scripture, while Catholics seek it through the magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church.

To say the magisterium and dogma are equivalent is to say we obtain our dogma from dogma; it's nonsensical .

Teaching authority and dogma are two related, but distinct things. The latter proceeds from the former.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on April 10, 2018, 11:47:10 PM
How do we reference a dogma?

Do we not quote this and that council? Do we not quote the pope?

Pope IX declared the Immaculate Conception, I believe it.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino", I believe it. 

etc.

What heretic would object to dogma to being the rule of faith? It's where he seeks that dogma that counts.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 11, 2018, 09:10:25 AM


trad123,

Im sure Drew will reply as time permits. In the meantime,  you may want to read:

Reply #128  page 9
Reply #163  page 11
Reply 200 page 14


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 11, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on April 09, 2018, 03:55:33 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg603429/#msg603429)
Quote
You have a Church that has been taken over by the enemies of Christ, and defeated Him. 

You can think your position is so much more righteous, pure, "Catholic" than his, but your head would be up a certain orifice that shouldn't be visited by any body parts, much less the head of the body. 

But then again, considering your viewpoint, your "head" up that particular orifice would be apt. 

Of course it's been taken over.  What's your point?
So you concede that the Church has been taken over by the enemies of Christ? When was this? Vatican 2? Under Paul VI? 

Your position is so inconsistent it's incredible. And yet you go around calling people heretics, blasphemous, clueless, etc. 

You have the "Conciliar" Church defecting, which is how you know it's not the Magisterium. And yet you have the Conciliar Church's Novus Ordo liturgy being a liturgy protected as one used by the "indefectible" Church such that it can't be an incentive to impiety per Trent - https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/is-the-sspxsspx-resistance-crypto-sedevacantist/msg600712/#msg600712  

Which is it? Has the Church been "taken over" by Christ's enemies or is the "Conciliar" Church the "indefectible" Church of Christ which is protected from "defection" when it uses a liturgy, to the extent that said used liturgy cannot be an incentive to impiety?

Is the Church now partially indefectible too? With its partially-pope pope?



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 11, 2018, 11:48:48 AM
Just for completeness, for those who doubt that dogma is the "rule of faith," the Council of Florence in the decree for union with the Armenians offered to them the "rule of faith," the Athanasian Creed. This Creed like all others is a litany of dogmas:


Quote
Sixthly, we offer to the envoys that compendious rule of the faith composed by most blessed Athanasius, which is as follows:
Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this,......  Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Athanasian Creed

Again, the definition of heresy is failure to keep dogma as the rule of faith.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 11, 2018, 12:15:55 PM
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Today at 10:23:04 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg603688/#msg603688)
Quote
Of course it's been taken over.  What's your point?

So you concede that the Church has been taken over by the enemies of Christ? When was this? Vatican 2? Under Paul VI? 

Your position is so inconsistent it's incredible. And yet you go around calling people heretics, blasphemous, clueless, etc. 

You have the "Conciliar" Church defecting, which is how you know it's not the Magisterium. And yet you have the Conciliar Church's Novus Ordo liturgy being a liturgy protected as one used by the "indefectible" Church such that it can't be an incentive to impiety per Trent - https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/is-the-sspxsspx-resistance-crypto-sedevacantist/msg600712/#msg600712 (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/is-the-sspxsspx-resistance-crypto-sedevacantist/msg600712/#msg600712)  

Which is it? Has the Church been "taken over" by Christ's enemies or is the "Conciliar" Church the "indefectible" Church of Christ which is protected from "defection" when it uses a liturgy, to the extent that said used liturgy cannot be an incentive to impiety?

Is the Church now partially indefectible too? With its partially-pope pope?

I can't make heads or tails out of this incoherent rant.  

No wonder you can't. Blindness is usually a symptom with your disease. 

Quote
I guess that the problem is that you, and many others, can't get their minds around the material-formal distinction about the Church. 

There is no "material-formal" distinction. My gosh, you love to throw big words and concepts around, but you can't think through anything. Another symptom of what you have. 
 
Quote
No problem with the bizarre R&R statement that the V2 "Popes" are simultaneously the heads of two Churches, the Catholic and the Conciliar ...
I know nothing of this "two churches" thing. Go discuss this with those making the bizarre statement.  

Quote
but you're ready to have epileptic seizures at the mere mention of the formal-material distinction.

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep the watch out for that now.  :laugh1:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 11, 2018, 01:05:41 PM
Quote
This is just garbage.  Not even sure where to begin.
Great analysis.  Very good facts you referenced.  Excellent job of pointing out my errors.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 11, 2018, 01:32:09 PM
So the rule of faith for Catholics is exclusively the Athanasian Creed? What about the other dogmas defined by the Church, not contained in the creeds?


Now you are getting ridiculous. Of course not. To everyone, according to their particular heresy (dogma/s they deny) If the Greek Orthodox wanted to come back to the Church (in normal times) they would have to make a profession of faith in the Filioque, Primacy of the Pope, Purgatory, The Immaculate Conception of O. L. and the Indissolubility of Marriage because these (and more) are the dogmas they reject.


Drew's Reply #163 on page 11 (For the benefit of others):
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599170/#msg599170



Quote
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10987) of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4554) of Christ, corrupt its dogmas ". "The right (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10046) Christian (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2927) faith (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4554) consists in giving one's voluntary (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12148) assent to Christ (https://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus) in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2927) : the one by refusing to believe in Christ (https://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus) Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jєωs (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6511) ; the other by restricting belief (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=1667) to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4554) and heresy (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5695) is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10624) and Tradition as proposed to our belief (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=1667) by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church ; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. (Catholic Encyclopedia)



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



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 11, 2018, 02:03:48 PM
No, Drew, you're just not very bright.  You kept using the term "part of Revelation" without defining it.  Revelation can refer either to the truths revealed or to the act/process of revealing.  I made it clear which one I meant.  And, despite that, you kept attacking me while using the term in the OTHER sense.  I tried to untangle this several times.

Ladislaus,

Defining "part of Revelation" was not done because that should be self-evident by definition of the terms themselves.  A "part" of something is anything less than the whole of the thing. To say the Magisterium is part of revelation is to say that it is revealed by God but is not all of God's revelation.  To say as you did repeatedly, "the Magisterium is NOT part of God's Revelation" is to affirm that God did not reveal it.  You came to this conclusion after reading the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia that said the Magisterium was "extrinsic" to revelation so that it could stand outside of revelation to act as its judge.  Your effort to pretend that you meant something really profound by drawing a distinction between revelation and the act of revelation is ridiculous and just digs for yourself a deeper hole. You are not "bright" enough to know when to shut up.

As long as I can stay "bright" enough to spot you as a sham, that will be good enough for me. For you are a thief as well who would steal the faith from others by corrupting the fundamental elements of revealed truth.

Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 11, 2018, 02:10:47 PM
And you stubbornly persist in this Protestant error.
I think his error is just a misunderstanding of terminology. I doubt he believes in sola scriptura. If my understanding is correct, the rule of faith in Catholicism is scripture + the traditions of the Church. But these traditions are also dogmatically defined, so it not necessarily sola scriptura to say that dogma is the rule of faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 11, 2018, 02:22:54 PM
http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html (http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html)

 D. M. Drew comment

How can dogma be a rule of faith? It's one thing to say the Apostles Creed, or the Athanasius Creed is a rule of faith, and another to say dogma is that rule of faith.

How do we differentiate ourselves from Protestants? They claim, do they not, to believe in dogma? They seek it through scripture, while Catholics seek it through the magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church.

To say the magisterium and dogma are equivalent is to say we obtain our dogma from dogma; it's nonsensical .

Teaching authority and dogma are two related, but distinct things. The latter proceeds from the former.

All recognized Catholic Creeds are a litany of dogmas.  The Protestants reject that the Magisterium ("teaching authority") of the Church is part of divine revelation.  Every Protestant becomes his own magisterium.  Regardless, they all reject dogma because they reject that God established a "teaching authority" without which doctrine cannot be authoritatively and infallibly defined.

I agree with you in that Dogma is the end of the Magisterium and the Magisterium is the means.  But what is important to remember is that the formal cause and final cause of Dogma is God.  The Magisterium is the insufficient but necessary material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma.  This is important to remember because Dogma is divine revelation.  It is not the work of men.  That is why Dogma is called, "the formal object of divine and Catholic faith."  It is also why we can always deductively derive other necessary truths from any Dogma.

Take for example the doctrine of Religious Liberty.  In its first principles it contradicts dogmatic truths.  Those that hold dogma as their rule of faith have no problem seeing this.  Those who hold the pope as the rule of faith (or, if you like, "the magisterium of the pope as the rule of faith") believe that dogma is just a product of mere ecclesiastical faith that was revealed merely by the Church and what the Church merely reveals, the Church can merely change. They then look to the pope to cipher the true and developing meaning of dogma that never reaches its term.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 11, 2018, 02:32:33 PM
Not at all.  Revelation = "God's act of revealing." (my usage) vs. how you keep using it: Revelation = "What God has revealed."

Ladislaus,

"Revelation" is a noun. "To reveal" is the verb infinitive.  Your "usage" is grammatically flawed as your thinking.

Which reminds me of my limerick that is worth remembering:

Nietzsche, who called himself,
"the philosopher with a Hammer"
said, "If you want to get rid of God,
you must first get rid of Grammar!"

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 11, 2018, 03:01:53 PM
And you know those are dogmas because the Infallible Magisterium of the Church told you so. It's that simple.

Otherwise, you would not know them.

No kidding?  It has been repeated several times already, but how about once more.  The Magisterium is the insufficient but necessary material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma.  God is the formal cause and the final cause of Dogma.  Without the Magisterium, which is one of the necessary means, the end, that is, Dogma, would not be produced.  "It's that simple."

Now you have been provided with three Magisterial docuмents that refer to Dogma as the rule of faith. You reject this "simple" truth preferring, the means over the end. That is you prefer the pursuit of truth over its actual possession. You prefer becoming over being. In the end you actually reject the Magisterium itself. For you, like Ladislaus, the "magisterium is dormant." That is, your rule of faith is "dormant" and the void has been filled with yourself. Unfortunately, you yourself as your rule of faith has delivered you into a church that is not Catholic. It is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ. This can be known because your church is lacking necessary attributes of the Catholic Church. What is worse, your church does not possess the material means or instrumental means to ever recover these necessary attributes. It is permanently defective. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and where you are, its only going to get colder and darker. Your magisterium is not really "dormant," its dead.

Drew 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 11, 2018, 03:14:50 PM
Does the Magisterium go "dormant" when a pope dies?

Even if I were to grant you this inaccurate use of terminology that is misleading, there remains a huge difference between a "dormant" magisterium when a pope dies and the "dormant" magisterium of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism.  In the former, the material means and the instrumental means to correct the situation remains in place. They simply elect another pope. For sedevacantism/sedeprivationism it is gone forever. It is not "dormant," it is dead. Dead and gone.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 11, 2018, 03:36:18 PM

Quote from: Cantarella on Today at 02:37:05 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg603734/#msg603734)
Quote
And you know those are dogmas because the Infallible Magisterium of the Church told you so. It's that simple.

Otherwise, you would not know them.

No kidding?  It has been repeated several times already, but how about once more.  The Magisterium is the insufficient but necessary material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma.  God is the formal cause and the final cause of Dogma.  Without the Magisterium, which is one of the necessary means, the end, that is, Dogma, would not be produced.  "It's that simple."


Drew

Yes, simply ends and means, with the Magisterium the necessary means. 

You would think people who believe water baptism is a necessary means for the end of salvation would easily comprehend this. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 11, 2018, 06:07:28 PM
You keep saying that as if you were in actual communion with the Pope of Rome you recognize.

Has it never occurred to you, that if Francis is indeed the Roman Pontiff, your situation before God may actually be more precarious than mine? For, at least, in my current reasoning, there is an actual impostor usurping the Seat of Peter whom I owe absolutely no obedience or submission. As a Roman Catholic, I am completely aware of my duties towards the Pope, not towards the impostor. Whereas you, fully recognizing and knowing in your intellect who the Vicar of Christ on earth is, still obstinately refuse to render him due obedience and personal submission to His God-given authority.

This has been, throughout history, the quintessential mark of the heretic.

I have no more problem with Pope Francis than the “man born blind” in the Gospel had with the high priest.  I will not follow Francis in the corruption of the faith just as the “man born blind” did not follow the Pharisees in the denial of Jesus Christ.  The “man born blind” did not fail in submission to legitimate authority, and he did not obey that legitimate authority when that authority commanded things outside their competency. 
 
As “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; for they say, and do not” (Matt 23:1-3). Here, Jesus is speaking to His “disciples.”  So you would claim the “man born blind” while “recognizing and knowing in his intellect” who was sitting on the Chair of Moses, “obstinately refused to render them due obedience and personal submission to their God-given authority”? 
 
When everything is said and done, even if I were to grant any merits to your arguments, I can only be accused of disobedience to the pope while you have no pope to be, or not to be obedient to.  And you will never get one because the church you now belong to has no pope, has no material means or instrumental means to ever get one, therefore you have no magisterium, you have no rule of faith.  So, in the final analysis, I have to answer for only the possible sin of disobedience which is morally governed by several mitigating or exculpating conditions.  You on the on the other hand, will have no excuses whatsoever.  You have no pope to render submission and you will never have one. 
 
By the way, the “quintessential mark of the heretic” is the denial of dogma.  Such as the dogma that there will be perpetual successors in the chair of Peter until the consummation of the world. 
 
Lastly, rational arguments do not make anyone a Catholic.  They may help overcome rational doubts but ultimately it is a work of grace that converts anyone. The problem then with rational arguments to those who reject grace is that it leads to hardening of the heart because they know at the bottom of everything they are living a lie. The conscience has to be suffocated.
 
I can guarantee that the road you are traveling on will end in ruin. It necessarily leads to the denial of Dogma.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 11, 2018, 06:14:48 PM
You also keep saying this but it is because you do not understand that, at least in Sedeprivationism, those who are legally designated to ecclesiastical offices (in the College of Cardinals, for example) still preserve their legal designation until this designation is taken away from them by competent authority. They keep the right of designating or nominating therefore, even when they lose their authority or jurisdiction. In other words, possible electors of the pope still remain.  

This merely material continuity is able to indefinitely continue, to the extent that the conclaves intend to elect a pope and that those elected intend to nominate electors.

The Cassisiacuм thesis focuses on the loss of Authority because of an impediment (namely, the habitual intention of doing harm to the Church); not the power of designation. The false popes can still designate electors and also bishops for the purpose of succeeding to sees of authority.

I will not repeat this to you again.  I know you do not believe it or perhaps even understand it.

The philosophical concept of hylomorphism, that a substantial being is a compound of form and matter, has been indirectly dogmatized.  This principle has been theologically incorporated into the Church’s sacramental theology and dogmatized at Trent.  You cannot deny the philosophical concept of substance as modernists do and keep the faith.  Sedeprivationism posits a separation of the form and matter of the papal office and thereby causes a substantial change in that office, which office, we know, by divine and Catholic faith, cannot change.
 
But again, you have rejected dogma as the rule of faith. When you reject Dogma as the rule of faith you have rejected any necessary truths that can be deduced from Dogma.  Your magisterium is permanently “dormant.” 
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 11, 2018, 06:55:04 PM
How is it inaccurate?

How is it gone forever?

It is inaccurate because the Magisterium does not ‘sleep’ when the pope dies.  The Magisterium is grounded upon the Church’s Attributes of Infallibility and Authority.  Therefore, the Magisterium is one thing.  Every pope from St. Peter to Pope Francis, when and if they engage the Magisterium, are engaging one and the same thing.  It can only be “dormant” in the sense that there is no person to engage the Magisterium until the next pope is elected and accepts the office.  But you could say the same thing even when you have a pope and he is not presently engaging the Magisterium but I just think there is a better way to accurately describe it. You wouldn’t call a sleeping man “blind” because his eyes are closed nor should you call the “teaching authority” of the Church “dormant” because it is not being engaged.  And anyway, we know by divine and Catholic faith that there will be “perpetual successors” in that office until the “consummation of the world.” 
 
Sedevacantism removes the pope from office on the grounds of heresy. They want to be the “lord of the harvest.” Having removed him, they have no means of replacing him. They like to refer to the conciliar popes as “anti-popes” but to have an anti-pope, you must have a real pope.  They have no pope and no material or instrumental means to ever get.  They do not even have the intent to get one.
 
Sedeprivationism destroys the papal office by positing a substantial change by fracturing its form and matter.  Two problems: firstly anyone can kill a person separating the soul from the body, but only God can restore a life. Sedeprivationists have no way to put the form and the matter back together again. The other problem is that we know by divine and Catholic faith that the office will continue as established by Jesus Christ until the “consummation of the world.”  What they posit is impossible.
 
Both are lacking the material means and the instrumental means to create a pope.  It necessarily ends in heresy, which the denial of dogma as the rule of faith. We can more accurately call it Humpty-Dumptyism where “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again.”
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 11, 2018, 07:53:14 PM
Cantarella,

Given that your position is that..

1. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
3. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.

.. what would you answer to the following questions?

A. Because a validly elected pope can not fall into heresy (#1), if ever we come across a pope that falls into heresy, it can only because he was never valid to start with. But since immediately after the election, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid or not (#2), the impediment that caused the election to be invalid must be a hidden or secret impediment. Can you give me an example of such a hidden impediment that causes a papal election to be invalid?

B. Since after the election of a Pope a Catholic may not be able to immediately determine whether the election was valid or not (#2), and since a Catholic must treat such a pope as valid (#3), do you believe that it is possible for the whole Church to follow an invalid pope?

Cantarella,

I haven't seen your answer to question A yet. I think this is an important question for you to think about, because I am not aware of any sedevacantist who believes that a secret heretic loses Church membership. And if secret heresy does not cause a Catholic to lose his Church membership, what secret impediment could possibly cause the election of a pope to be "secretly" invalid?

In other words, I think you will have to rethink your answer to #1 and #2 and change at least one of them, preferably both imho.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 12, 2018, 05:33:41 AM
Please just stop.  You can't even understand English words like "Revelation" ... and it goes downhill from there.  So you're going to lecture +Guerard des Laurier with his degrees and qualifications in philosophy and theology as if he were some idiotic kindergarden student who doesn't understand basic concepts like this.  Matter and Form are Philosophy 101 ... and +Guerard is supposed to have made such an egregious blunder?  There are no words for your hubris.  Even I can easily dispatch your ignorance.  I'll do so tomorrow when I have more time.
+Guerard des Laurier 1898-1988
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 12, 2018, 01:32:21 PM
If "Dogma" was indeed your rule of Faith, instead of a name given to a personal construct of yours to reject legitimate authority, then you would know that comparing the Pope of Rome, the Vicar of Christ on earth, to a Scribe and a Pharisee, is nothing less than blasphemy.

In the old good times of the Holy Inquisition, you would not have been able to getaway with this belief.

In the "good old times" of the Holy Inquisition, would you be able to get away with saying that the pope is not the Pope? 

As I have said previously, the man elected to and sitting on the Chair of Peter is not divine, as you seem to think he is supposed to be. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 12, 2018, 02:04:06 PM
Please keep in mind that in Sedeprivationism, the elections are considered valid. This must be so, to insure there is continuity (at least materially) of the Papal office. The thesis only concerns itself with the external manifestation of the habitual intention of doing harm to the Church; no the secret impediment, so whether the heresy is material or formal, it does not matter. As Pope Leo XIII taught in the encyclical Apostolicae Curae,"The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it".

We know that it is impossible that the authentic Vicar of Christ on earth, when engaging either the Extraordinary Solemn Magisterium of the Church (ex-cathedra papal pronouncements), or the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (teaching in union with the Bishops of the world, either dispersed or gathered, which Vatican II Council falls into this second category at the very least) teaches something against the Faith, against an already revealed doctrine.

That is how we can tell.

You dodged the question, but the contradiction in your position remains.

If you believe #1 and #2 of your stated position..

1. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
3. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.

.. then it logically follows that you believe there must have been a secret impediment which caused the election of the pope to be secretly invalid, i.e. at the time of his election. We're not talking about the manifestation of this impediment, we're only talking about "what is", and "why it is". If you are unable to name me one example of a secret impediment, in other words, if there is no such thing as a secret impediment which secretly invalidates a papal election, then at least one of your premises must be wrong, and possibly both. Which one(s)?

So, we're not even considering intention/guilt, or material/formal heresy. All we are talking about here is public vs secret heresy. Shifting towards sedeprivationism will make that problem only worse. You will simply have to deal with the contradiction and change some of your premises, sooner or later.

PS: Please, rethink your position sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the deeper you will dig in and the harder it will be to get back on track.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 12, 2018, 03:32:17 PM
You dodged the question, but the contradiction in your position remains.

If you believe #1 and #2 of your stated position..

1. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
3. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.

.. then it logically follows that you believe there must have been a secret impediment which caused the election of the pope to be secretly invalid, i.e. at the time of his election. We're not talking about the manifestation of this impediment, we're only talking about "what is", and "why it is". If you are unable to name me one example of a secret impediment, in other words, if there is no such thing as a secret impediment which secretly invalidates a papal election, then at least one of your premises must be wrong, and possibly both. Which one(s)?

So, we're not even considering intention/guilt, or material/formal heresy. All we are talking about here is public vs secret heresy. Shifting towards sedeprivationism will make that problem only worse. You will simply have to deal with the contradiction and change some of your premises, sooner or later.

PS: Please, rethink your position sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the deeper you will dig in and the harder it will be to get back on track.

It is interesting (and quite telling) to see two down votes already.

If there is something wrong with my reasoning, then why not say so? If not, then I can only assume that those two down votes came from people who don't like the conclusion, i.e. based on "feelings" rather than on "thinking". It only confirms my opinion of the (lack of) integrity of the vast majority of sedes, and of the reason why so many people fall for sedevacantism. Even the staunch sedevacantist John Daly admitted that most sedevacantists hold that opinion not because they understand it, but because it "feels" better.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 12, 2018, 03:44:48 PM
It is interesting (and quite telling) to see two down votes already.

If there is something wrong with my reasoning, then why not say so? If not, then I can only assume that those two down votes came from people who don't like the conclusion, i.e. based on "feelings" rather than on "thinking". It only confirms my opinion of the (lack of) integrity of the vast majority of sedes, and of the reason why so many people fall for sedevacantism. Even the staunch sedevacantist John Daly admitted that most sedevacantists hold that opinion not because they understand it, but because it "feels" better.
What the hell are you on about? Sedevacantists don't believe a valid Pope cannot become a heretic. Well maybe some do, but it's not an axiom for the position. What sedevacantists believe is that a heretic cannot be a elected Pope, and that a heretic cannot be Pope(so if the Pope becomes a heretic, he stops being Pope automatically). Both those axioms are Catholic doctrines.

Cantarella's positions have nothing to do with sedevacantism. In fact, she contradicts sedevacantism when she says "those who are legally designated to ecclesiastical offices (in the College of Cardinals, for example) still preserve their legal designation until this designation is taken away from them by competent authority".

Stop trying to conflate opposites. It doesn't do you any favours.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 12, 2018, 03:50:25 PM
What the hell are you on about? Sedevacantists don't believe a valid Pope cannot become a heretic. Well maybe some do, but it's not an axiom for the position. What sedevacantists believe is that a heretic cannot be a elected Pope, and that a heretic cannot be Pope(so if the Pope becomes a heretic, he stops being Pope automatically). Both those axioms are Catholic doctrines.
Cantarella's positions have nothing to do with sedevacantism. In fact, she contradicts sedevacantism when she says "those who are legally designated to ecclesiastical offices (in the College of Cardinals, for example) still preserve their legal designation until this designation is taken away from them by competent authority".

Stop trying to conflate opposites. It doesn't do you any favours.

Cantarella's position is that "the pope is not the pope". If that is not sedevacantism, then tell me, what is?

What you are fussing about is not the conclusion, but the many false paths that lead to the same false conclusion: sedevacantism.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 12, 2018, 04:01:41 PM
Cantarella's position is that "the pope is not the pope". If that is not sedevacantism, then tell me, what is?

What you are fussing about is not the conclusion, but the many false paths that lead to the same false conclusion: sedevacantism.
No, Cantarella believes they have to be deposed. She's a sedeprivationist. Sedevacantism means there is no Pope now. Her positions are entirely incompatible with that belief. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 12, 2018, 04:10:44 PM
No, Cantarella believes they have to be deposed. She's a sedeprivationist. Sedevacantism means there is no Pope now. Her positions are entirely incompatible with that belief.

Sedeprivationists believe the pope is only a material pope, but that he is not formally the pope.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

As I said, sedeprivationism is just one of the many flavors of sedevacantism.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 12, 2018, 04:14:34 PM
Sedeprivationists believe the pope is only a material pope, but that he is not formally the pope.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

As I said, sedeprivationism is just one of the many flavors of sedevacantism.
True - I started  just calling it sedeism or sedewhateverism a few months ago for that reason.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 12, 2018, 04:24:11 PM

Quote
If there is something wrong with my reasoning, then why not say so?
You're asking a group of individuals whose view on the current papal crisis was duct-taped together by 'piecemeal logic' to explain their view in a systematic and complete way.  Not going to happen.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 12, 2018, 04:49:24 PM
Sedeprivationists believe the pope is only a material pope, but that he is not formally the pope.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

As I said, sedeprivationism is just one of the many flavors of sedevacantism.
Her position still contradicts the sedevacantist position and the flaws you found in her position do not apply to ours.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 12, 2018, 05:05:52 PM
Her position still contradicts the sedevacantist position and the flaws you found in her position do not apply to ours.

Oh my, she'll be an outcast on both sides then.. :D
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 13, 2018, 08:13:32 AM
You're asking a group of individuals whose view on the current papal crisis was duct-taped together by 'piecemeal logic' to explain their view in a systematic and complete way.  Not going to happen.  
what crisis is there if the Popes are valid as you believe?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 13, 2018, 02:54:05 PM
The secret impediment could be that the elected is actually a mason or a marrano, and therefore an enemy of the Faith who has the intention to do harm.

For all other ecclesiastical offices, a freemason or any other person is deprived of his position by due canonical process. When it comes to the Pope however, there is no such process. That is why the Thesis doesn't waste time focusing on "proving" formal heresy or appealing to canon 288, etc. because it is a dogma of the Faith that the Roman Pontiff is above Canon law and can be judged by no one on earth. (Unam Sanctam)

A legal declaration to remove then, not the Pope; but the impostor from office would be necessary eventually, declaring the fact that he never had the pontificate. However, the Thesis teaches that Catholics do not have to wait for such a declaration to occur in order to separate themselves from the false pope, once they are able to recognize him.

Can you please clarify:

1. Do you believe a Catholic who secretly becomes a freemason still remains a member of the Church, despite his secret lodge membership?

2. In general, do you believe that a member of the Church can be at the same time an enemy of the Faith?

3. Why did you say that your thesis does not need to focus on proving formal heresy? What does it focus on then? What did you focus on with regards to the Vatican II popes?

4. You seem to grant "all other ecclesiastical offices" the benefit of a "due canonical process", but you deny such benefit to the papacy. At the same time you claim that someone needs to issue a legal declaration to remove the imposter Pope. So you are advocating a declaration without due canonical process, and this for the one you claim is above Canon Law?! It sounds to me like being "above Canon Law" in practice means being "below Canon Law", as in "we cannot put him on trial, but we can declare his conviction". In other words, "we cannot put him on trial, so let's skip the trial and simply declare his conviction." Did I understand this correctly?

5. Do you believe Pius XII was a valid pope? (I have a reason for asking)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 13, 2018, 07:51:47 PM
1. Yes. The association to the lodge must be public in order to incur automatic excommunication. I believe in the case of the impostor, he never held the Catholic Faith to begin with. But was a freemason from the beginning. If it is secret, well... nobody knows but God.

2. Yes, because occult heretics are still considered visible members of the Church. "Occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope", says Bellarmine.

3. This has been explained several times. The loss of Authority occurs because of the habitual intention of the false pope to do harm to the Church and the external manifestation of heresy. How do we know that there was an impostor?  The indication of the impostor usurping the Seat of Peter was the Magisterial contradiction happening in the setting of an Ecunemical Council on December 7, 1965 with the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae. That was the sign of the false pope because a true successor of St. Peter could not teach contra verdades (against the Faith) or harmful doctrines in a General Council.  

Also, this is not my Thesis, but that of Mons. Guerard Des Lauriers, highly respected Dominican theologian; advisor and confessor of Pope Pius XII.  

4. The impostor would be removed from office following due canonical process when dealing with heretics as stipulated in Canon 2315. There would be a process trial therefore, and a way to retract if the heretic abjures his heresy. The Thesis considers that this could be a possible solution to the Holy See vacancy, as well.  

5. Yes

Now I am really confused!

1. You believe that the pope who is an occult heretic remains a valid pope.

2. You believe that a publicly heretical pope was never a valid pope to begin with.

3. You do not believe that a validly elected pope can lose the faith and become a heretic.

So, how did we get a Paul VI? What are the options?

A. He was orthodox when elected pope. But according to #3 he could not lose the faith then. But he did lose the faith. So, this is not it.

B. He was an occult heretic when elected pope and went public afterwards. But according to #2 if he became a public heretic that can only be because he was never a valid pope to begin with. But according to #1 an occult heretic can still be a valid pope. So, this is not it.

C. He was a public heretic when elected, and therefore his election was invalid. Yet, there was not a single Catholic in the world who upon the election of Paul VI noticed his supposedly public heresy. And you yourself admitted anyway that his heresy became public only in 1965. So, this is not it.

Is there any other option left? What did I miss? How did we get to Paul VI?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 13, 2018, 08:09:33 PM
Samuel, you’re like Perry Mason with your precise questions.  Bravo.  

Cantarella, thank you for answering honestly.  I’ve yet to understand what you believe and these questions will hopefully explain it.  I’m fascinated. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 14, 2018, 02:06:31 AM
:facepalm:  Oh, for crying out loud, Drew.  Just look up "revelation" on Dictionary.com.  You'll notice that the FIRST definition is my usage, and the SECOND is yours.

Ladislaus,
 
You keep trying to lie your way out of an egregious error only to commit another egregious error.
 
You said repeatedly that the "the Magiserium was not part of divine revelation."  When confronted with the dogmatic truth that the Magisterium was part of the content of divine revelation, you shifted gears by claiming that you were making an obscure distinction between the (act of) revelation and the Magisterium.  Therefore, what you really meant to say is that "the Magisterium is not part (the act of) divine revelation."
 
Your second error is just as bad as your first.  Not only is the Magisterium part of the content of divine revelation, it is part of the act of divine revelation. Jesus Christ said to the Apostles, "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (John 14:26).  The Magisterium established by Jesus Christ was functioning in the act of revelation from the beginning. Furthermore, the act itself of revelation is an action.  The verb form is transitive.  The act of revelation requires both a revealer and a receiver of the revelation.  The content of revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle but the act of revelation will continue until the end of time or the last convert, whichever comes first.  The Magisterium is part of the act of revelation and has been from the first Pentecost.
 
Your claim now that the "Magisterium is not part of (the act of) divine revelation" is just a phony dissembling which digs a deeper hole.  Not once in any of you posts on the matter did you ever use the verb form to draw any distinctions between the act of revelation and the Magisterium.
 
Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 14, 2018, 02:10:44 AM
Please just stop.  You can't even understand English words like "Revelation" ... and it goes downhill from there.  So you're going to lecture +Guerard des Laurier with his degrees and qualifications in philosophy and theology as if he were some idiotic kindergarden student who doesn't understand basic concepts like this.  Matter and Form are Philosophy 101 ... and +Guerard is supposed to have made such an egregious blunder?  There are no words for your hubris.  Even I can easily dispatch your ignorance.  I'll do so tomorrow when I have more time.

Ladislaus,
 
The appeal to authority is the weakest of all arguments. 
 
One of the great benefits of reading articles by Fr. Joseph Fenton from AER is that he typically gives the historical background of a theological problem, defines the various schools of thought regarding the problem, and identifies the principle theologians in each school.  Not only are the weaknesses various schools of theological opinions exposed, Fr. Fenton reveals some very bad errors by famous theologians.  Such as, St. Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church, believed and taught that a non-baptized person who pretended to be a Catholic and thereby was accepted as a Catholic by the Catholic community, would by this fact be a member of the Church.  Fr. Fenton said that this error was buried by Pope Pius XII.  Regarding membership in the Church, Fr. Fenton said of the great Jesuit, Rev. Francisco Suárez, that his opinions on Church membership were not shared by anyone and died with him.  
 
So what can you say about Guérard des Lauriers, O.P.? As bright as he was, he did not hold dogma as his rule of faith.  I know of no evidence that he ever said anything about the case of Fr. Feeney when the literal meaning of dogma was set aside.  In the Ottaviani Intervention, no appeal was made to dogma in defense of our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, or in particular, the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass that the Church has always held to be of Apostolic tradition.  He like Archbishop Lefebvre considered the Mass a purely a matter of Church discipline which is a grave error and has had a crippling effect in the defense the traditional Mass.
 
Guérard des Lauriers thesis postulates the substantial change in the papal office, a visible material being, which we know by divine and Catholic faith (i.e.: DOGMA) cannot happen. Sedevacantism and sedeprivationism both lead to heresy but sedeprivationism is more destructive because of the fact that the cleavage of the form and matter necessarily cause a substantial change in all material beings.
 
So, since your "Magisterium is dormant" and therefore, your rule of faith dormant, are left with becoming a des Lauriersist for your rule of faith?
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 14, 2018, 02:34:04 AM
None of these quotes actually refer to "Dogma" as the rule of faith. They do not teach what you think it does.

The Rule of Faith for Catholics is the Infallible Magisterium, the teaching Church.


Even the quote you provided from Constantinople IV, disprove you:

It has already been explained that the words "canons" and "decrees" have been used in different ways throughout history, either referring to those teachings which are dogmatic or those which are disciplinary in nature.

It is the teaching Church throughout the ages, (having the assistance of the Holy Ghost and with the successor of St. Peter as the head), and not the canon itself, which is the Rule of faith.

And I am going add here that if you have no problem in comparing the successor of St. Peter to the scribe and Pharisee of the Scripture, is because you lack complete Catholic understating of the significance of the Papal office for the Church, and how this Office relates to "Dogma" to begin with.

Cantarella,

The "dogma" is not used in the first millennial council docuмents but you are mistaken if you do not think that the references provided are not directly referring to articles of "divine and Catholic faith" as their rule of faith.  We call articles of "divine and Catholic faith" dogmas.

A strong proof that dogma is the proximate rule of faith is the definition of heresy. I did not explain it any further in previous posts because this is not an argument but rather a definition. I think if you look from the perspective of heresy it may be easier to see. An excerpt taken from the 1907 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading of "heresy":
 

Quote
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jєωs; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church.
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907

 
Heresy is "the corruption of dogmas" while "the right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching." These "teachings" are found in "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church." What the Church, by her "teaching authority" (i.e.: Magisterium) "proposes to our belief" is called Dogma.  Those who keep Dogmas and do not corrupt them are called  the faithful, those who do corrupt them are called heretics. 
 
This difference represents a clear division in the "Tree of Porphyry."  It is the division that establishes a species from a genus.  As the article points out, "The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith." Heresy and faith have the same object, that is, "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church" which is the total of divine revelation. The heretic breaks the rule of faith, the faithful keep it.  This establishes that Dogma is the rule of faith not by argument but by fact of an essential definition which is the best of all types of definition. The Magisterium is necessary but insufficient means by which we know Dogma, but it is the Dogma itself which is known.  It is the what that we know and therefore the rule of faith.  If you exchange "Magisterium" for Dogma, even though the Magisterium has the same objects, there cannot be a clear distinctive division because there exists no species in the genus of Magisterium, the "teaching authority" of the Church, excepting only in the case where the Magisterium itself is treated as a dogma like every other dogma, then those who reject the "teaching authority" constituted by God in His Church are just another kind of heretic.
 
So where is your magisterium right now which you call your rule of faith? Ladislaus and you agree that the "Magisterium is dormant" which can only mean that you have no rule of faith in the sense that it is not there, or if there, it cannot be located, or if can be located, cannot be accessed. Sedevacantism and sedeprivationism can only means by this that there is no one who can possibly engage the Magisterium (i.e.: the teaching authority) of the Church. Is it possible that the "rule of faith" could become "dormant" in the sense that the material means and the instrumental means to revive it are gone? And even if you postulate that it is not "gone," it is no longer perceptible. That it can no longer be apprehended.
 
Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 14, 2018, 02:48:38 AM
Samuel, you’re like Perry Mason with your precise questions.  Bravo.  

Cantarella, thank you for answering honestly.  I’ve yet to understand what you believe and these questions will hopefully explain it.  I’m fascinated.

Samuel,

I agree with Pax. It is worthwhile to expose the mass of contradictions with sedevacantism and sedeprivationism.  When pressed for explicit answers for dates, times and places of what would be historic events you get a different answer from all of them.  They elevate theological opinion to dogma and relegated dogma to theological opinion. Dogma is suitable to overthrow the Magisterium, but not suitable enough to be their rule of faith. When dogma offends their theories, the Magisterium becomes their rule of faith but, since its already put to sleep, nothing left to worry about.

Keep it up. You may not even get the same answer twice from the same person.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 14, 2018, 04:19:55 PM
Mr. Drew,

The bottomline is that Catholics are not allowed to reject the decrees of an Ecunemical Council "in the name of Dogma", without falling into the Tridentine dogmatically condemned error which you never addressed.

Also, it is an unquestionable sign of being poorly grounded upon the Faith, to believe that it is possible that a General Council ratified by the sucessor of St. Peter, (and therefore representing the Universal Church and having the assistance of the Holy Ghost), can actively teach heresy to all faithful.

If Francis is indeed Pope, then there is no other option for you but to return to being in full communion with him. And if you happen to prefer the "Extraordinary" form of the Mass as a matter of choice, then you need to attend a Mass offered by the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, or a diocesan priest who offers the Mass "in Latin".

Also, the Church does not promulgate evil or defective rites, so you are not allowed to think of the Novus Ordo rite promulgated by Paul VI (if he was indeed Pope), as an an invalid, impious, sacrilegious, schismatic. etc. form of the Mass. If you do, then you are an Anathema as per infallible condemnation of Trent:

You are allowed to "prefer" the Latin Mass over the Novus Ordo, sure, if it is more appealing to your taste; but you need to accept that if Paul VI was Pope, both ecclesiastical rites are valid and therefore, pleasing to God. You cannot say otherwise. I would hope you are fully aware of that, given your preoccupation with "Dogma".

Cantarella,

You have boxed yourself in with set of presuppositions that are not true.  It is you who hold the Magisterium as the rule of faith; you believe that Vatican II, as an ecuмenical council must be necessarily an act of the Magisterium and therefore infallible, and therefore must be accepted in all its decrees without exception. The whole problem is further confounded by your belief that the pope possess a personal "never-failing faith" and cannot be a heretic or support heresy. Mix this in with your belief that the Attribute of Indefectibility means that the pope possesses an non-infallible infallibility in all his authentic ordinary magisterium acts and you are stuck with the pope as your rule of faith. I know that you say it's the "Magisterium" but not in practice, because the pope is the holder of the key to the Magisterium, he becomes the rule of faith by default.
 
Once saddled with this baggage,  you look to dogma, [that you really have no right to do because it is not your rule of faith as Ladislaus characterized this as "private judgment"] and conclude that Vatican II taught error therefore the pope cannot be the pope, the council cannot be a council. From this point the imagination takes over and constructs theories on how the papal election must have been fraudulent, not once but repeatedly for Sedeprivationists. It is simpler for Sedevacantists who admit the possibility of a heretical pope and remove him for his manifest crime. All of this really distills down to holding the pope as the rule of faith. You have no grounds not to return to the Novus Ordo religion because, if the Magisterium is the rule of faith, they can make it up as they go along. That is what happened to Fr. Feeney. They first undermined the authority of dogma by changing the definitions of terms, and then by moving dogma from the category of truth/falsehood to the category of authority/obedience, they introduce every condition that modifies the duty of obedience to excuse from conforming to revealed truth.  When the dust settled, dogma was relegated to anything the "magisterium" said it meant and we got salvation by implicit desire.  Even luminaries such as Fr. Joseph Fenton and Fr. Garrigou- Lagrange went along with this corruption.  All of this was just the preamble for Vatican II.  Without dogma as a ground or dogma as a goal, it became a free flight of fantasy.
 
I have seen several cases where sedevacantists return to the Novus Ordo religion.  It happens because the entire structure becomes involved in a mass of contradictions that are incompatible with articles of "divine and Catholic faith."  There is no agreement on any of the moral qualificators of the crime: who, what, when, where, how, and to what extent. They end up returning and trying to work their way through the hermeneutic of continuity.
 
I don't accept any of these presuppositions. I hold dogma as my proximate rule of faith and follow the norms of Catholic morality in forming a true and certain conscience that I try to faithfully follow.
St. Pius X said:

Quote
“They (the modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority.  But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those ‘who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church’; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: ‘We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.’ Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: ‘I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church’”
St. Pius X, Pascendi

I deny that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are just matters of mere discipline but hold that they are necessary attributes of the faith by which is can be known and communicated to others.
 
The Novos Ordo Missae is rejected on the same grounds.  The "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" is a Dogma incorporated in the Tridentine profession of faith and reaffirmed at Vatican I.  No pope possesses the right to invent a Novus Ordo and no Catholic is obligated to accept it. Furthermore, no pope possesses the authority to command anything contrary to the virtue of Religion.
 

Quote
“If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed to other new rites by any church pastor whomsoever : let him be anathema”(emphasis mine) (Council of Trent, Den. 856).

The canon you cite, "the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses" is referring to the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments." It is the "received and approved rites" that cannot be "incentives to impiety."
 
Regarding the authority of Vatican II, the attribute of Infallibility belongs to the Church. If the pope wants to engage this power he must do so with intent to define a revealed doctrine of Catholic faith and/or morals. This essential quality was wholly absent from Vatican II which as Canon Hesse said had the nature of a extraordinary synod at best. It was not present before, during or after the Council. Because I hold Dogma as my rule of faith, I am at liberty to reject anything that is proposed that in any way contradicts an "article of divine and Catholic Faith," that is Dogma.  It is because I adhere to Dogma that I reject any novelty from Vatican II such as Religious Liberty that posits a belief that human nature is so exalted that no one is obligated to believe what their Creator has revealed or obey His commandments. It necessarily leads to the corruption of Catholic morality and the overturning of Dogma. 
 
Every Catholic is morally obligated to inform and follow his conscience.  A properly formed conscience should be both true and certain before every act.  Once a conscience is thought to be, not necessarily be but only believed to be true and certain, a Catholic is obligated to follow it.  If this places a Catholic in a state of fixed objective disobedience to the current hierarchy, he is obligated to justify his disobedience and the hierarchy is obligated to address any legitimate grounds offered. 
 
For the last 15 years that is what I have done. There are over 50 Open Letters posted on Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission web page from Fr. Waters and myself to local ordinaries and Rome and their replies.  I as a Catholic have a right to a definitive judgment from the Chair of Peter on the questions of faith and morals placed before them.  This right is affirmed by Lyons II and Vatican I. Every right imposes a reciprocal obligation. I have placed before Rome everyone of the presuppositions you carry in a back-pack demanding a solemn judgment on the matter. They have provided no answer beyond the 1989 Profession of Faith. That is their one and only answer to every question of doctrine, morality, liturgy, and canon law.
 
No conciliar pope has actually engaged the Attribute of Infallibility of the Church to bind doctrinal or moral error. In the rare instances where the ordinary and universal magisterium has been engaged, such as John Paul II's appeal to the apostolic tradition of forbidding ordination of women, I have no problem accepting this teaching.  Have you ever wondered why none of these heretical popes have engaged the Attribute of Infallibility of the Church to bind doctrinal or moral error? Why this has not happened over the last 50 years in spite of controlling the entire Vatican apparatus?  This is the evidence of Indefectibility and the fact that their other corruptions of discipline, such as the Novus Ordo, have never been accepted by the universal Church. 
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on April 14, 2018, 04:45:02 PM
Quote
:facepalm:  Oh, for crying out loud, Drew.  Just look up "revelation" on Dictionary.com.  You'll notice that the FIRST definition is my usage, and the SECOND is yours.
Quote
noun
1.  the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.
2.  something revealed or disclosed, especially a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.

Is this like saying the declaration of Pope Pius IX of the Immaculate Conception is not part of divine revelation, but the Immaculate Conception is?

In other words, specific acts of the magisterium are not part of revelation, but the dogmas are.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 14, 2018, 08:24:02 PM
The Rule of Faith, is it Dogma or the Magisterium?

Let's start with the definition of the Rule of Faith:

The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. (New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm))

So, we're looking for the proximate and animate or living Rule of Faith. Whatever that rule is, what are it's necessary attributes?

1. It must be Divine and infallible. Private interpretation for example cannot be our Rule of Faith, because it is neither Divine nor infallible.

2. It must be proximate. In other words, we must have access to it, here and now. Whenever a dispute arises we must be able to go to our Rule of Faith to "measure" and settle the dispute.

3. It must be animate or living. What does that mean? Since Scripture and Tradition are called inanimate because they "cannot interpret themselves", we know that animate or living means that it must be able to interpret itself. In other words, if we don't understand what the Rule of Faith means, we must be able to ask that same Rule of Faith to further explain itself.

Let's apply these criteria to our two contenders, Dogma and the Magisterium. We'll start with Dogma.

1. Is Dogma Divine and infallible? Yes.

2. Is Dogma proximate? Yes, we all have access to all the dogmas of our Faith anytime we want to. (Except.. the first Christians..see further down!)

3. Is Dogma animate or living? No, since Dogma cannot interpret itself, for the same reason as Scripture and Tradition cannot interpret themselves.

So, I conclude that Dogma is NOT the proximate and animate Rule of Faith. At best, we can consider Dogma as part of Tradition, i.e part of the proximate and inanimate Rule of Faith.

What about the Magisterium?

1. Is the Magisterium Divine and infallible? Yes, although this is where the distinction must be made between the Extraordinare and Ordinary Magisterium on the one hand, and the Authentic Magisterium on the other. The former is indeed infallible and Divine, while the latter is not infallible and can therefore not be part of our Rule of Faith.

2. Is the Magisterium proximate? Yes, because the Church will always remain with us as Christ promised He will always remain with us. But just as during Christ's passion His humanity was disfigured and his Divinity thereby obscured or hidden, so also is in today's crisis of the Church the Authentic Magisterium so disfigured that it is obscuring or hiding the Ordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, the Infallible Magisterium remains proximate to those who are willing to see past appearances. We still have Catholic bishops who are willing to remain faithful to Tradition and teach what the Church has always and everywhere taught.

3. Is the Magisterium animate or living? Yes, because the Magisterium is able to interpret itself. Whenever a new dispute arises, the Magisterium does not add any new doctrines to Divine revelation (which it can't do), but it explains and settles the disputes that arise. The Magisterium cannot contradict itself, but it can interpret itself.

Therefore, I argue that the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary) is the proximate and living Rule of Faith for Catholics.

Further questions and arguments:

1. If you believe Dogma is the Rule of Faith, what about the first Christians then, what was their Rule of Faith? No Dogmas had been promulgated yet. But whenever a dispute arose they brought the matter before the Apostles, and especially before Peter who would settle the matter once and for all. Hence the saying, "Rome locuta, causa finita est".

2. Our Lord told the apostles to "go and teach", not to "go and distribute dogmas", and "whoever believes you believes Me, whoever rejects you rejects Me". So it makes sense that our proximate and living rule of Faith is the living Magisterium, who is the sole legitimate interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

3. What about all the truths of our faith which must be believed but which are not explicitly defined in dogmas? For example, "Doctrines of Ecclesiastical Faith" and "Truths of Divine Faith"? (see What are Theological Notes? (http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/what-are-theological-notes-28450)) They too must be believed with different levels of assent. And those who reject them without a sufficiently grave reason are likewise to be treated as bad Catholics or even "suspect of heresy".

4. As Fr. Berry and Cardinal Billot explain, not everyone who holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic, but rather he is a heretic who rejects the teaching authority of the Church. The former is a Catholic in error, but the latter is properly defined as a heretic, because he rejects the teaching authority of the Church, in other words, the Magisterium.

Important Note:

1. As I mentioned before, the error which leads either to Conciliarism or Sedevecantism is a failure to distinguish between the Extraordinary/Ordinary Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium.

2. The above is how I understand the teachings of the Church, but since I could be wrong, I subject everything I said to the Infallible Magisterium, who shall have the last word!  :)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 14, 2018, 10:00:56 PM
This is half an answer, at the most. I hope those in the fence with honest integrity can see it. You go around in circles getting into other topics irrelevant to the question in hand.  

First, you omit to respond how is it exactly that your position does not fall directly into this dogmatic Lutheran error # 29, infallibly condemned in the Council of Trent:


CONDEMNED:
I suspect it is because you know that from your position, you really do not have a credible way to say that Vatican II Council was NOT a Council of the Church. And considered not only a General synod, but an Ecunemical Council if that!. Mr. Hesse is plain wrong on that account. Vatican II Council is considered an Ecunemical Council of the Church; not a mere "extraordinary synod".

What is the crucial element which makes a Council Ecunemical? the approbation of the Pope of Rome. A General Council is only Ecunemical when the Roman Pontiff ratifies it. A general Council WITHOUT the Pope approval means nothing. It is a "extraordinary synod" at best, as Mr. Hesse suggests. That is why, under the sedevacantists theory, we can actually say that Vatican II Council was NOT an Ecunemical Council at all, because it lacks the papal approbation necessary to make it so, given that it was not a true Pope, but an impostor, who promulgated it.

Remember, the world - wide assembly of Bishops WITHOUT the Pope is NOT Infallible.

Cantarella,

You believe that an Ecuмenical council is always infallible. But if or when you detect an error in that same infallible council, you conclude that it cannot have been a real council because you detected an error. What in Heaven's name does infallibility mean to you then? Is it merely a label that YOU stick on if or when YOU have given YOUR approval? Sorry, Cantarella, that is not what infallibility means to a Catholic. At best this is a protestant fallacy.

Infallibility to a Catholic means this : give me a box full of doctrines, as long as it is wrapped in infallibility paper I will accept whatever is in that box, whether I like it or not.

Infallibility to you obviously means this: give me a box full of doctrines, whether wrapped in infallibility paper or not, if I open my present and I like it I will call it infallible, but if don't like what's in it I will reject the present as well as the one who gave it to me.

It is crazy!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 14, 2018, 10:30:05 PM
The Church does not contradict Herself, because God does not contradict Himself.

There are two highest vehicles for infallible truth: Papal ex-Cathedra pronouncements, and Ecunemical Councils. These two cannot teach AGAINST the Faith. If you find a contradiction in any of the 20 Ecunemical Councils approved by the Church, please let me know.  

If as a Roman Catholic, I cannot trust the Pope of Rome, the Vicar of Christ Himself, and I cannot longer trust the Ecunemical Councils of the Church either, then, only despair awaits for me. I may as well declare my Bible my Rule of Faith, which is Protestant.

The despair you mention is exactly like the despair of the Apostles immediately after the Passion and Crucifixion.

They failed to distinguish between Christ's humanity and His Divinity: "If Christ was truly God, then He would have never died on the cross, but since He did die on the cross, how can He really be God?"

Likewise, you refuse to distinguish between the Ordinary and the Authentic Magisterium. You erroneously believe that the Authentic Magisterium is infallible, so when it does err you believe it cannot be the Authentic Magisterium and you reject it.

The same obstinate mind block, the same resulting error to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Do you believe Vatican II should have been infallible? Prove it!

PS : Meanwhile, I'm still interested in hearing your explanation of how we got a Paul VI. Was he orthodox, an occult heretic or a public heretic at the time of his election?

PPS : Your answer, whether true or false, still does not solve the problem of your version of infallibility. It is not a Catholic version.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 14, 2018, 11:09:59 PM
Only an anti-Pope could promulgate VII Nostra Aetate.

But you also believe that..

1. ..the pope who is an occult heretic remains a valid pope.

2. ..a publicly heretical pope was never a valid pope to begin with.

3. ..a validly elected pope cannot lose the faith and become a heretic.

If you believe Paul VI was an anti-Pope, then his election must have been invalid according to #2 and #3.

But you admitted that his heresy only became public in 1965, which means that at best we can assume (but not prove) that his heresy was occult before that. But an occult heretic can still be pope according to #1.

Can you see the contradiction?

And since you believe that "the Church does not contradict Herself, because God does not contradict Himself", I argue that your theory is not according to the teaching of the Church. You must have made an error somewhere!

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 15, 2018, 12:35:38 AM
There is a misunderstanding in premise #1.

To the question:

I said yes, because occult heretics are still visible members of the Church. I quoted Bellarmine saying that "the Pope who is an occult heretic remains a valid Pope" and this would make sense because nobody knows his heresy but God.  

However, I personally believe that because the Pope's Faith is infallible and cannot fail (I have Catholic sources of the highest reputation to support this assertion), he cannot be an occult HERETIC to being with. Yes, the successor of St. Peter is still human and may imprudently err in private writings, perhaps have a sinful, even depraved life, but he cannot lose his Roman Catholic Faith because Our Lord prayed for it. Bellarmine himself accepts my reasoning as a pious belief.


I am presently on the opinion that we have been having no Catholics, but perfidious Jєωs for "Popes" since Vatican II Council.

But that makes matters only worse.

If Paul VI was not a public heretic (his heresy became only public in 1965), and he was not an occult heretic (otherwise he would not have lost the faith), he must have been an orthodox Catholic. Yet, you still maintain that he was an invalid pope right from the start. Which begs the question, why? Why was his election invalid if he was an orthodox Catholic?

This is why I asked what could possibly be this secret impediment that causes a papal election to be secretly invalid. You answered: The secret impediment could be that the elected is actually a mason or a marrano, and therefore an enemy of the Faith who has the intention to do harm.

I asked you to clarify: Do you believe a secret freemason (other than the pope) retains his ecclesiastical office, until he is found out and "deprived of his position" (i.e. deposed) by "due canonical process"?

To which you answered: Yes. The association to the lodge must be public in order to incur automatic excommunication. I believe in the case of the impostor, he never held the Catholic Faith to begin with. But was a freemason from the beginning. If it is secret, well... nobody knows but God.

So, are you saying that Paul VI was an orthodox Catholic freemason who never held the Catholic Faith to begin with? That sounds like a contradiction again!?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 15, 2018, 04:11:56 AM
There is a misunderstanding in premise #1.

To the question:

I said yes, because occult heretics are still visible members of the Church. I quoted Bellarmine saying that "the Pope who is an occult heretic remains a valid Pope" and this would still make sense because nobody knows his heresy but God, so there is no human way he loses office.  

However, I personally believe that because the Pope's Faith is infallible and cannot fail (I have Catholic sources of the highest reputation to support this assertion), he cannot be an occult HERETIC to being with. Yes, the successor of St. Peter is still human and may imprudently err in private writings, perhaps have a sinful, even depraved life, but he cannot lose his Roman Catholic Faith because Our Lord prayed for it. He cannot officially or judicially teach heretical error to the faithful either. You may as well become a Protestant if you believe this is even possible. Bellarmine himself accepts my reasoning as a pious belief.



I am presently on the opinion that we have been having no Catholics, but perfidious Jєωs for "Popes" since Vatican II Council.

I wonder whether I misread/misunderstood your answer. Let's try again. According to the first part of your answer, you believe that it is possible that:

1. Paul VI became a public heretic in 1965.
2. Therefore, he never was a valid pope to begin with.
3. The reason his papal election was invalid could be because he was an occult heretic at the time.
4. You admit that this is only your own opinion and that Bellarmine held the contrary opinion as more probable, i.e that occult heresy does not invalidate a papal election.

Is this correct?

But then according to the last sentence, you actually believe that Paul VI wasn't even a Catholic at all. He only pretended to be a Catholic, like a true marrano.

Is this correct?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 15, 2018, 06:51:00 AM
Now, it is most certainly true that even sedevacantists begin with their PRIVATE JUDGMENT that the V2 teachings are erroneous.  Based on the nature of this crisis, there's no getting out this.

But there's a reason why this is much more acceptable than the R&R use of private judgment.

HINT:  It has to do with the theological concept of "motives of credibility".
"Motives of Credibility" is right up there with your "Universal Discipline", "Canonical Submission", "Infallible Safety", "Fallible (in inconsequential matters) Magisterium" and at least a few other NO terms I can't recall at the moment . All are deemed infallible by you and the NO.  The difference between you and the NOers is, the NOers actually believe in those terms.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 15, 2018, 07:01:41 AM
When Drew keeps claiming that dogma is the proximate rule of faith, what Drew is saying is that Drew's interpretation of dogma is the proximate rule of faith, that his own private judgment is the proximate rule of faith.

You see this kind of thing ALL THE TIME here on CathInfo from the "as it is written" crowd like Stubborn.  Unfortunately, half the time the "as it is written" means that we are to assume Stubborn's misreading of what's written due to poor theological and reading-comprehension skills on his part.  But he keeps bloviating over and over again about how his reading of the dogma = dogma itself.  Same with Drew.  Drew's INTERPRETATION of dogma = dogma itself.
You do not comprehend the most fundamental truths of Catholic faith, so you have zero room to talk about others' theological reading comprehension.

You lost your ability to comprehend the fundamental and most basic of Catholic, theological truths when you took the Sanborn theological reading comprehension course - as you previously admitted (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/introduce-yourself!/msg61317/#msg61317): "Unfortunately, I got into that mindset under Father Sanborn, and that pretty much destroyed my vocation to the priesthood".
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 15, 2018, 10:43:18 AM
The despair you mention is exactly like the despair of the Apostles immediately after the Passion and Crucifixion.

They failed to distinguish between Christ's humanity and His Divinity: "If Christ was truly God, then He would have never died on the cross, but since He did die on the cross, how can He really be God?"

Likewise, you refuse to distinguish between the Ordinary and the Authentic Magisterium. You erroneously believe that the Authentic Magisterium is infallible, so when it does err you believe it cannot be the Authentic Magisterium and you reject it.

The same obstinate mind block, the same resulting error to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Do you believe Vatican II should have been infallible? Prove it!

PS : Meanwhile, I'm still interested in hearing your explanation of how we got a Paul VI. Was he orthodox, an occult heretic or a public heretic at the time of his election?

PPS : Your answer, whether true or false, still does not solve the problem of your version of infallibility. It is not a Catholic version.
If Ecuмenical Councils are not infallible, then we don't even know for sure if our Bibles are correct or if Christ is divine you silly fool. All solemn definitions given at Ecuмenical Councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. This is Church teaching. To deny this is to deny the Catholic Faith in its entirety, as you are then declaring that NOTHING the Church teaches is certain, and you merely rely on the Bible(which again wouldn't even be certain if you don't take Ecuмenical Councils as infallible) like some Protestant heretic. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 15, 2018, 12:44:25 PM

Quote
All solemn definitions given at Ecuмenical Councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible.

True, but V2 contained none.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 15, 2018, 01:18:04 PM
Absurd argument.  I don't really care what YOU "conclude", all Catholic theologians teach to the contrary.  Nice waste of time.  Every step of the way you're just making something up that sounds good to you.

Dogma is not PROXIMATE.  Otherwise people would never have gotten it wrong about the Immaculate Conception.  Otherwise there would never have been heresies in the Church and myriad heretical sects leaving the Church.

From the New Advent Encyclopedia:

Quote
Loss of faith
From what has been said touching the absolutely supernatural character of the gift of faith, it is easy to understand what is meant by the loss of faith. God's gift is simply withdrawn. And this withdrawal must needs be punitive, "Non enim deseret opus suum, si ab opere suo non deseratur" (St. Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 145 — "He will not desert His own work, if He be not deserted by His own work"). And when the light of faith is withdrawn, there inevitably follows a darkening of the mind regarding even the very motives of credibility which before seemed so convincing. This may perhaps explain why those who have had the misfortune to apostatize from the faith are often the most virulent in their attacks upon the grounds of faith; "Vae homini illi", says St. Augustine, "nisi et ipsius fidem Dominus protegat", i.e. "Woe be to a man unless the Lord safeguard his faith" (Enarration on Psalm 120).

Ladislaus, your mind is darkened. I was agreeing with you that the Magisterium is the Rule of Faith, but you are so absorbed in your "most virulent attacks" against just about everyone else that you didn't even realize it. You are rude, arrogant, proud and.. plain stupid. You should not be on this forum, and certainly not on this thread. You are a hindrance to people who are seriously interested in discussing their faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 15, 2018, 01:27:31 PM
If Ecuмenical Councils are not infallible, then we don't even know for sure if our Bibles are correct or if Christ is divine you silly fool. All solemn definitions given at Ecuмenical Councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. This is Church teaching. To deny this is to deny the Catholic Faith in its entirety, as you are then declaring that NOTHING the Church teaches is certain, and you merely rely on the Bible(which again wouldn't even be certain if you don't take Ecuмenical Councils as infallible) like some Protestant heretic.

Can you please explain to this "silly fool", when an Ecuмenical Council teaches that "nothing in this council is infallible", was that an infallible teaching?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 15, 2018, 02:51:44 PM
The Rule of Faith, is it Dogma or the Magisterium?

Let's start with the definition of the Rule of Faith:

The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. (New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm))

So, we're looking for the proximate and animate or living Rule of Faith. Whatever that rule is, what are it's necessary attributes?

1. It must be Divine and infallible. Private interpretation for example cannot be our Rule of Faith, because it is neither Divine nor infallible.

2. It must be proximate. In other words, we must have access to it, here and now. Whenever a dispute arises we must be able to go to our Rule of Faith to "measure" and settle the dispute.

3. It must be animate or living. What does that mean? Since Scripture and Tradition are called inanimate because they "cannot interpret themselves", we know that animate or living means that it must be able to interpret itself. In other words, if we don't understand what the Rule of Faith means, we must be able to ask that same Rule of Faith to further explain itself.

Let's apply these criteria to our two contenders, Dogma and the Magisterium. We'll start with Dogma.

1. Is Dogma Divine and infallible? Yes.

2. Is Dogma proximate? Yes, we all have access to all the dogmas of our Faith anytime we want to. (Except.. the first Christians..see further down!)

3. Is Dogma animate or living? No, since Dogma cannot interpret itself, for the same reason as Scripture and Tradition cannot interpret themselves.

So, I conclude that Dogma is NOT the proximate and animate Rule of Faith. At best, we can consider Dogma as part of Tradition, i.e part of the proximate and inanimate Rule of Faith.

What about the Magisterium?

1. Is the Magisterium Divine and infallible? Yes, although this is where the distinction must be made between the Extraordinare and Ordinary Magisterium on the one hand, and the Authentic Magisterium on the other. The former is indeed infallible and Divine, while the latter is not infallible and can therefore not be part of our Rule of Faith.

2. Is the Magisterium proximate? Yes, because the Church will always remain with us as Christ promised He will always remain with us. But just as during Christ's passion His humanity was disfigured and his Divinity thereby obscured or hidden, so also is in today's crisis of the Church the Authentic Magisterium so disfigured that it is obscuring or hiding the Ordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, the Infallible Magisterium remains proximate to those who are willing to see past appearances. We still have Catholic bishops who are willing to remain faithful to Tradition and teach what the Church has always and everywhere taught.

3. Is the Magisterium animate or living? Yes, because the Magisterium is able to interpret itself. Whenever a new dispute arises, the Magisterium does not add any new doctrines to Divine revelation (which it can't do), but it explains and settles the disputes that arise. The Magisterium cannot contradict itself, but it can interpret itself.

Therefore, I argue that the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary) is the proximate and living Rule of Faith for Catholics.

Further questions and arguments:

1. If you believe Dogma is the Rule of Faith, what about the first Christians then, what was their Rule of Faith? No Dogmas had been promulgated yet. But whenever a dispute arose they brought the matter before the Apostles, and especially before Peter who would settle the matter once and for all. Hence the saying, "Rome locuta, causa finita est".

2. Our Lord told the apostles to "go and teach", not to "go and distribute dogmas", and "whoever believes you believes Me, whoever rejects you rejects Me". So it makes sense that our proximate and living rule of Faith is the living Magisterium, who is the sole legitimate interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

3. What about all the truths of our faith which must be believed but which are not explicitly defined in dogmas? For example, "Doctrines of Ecclesiastical Faith" and "Truths of Divine Faith"? (see What are Theological Notes? (http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/what-are-theological-notes-28450)) They too must be believed with different levels of assent. And those who reject them without a sufficiently grave reason are likewise to be treated as bad Catholics or even "suspect of heresy".

4. As Fr. Berry and Cardinal Billot explain, not everyone who holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic, but rather he is a heretic who rejects the teaching authority of the Church. The former is a Catholic in error, but the latter is properly defined as a heretic, because he rejects the teaching authority of the Church, in other words, the Magisterium.

Important Note:

1. As I mentioned before, the error which leads either to Conciliarism or Sedevecantism is a failure to distinguish between the Extraordinary/Ordinary Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium.

2. The above is how I understand the teachings of the Church, but since I could be wrong, I subject everything I said to the Infallible Magisterium, who shall have the last word!  :)


Samuel,
 
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Furthermore, unless traditional Catholics understand this essential principle, there can be no defending of the faith.
 
Your post is a nice review of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry but offers nothing new. This is where Ladislaus began his argument using this article as his authority. This is where Ladislaus got the idea that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to the faith and therefore, he claimed, that "the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation."  Unfortunately for Ladislalus, he cannot get beyond this first error and nothing can profitably be discussed with him.
 
The articles in the Encyclopedia are only as good as the person making the entry. The members of the board assembling the Encyclopedia are not competent in every field and look to other experts to write on specific subjects. Earlier in this thread I commented on the entry, "Tradition and Living Magisterium" by Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J. who is the author of Is There Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church? This heretical book is still published and referenced by Catholic authors today. It is still passed around though even Fr. Joseph Fenton, since Pope Pius XII declared that the "Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church," considered Bainvel's radical separation of the soul and body of the Church as untenable. Bainvel posits that anyone untied to the "soul" of the Church is saved including Jєωs, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc., by being good Jєωs, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc. Every single Dogma touching upon what is necessary for salvation is ignored or taken in a merely metaphorical sense. The seed of his doctrine are evident in hindsight in his encyclopedic entry.
 
The Bainvel article in the Encyclopedia is important because it demonstrates the heresy of Neo-Modernism and how it works. 
 
The first thing that needs to be understood it is the heresy of Neo-modernism and how does it differ from Modernism? This link offers a good introduction and is worth reading for those who do not know this essential difference:
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html
 
Basically, Modernism and Neo-modernism have the same subject, divine revelation, and the same object, the destruction of dogma, but differ in methodology.  Modernism denies dogma in its very nature. St. Pius X in Pascendi, in Lamentabili, and the Oath Against Modernism, uses the word "dogma" and its cognates over 50 times in his effort to defend dogma in its very nature. After St Pius X the Modernists simply changed their methods but not their ends. Neo-modernism attacks dogma indirectly by 1) changing the definition of words, 2) by altering categorical propositions to conditional ones, and 3) (most importantly) by moving dogmatic definitions from the category of truth/falsehood to the category of authority/obedience and then applying all the moral qualifications that excuse from obedience to excuse from submitting to divinely revealed truth. Neo-modernist posit a fundamental disjunction between the truth of dogma and its linguistic formulation. They consider the language as only an approximation of truth, therefore, dogma must go through a never ending process of reformulations to progressively distill the truth from the human accretions.
 
Bainvel does this in his article on "Tradition and Living Magisterium" in the Catholic Encyclopedia by firstly redefining the meaning of "living magisterium." The Magisterium is living only in the sense that a living pope holds the Magisterial keys to access the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility of the Church, and it is living in the sense that divine revelation is the subject of dogma which is the revelation of a "living God." For Bainvel and all Neo-modernists, the "living" refers primarily to the content of divine revelation that progresses through an organic development of constant changes within a form. For Neo-modernists, dogma cannot be the rule of faith because dogma must constantly progress. For Neo-modernists, the "Magisterium" is the rule of faith because it must constantly update dogmatic definitions that never reach their term.
 

This is what Ladislaus really believes. He has posted that no Catholic has any right to interpret Dogma. He calls a Catholic who takes Dogma literally a "Protestant" because he is engaging in "private interpretation."  A Catholic therefore must always return to the Magisterium to find out what the current meaning of any Catholic teaching happens to be. It is axiomatic for all Neo-modernists that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium. For Ladislaus he must necessarily be either a sedeprivationist/sedevacantist or return to the Novus Ordo religion to work his way through the hermeneutics of continuity.   
 
Vatican II was Neo-modernist council from the opening bell where Pope John XXIII announce that truths of our faith were one thing and how they are expressed another. The purpose of the Council was to update these expressions. This fundamental principle has been repeated by every single conciliar pope. Fr. Thomas Rosica said that it is the overarching principle uniting all conciliar popes. They are all Neo-modernists.
 
Unfortunately for traditional Catholics the SSPX has followed this Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be constantly interpreted by the Magisterium. Bishop Felly believes that dogma does not have to be taken literally. His belief regarding what is necessary for salvation is like the Neo-modernist Bainvel. Consequently, dogma is not his rule of faith because it is never a determined thing; Dogma never reaches its term. But without dogma as the rule of faith there is no possible opposition to Neo-modernism. Take for example, Fr. Karl Rahner's thesis of nearly universal salvation excepting only those who make a fundamental option for evil. On what possible grounds can anyone object to this theory if striped of dogma as the rule of faith? Or Vatican II's Hans Küng, a periti, who denies the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. He affirms that Christ rose from the dead metaphorically. If dogma is not the rule of faith, if dogma is in a state of progressive development, who can object and on what grounds? This explains what has transpired in the doctrinal discussions between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican going back over twenty years with GREC. Both sides deny dogma as the rule of faith. Both sides deny that dogma needs to be taken literally. All they can discuss is theological opinions. If dogma were their rule of faith, the discussions would have been over in a few hours at best.
 
What is the Magisterium?  It is the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority which are firstly Attributes of God and secondarily Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The key to the Magisterium is help by the pope alone. Without him, there is no accessing the Magisterium.
 
What is Dogma?  Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church and offered to the faithful as a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith."  The formal cause and the final cause of Dogma is God. The material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma is the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient cause of Dogma. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient means by which Dogma is created. Dogma is the end of the Magisterial act. Dogma, as divine revelation and the work of God, is irreformable in both its form (divine truth) and its matter (words of expression). Over the history of the Church, Dogma has developed in its construction as a categorical proposition that can only be universally true or false. That is, Dogma is a JUDGMENT on divine revelation relating two concepts. The necessary tools for understanding Dogma are definition and grammar, not theological competency. Dogma is formulated as accessible for all the faithful. Dogma is the Magisterium offering definitive clarification of divine revelation. The Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium is really a rejection of the Magisterium. It is as if saying, "I will not accept your judgment, go back and give me another." 

 
Addressing your objections:
1) Dogma has been the rule of faith from Apostolic times and scripture gives evidence of this. The Council of Jerusalem was really the first ecuмenical council estimated to have occurred around 50 A.D. The "Apostles and ancients," including St. Paul returned to Jerusalem "assembled to consider the matter." The heresy addressed was that of the Judaizers. "There arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circuмcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). The judgment of the Magisterium was dogmatic for they declared that, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us" (Acts 15:28). The judgment was not a matter of mere discipline.  It is directly related to worship and doctrine.
 
When St. Peter accommodated the Judaizers he was confronted by St. Paul in Galatians 2:11-15. St. Paul did not say St. Peter, who held the keys to the Magisterium, 'whatever you say goes.' He confronted St. Peter for he "was to be blamed" because he "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel," and because of "his dissimulation the rest of the Jєωs consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation." How did St. Paul know this? He knew because the "Holy Ghost" said so at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul, grounded upon a "formal article of divine and Catholic faith," corrected St. Peter and "withstood him to the face," who was the holder of the keys to the Magisterium.
 
2) The Magisterium is the means not the end.  Once the dogma is established, it become the proximate rule of faith.  No one has to go back to the Magisterium to know whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven. The Magisterium has judged and defined the matter and the Dogma is declared. The Dogma is the rule every faithful Catholic must believe with divine and Catholic faith or become a heretic by definition.  It is grave error to claim that Catholic faithful must return to the Magisterium to find out what the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary means today.
 
3) Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition. Note that both the remote rule of faith and the proximate rule of faith are of the exact same nature, that is, divine revelation. The greater part of divine revelation has not been dogmatically defined but remains a formal object of divine faith. Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Doctrines of mere "ecclesiastical faith" do not exist. This has been discussed in detail in another thread and has been briefly mentioned in this thread. Suffice to say, there is an excellent article by Fr. Joseph Fenton in AER that concludes with the opinion that mere ecclesiastical faith is a myth.
 
4) This explanation offered will lead to confusion. It is true that not everyone who "holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic," such as St. Thomas in his denial of the Immaculate Conception. Once the divine revelation of the Immaculate Conception (a formal object of divine faith) was defined by the Magisterium, the Immaculate Conception became a Dogma, that is, a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith." Anyone holding St. Thomas' opinion of the Immaculate Conception today would now be a formal heretic. It is the denial of Dogma that makes the heresy. If someone denies the "teaching authority" of the Church, that is just another heresy because the Magisterium itself is a Dogma.
 
Contrary to what Ladislaus believes, the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.  It is also the object itself of Dogma. The definition of a heretic is the rejection of Dogma. According to Vatican I, the "teaching authority" of the Church is part of the primacy of St. Peter continued by his "perpetual" successors in the Chair of Peter. The primacy of the pope refers to his universal jurisdiction. The rejection of the primacy of the pope is firstly an act of schism (by definition) and a secondly, a heresy because this divine revelation has been itself dogmatized.
 
The definition of heresy is the rejection of Dogma. Most who reject Dogma also reject the Magisterium which is the necessary but insufficient material cause of Dogma.  
 
In conclusion, I have provided  expert opinions from theologians (Rev. Pohle, St. Thomas, and Scheeben's) who regard dogma as the proximate rule of faith, three magisterial references that directly refer to dogma as the rule of faith.  But ever stronger than this is the fundamental fact of the definition of heresy.  I am re-posting what was previously offered to Cantarella with minor changes for clarification.
 
A strong proof that dogma is the proximate rule of faith is the definition of heresy. I did not explain it any further in previous posts because this is not an argument but rather a definition. I think if you look from the perspective of heresy it may be easier to see. An excerpt taken from the 1907 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading of "heresy":
 

Quote
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jєωs; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church.
 Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907


 Heresy is "the corruption of dogmas" while "the right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching." These "teachings" are found in "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church." What the Church, by her "teaching authority" (i.e.: Magisterium) "proposes to our belief" is called Dogma. Those who keep Dogmas and do not corrupt them are called  the faithful, those who do corrupt them are called heretics. 
  
 This difference represents a clear division in the "Tree of Porphyry." It is this division that establishes a species from a genus which is called an "essential definition" and is regarded as the best definition because it is the most intelligible. As the article points out, "The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith." Heresy and faith have the same subject, that is, "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church" which is the total of divine revelation.  They differ in their object. The heretic breaks the rule of faith, the faithful keep it. This establishes that Dogma is the rule of faith not by argument but by fact of an essential definition. The definition of heresy necessarily makes Dogma the rule of faith. The Magisterium is necessary but insufficient means by which we know Dogma, but it is the Dogma itself which is known. It is the what that we know and therefore the rule of faith.  If you exchange "Magisterium" for Dogma, even though the Magisterium has the same subject-matter, there cannot be a clear distinctive division because there exists no species in the genus of Magisterium, the "teaching authority" of the Church, excepting only in the case where the Magisterium itself is treated as a dogma like every other dogma, then those who reject the "teaching authority" constituted by God in His Church are just another kind of heretic.

 
The only weapon to combat Neo-modernism is to hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith. It is also the only weapon to combat sedevacantism and sedeprivationism which necessarily end in the overturning of Dogma. You are correct that these two errors are due to an improper understanding of the Magisterium but that improper understanding rests in the belief that Dogma can be reinterpreted by the Magisterium.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 15, 2018, 03:07:19 PM
Absurd argument.  I don't really care what YOU "conclude", all Catholic theologians teach to the contrary.  Nice waste of time.  Every step of the way you're just making something up that sounds good to you.

Dogma is not PROXIMATE.  Otherwise people would never have gotten it wrong about the Immaculate Conception.  Otherwise there would never have been heresies in the Church and myriad heretical sects leaving the Church.

Stupid Ladislaus, again commenting on something he did not understand and probably did not ever read.

He does not know what Dogma is; he has no idea even what Dogma is "proximate" to.   

He has provided about 20% of the posts on this thread and has offered nothing of any intellectual merit, but rather serves only as an agent of obstruction to serious consideration of an important subject.  My personal opinion is that that is his purpose.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 15, 2018, 03:20:23 PM
Samuel,
 
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Furthermore, unless traditional Catholics understand this essential principle, there can be no defending of the faith.
 
Your post is a nice review of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry but offers nothing new. This is where Ladislaus began his argument using this article as his authority. This is where Ladislaus got the idea that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to the faith and therefore, he claimed, that "the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation."  Unfortunately for Ladislalus, he cannot get beyond this first error and nothing can profitably be discussed with him.
 
The articles in the Encyclopedia are only as good as the person making the entry. The members of the board assembling the Encyclopedia are not competent in every field and look to other experts to write on specific subjects. Earlier in this thread I commented on the entry, "Tradition and Living Magisterium" by Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J. who is the author of Is There Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church? This heretical book is still published and referenced by Catholic authors today. It is still passed around though even Fr. Joseph Fenton, since Pope Pius XII declared that the "Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church," considered Bainvel's radical separation of the soul and body of the Church as untenable. Bainvel posits that anyone untied to the "soul" of the Church is saved including Jєωs, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc., by being good Jєωs, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc. Every single Dogma touching upon what is necessary for salvation is ignored or taken in a merely metaphorical sense. The seed of his doctrine are evident in hindsight in his encyclopedic entry.
 
The Bainvel article in the Encyclopedia is important because it demonstrates the heresy of Neo-Modernism and how it works.
 
The first thing that needs to be understood it is the heresy of Neo-modernism and how does it differ from Modernism? This link offers a good introduction and is worth reading for those who do not know this essential difference:
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html
 
Basically, Modernism and Neo-modernism have the same subject, divine revelation, and the same object, the destruction of dogma, but differ in methodology.  Modernism denies dogma in its very nature. St. Pius X in Pascendi, in Lamentabili, and the Oath Against Modernism, uses the word "dogma" and its cognates over 50 times in his effort to defend dogma in its very nature. After St Pius X the Modernists simply changed their methods but not their ends. Neo-modernism attacks dogma indirectly by 1) changing the definition of words, 2) by altering categorical propositions to conditional ones, and 3) (most importantly) by moving dogmatic definitions from the category of truth/falsehood to the category of authority/obedience and then applying all the moral qualifications that excuse from obedience to excuse from submitting to divinely revealed truth. Neo-modernist posit a fundamental disjunction between the truth of dogma and its linguistic formulation. They consider the language as only an approximation of truth, therefore, dogma must go through a never ending process of reformulations to progressively distill the truth from the human accretions.
 
Bainvel does this in his article on "Tradition and Living Magisterium" in the Catholic Encyclopedia by firstly redefining the meaning of "living magisterium." The Magisterium is living only in the sense that a living pope holds the Magisterial keys to access the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility of the Church, and it is living in the sense that divine revelation is the subject of dogma which is the revelation of a "living God." For Bainvel and all Neo-modernists, the "living" refers primarily to the content of divine revelation that progresses through an organic development of constant changes within a form. For Neo-modernists, dogma cannot be the rule of faith because dogma must constantly progress. For Neo-modernists, the "Magisterium" is the rule of faith because it must constantly update dogmatic definitions that never reach their term.
 

This is what Ladislaus really believes. He has posted that no Catholic has any right to interpret Dogma. He calls a Catholic who takes Dogma literally a "Protestant" because he is engaging in "private interpretation."  A Catholic therefore must always return to the Magisterium to find out what the current meaning of any Catholic teaching happens to be. It is axiomatic for all Neo-modernists that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium. For Ladislaus he must necessarily be either a sedeprivationist/sedevacantist or return to the Novus Ordo religion to work his way through the hermeneutics of continuity.    
 
Vatican II was Neo-modernist council from the opening bell where Pope John XXIII announce that truths of our faith were one thing and how they are expressed another. The purpose of the Council was to update these expressions. This fundamental principle has been repeated by every single conciliar pope. Fr. Thomas Rosica said that it is the overarching principle uniting all conciliar popes. They are all Neo-modernists.
 
Unfortunately for traditional Catholics the SSPX has followed this Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be constantly interpreted by the Magisterium. Bishop Felly believes that dogma does not have to be taken literally. His belief regarding what is necessary for salvation is like the Neo-modernist Bainvel. Consequently, dogma is not his rule of faith because it is never a determined thing; Dogma never reaches its term. But without dogma as the rule of faith there is no possible opposition to Neo-modernism. Take for example, Fr. Karl Rahner's thesis of nearly universal salvation excepting only those who make a fundamental option for evil. On what possible grounds can anyone object to this theory if striped of dogma as the rule of faith? Or Vatican II's Hans Küng, a periti, who denies the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. He affirms that Christ rose from the dead metaphorically. If dogma is not the rule of faith, if dogma is in a state of progressive development, who can object and on what grounds? This explains what has transpired in the doctrinal discussions between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican going back over twenty years with GREC. Both sides deny dogma as the rule of faith. Both sides deny that dogma needs to be taken literally. All they can discuss is theological opinions. If dogma were their rule of faith, the discussions would have been over in a few hours at best.
 
What is the Magisterium?  It is the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority which are firstly Attributes of God and secondarily Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The key to the Magisterium is help by the pope alone. Without him, there is no accessing the Magisterium.
 
What is Dogma?  Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church and offered to the faithful as a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith."  The formal cause and the final cause of Dogma is God. The material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma is the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient cause of Dogma. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient means by which Dogma is created. Dogma is the end of the Magisterial act. Dogma, as divine revelation and the work of God, is irreformable in both its form (divine truth) and its matter (words of expression). Over the history of the Church, Dogma has developed in its construction as a categorical proposition that can only be universally true or false. That is, Dogma is a JUDGMENT on divine revelation relating two concepts. The necessary tools for understanding Dogma are definition and grammar, not theological competency. Dogma is formulated as accessible for all the faithful. Dogma is the Magisterium offering definitive clarification of divine revelation. The Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium is really a rejection of the Magisterium. It is as if saying, "I will not accept your judgment, go back and give me another."  

 
Addressing your objections:
1) Dogma has been the rule of faith from Apostolic times and scripture gives evidence of this. The Council of Jerusalem was really the first ecuмenical council estimated to have occurred around 50 A.D. The "Apostles and ancients," including St. Paul returned to Jerusalem "assembled to consider the matter." The heresy addressed was that of the Judaizers. "There arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circuмcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). The judgment of the Magisterium was dogmatic for they declared that, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us" (Acts 15:28). The judgment was not a matter of mere discipline.  It is directly related to worship and doctrine.
 
When St. Peter accommodated the Judaizers he was confronted by St. Paul in Galatians 2:11-15. St. Paul did not say St. Peter, who held the keys to the Magisterium, 'whatever you say goes.' He confronted St. Peter for he "was to be blamed" because he "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel," and because of "his dissimulation the rest of the Jєωs consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation." How did St. Paul know this? He knew because the "Holy Ghost" said so at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul, grounded upon a "formal article of divine and Catholic faith," corrected St. Peter and "withstood him to the face," who was the holder of the keys to the Magisterium.
 
2) The Magisterium is the means not the end.  Once the dogma is established, it become the proximate rule of faith.  No one has to go back to the Magisterium to know whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven. The Magisterium has judged and defined the matter and the Dogma is declared. The Dogma is the rule every faithful Catholic must believe with divine and Catholic faith or become a heretic by definition.  It is grave error to claim that Catholic faithful must return to the Magisterium to find out what the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary means today.
 
3) Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition. Note that both the remote rule of faith and the proximate rule of faith are of the exact same nature, that is, divine revelation. The greater part of divine revelation has not been dogmatically defined but remains a formal object of divine faith. Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Doctrines of mere "ecclesiastical faith" do not exist. This has been discussed in detail in another thread and has been briefly mentioned in this thread. Suffice to say, there is an excellent article by Fr. Joseph Fenton in AER that concludes with the opinion that mere ecclesiastical faith is a myth.
 
4) This explanation offered will lead to confusion. It is true that not everyone who "holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic," such as St. Thomas in his denial of the Immaculate Conception. Once the divine revelation of the Immaculate Conception (a formal object of divine faith) was defined by the Magisterium, the Immaculate Conception became a Dogma, that is, a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith." Anyone holding St. Thomas' opinion of the Immaculate Conception today would now be a formal heretic. It is the denial of Dogma that makes the heresy. If someone denies the "teaching authority" of the Church, that is just another heresy because the Magisterium itself is a Dogma.
 
Contrary to what Ladislaus believes, the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.  It is also the object itself of Dogma. The definition of a heretic is the rejection of Dogma. According to Vatican I, the "teaching authority" of the Church is part of the primacy of St. Peter continued by his "perpetual" successors in the Chair of Peter. The primacy of the pope refers to his universal jurisdiction. The rejection of the primacy of the pope is firstly an act of schism (by definition) and a secondly, a heresy because this divine revelation has been itself dogmatized.
 
The definition of heresy is the rejection of Dogma. Most who reject Dogma also reject the Magisterium which is the necessary but insufficient material cause of Dogma.  
 
In conclusion, I have provided  expert opinions from theologians (Rev. Pohle, St. Thomas, and Scheeben's) who regard dogma as the proximate rule of faith, three magisterial references that directly refer to dogma as the rule of faith.  But ever stronger than this is the fundamental fact of the definition of heresy.  I am re-posting what was previously offered to Cantarella with minor changes for clarification.
 
A strong proof that dogma is the proximate rule of faith is the definition of heresy. I did not explain it any further in previous posts because this is not an argument but rather a definition. I think if you look from the perspective of heresy it may be easier to see. An excerpt taken from the 1907 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading of "heresy":
 


 Heresy is "the corruption of dogmas" while "the right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching." These "teachings" are found in "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church." What the Church, by her "teaching authority" (i.e.: Magisterium) "proposes to our belief" is called Dogma. Those who keep Dogmas and do not corrupt them are called  the faithful, those who do corrupt them are called heretics.  
  
 This difference represents a clear division in the "Tree of Porphyry." It is this division that establishes a species from a genus which is called an "essential definition" and is regarded as the best definition because it is the most intelligible. As the article points out, "The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith." Heresy and faith have the same subject, that is, "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church" which is the total of divine revelation.  They differ in their object. The heretic breaks the rule of faith, the faithful keep it. This establishes that Dogma is the rule of faith not by argument but by fact of an essential definition. The definition of heresy necessarily makes Dogma the rule of faith. The Magisterium is necessary but insufficient means by which we know Dogma, but it is the Dogma itself which is known. It is the what that we know and therefore the rule of faith.  If you exchange "Magisterium" for Dogma, even though the Magisterium has the same subject-matter, there cannot be a clear distinctive division because there exists no species in the genus of Magisterium, the "teaching authority" of the Church, excepting only in the case where the Magisterium itself is treated as a dogma like every other dogma, then those who reject the "teaching authority" constituted by God in His Church are just another kind of heretic.

 
The only weapon to combat Neo-modernism is to hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith. It is also the only weapon to combat sedevacantism and sedeprivationism which necessarily end in the overturning of Dogma. You are correct that these two errors are due to an improper understanding of the Magisterium but that improper understanding rests in the belief that Dogma can be reinterpreted by the Magisterium.
 
Drew

Thanks Drew for the time and effort of this long reply. After a first reading I am not convinced (yet) but I will take my time to read through your post a few more times and ponder it.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 15, 2018, 04:53:07 PM
Samuel,
 
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Furthermore, unless traditional Catholics understand this essential principle, there can be no defending of the faith.
 
-snip-
 
The only weapon to combat Neo-modernism is to hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith. It is also the only weapon to combat sedevacantism and sedeprivationism which necessarily end in the overturning of Dogma. You are correct that these two errors are due to an improper understanding of the Magisterium but that improper understanding rests in the belief that Dogma can be reinterpreted by the Magisterium.
 
Drew
It is also Catholic dogma that the Extraordinary Magisterium and universal Ordinary Magisterium cannot teach in error. And while the rest of the Ordinary Magisterium may sometimes be in error, we are still obliged to give religious assent to it. While yes, we may read and interpret dogma, we cannot as Catholics contradict or reject the Magisterium. Your fear of the Magisterium is unfounded. The Church will not and cannot revise the Magisterium to contradict existing dogma. 
If you are really so afraid of the Magisterium, it suggests you are rejecting its teachings. You are separating yourself from the Church. If you believe that it is the true Catholic Church with a valid Pope at its head, why are you doing that? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 15, 2018, 05:14:56 PM
It is also Catholic dogma that the Extraordinary Magisterium and universal Ordinary Magisterium cannot teach in error. And while the rest of the Ordinary Magisterium may sometimes be in error, we are still obliged to give religious assent to it. While yes, we may read and interpret dogma, we cannot as Catholics contradict or reject the Magisterium. Your fear of the Magisterium is unfounded. The Church will not and cannot revise the Magisterium to contradict existing dogma.
If you are really so afraid of the Magisterium, it suggests you are rejecting its teachings. You are separating yourself from the Church. If you believe that it is the true Catholic Church with a valid Pope at its head, why are you doing that?

I have absolutely no idea what made you think that I am "afraid of the Magisterium"!?

Yes, I am aware of and agree with the distinctions between and the limitations of the Extraordinary, the Ordinary and the Authentic Magisterium. That is why believe in R&R and reject SV.

Was you reply maybe meant for someone else?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 15, 2018, 06:21:30 PM
It is good that you bring up this verse once again. This has been addressed before but here it is again, in case someone missed it in this long thread. The following is the annotation for such verse found in a Catholic Bible from XVI century:



Your interpretation of St. Paul's correction to St. Peter in the context of R&R is completely corrupt. The heretics use this verse maliciously to promote "Resistance to the Face" towards a true Pope; instead of brotherly fraternal correction which this verse does allow for. The protestants infer that Peter did fail in Faith and therefore, that popes can fail in Faith also; but this is not true. If you notice, St. Peter's error was not in Faith, but in conversation or behavior. In such a case, when popes have personal faults, they may and have indeed been reprehended and admonished in the past in a zealous spirit of charity (St. Paul, Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian, etc.); instead of a contentious spirit of malice (think Luther, Calvin, Novatus, etc). Again, popes may err in their private teachings and writings, but their Faith cannot fail. It is certain they cannot err in doctrine. This is yet another scriptural verse whose annotation mentions this impossibility of Peter's Faith failing.

Cantarella,


I told you before that your rule of faith is the pope.  I know it, and now everyone else knows it as well.  Papalotry leads to sedevacantism or novus ordo hermeneutics of continuity positions.  Take your pick today for tomorrow you may be in the other camp. Your problem is not with me, it's with St. Paul and the Holy Ghost. Read the Galatians yourself.  It was St. Paul, who said under divine inspiration that St. Peter was guilty of "dissimulation" that himself, leading others, "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel."
 
You also make a grave error in assuming that Judaizing is only a disciplinary problem.  It was the "Holy Ghost" who spoke at the Council of Jerusalem and inspired St. Paul's letter to the Galatians.  He is not to be gainsaid.
 
Furthermore, I have gone over this at least three or four times with you concerning the claim that each and every pope possess a personal "never-failing faith."  Not one Church father endorses this claim; it is not so much as even mentioned in Haydock's Commentary or by St. Thomas.  Rev. Cornerlius a Lapide's Great Commentary does mention it only to categorically deny it. He says explicitly and directly that the personal never-failing faith was a personal gift to St. Peter alone.  Vatican I quotes the gift of never-failing faith in support only that the pope would never engage the Magisterial power of his office to bind the faithful to doctrinal or moral error.  And to this day, they have not, including the conciliar popes.
 
Now you, who worship the pope, can believe that he possess a personal never-failing faith and make him you personal rule of faith.  I wish you well, but my wishes are like whistling in the wind. You have no pope, you have no rule of faith, you have no means to ever get a pope, you belong to a church that is permanently defective of a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ outside of which there is neither salvation nor forgiveness of sins.  Good luck.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 15, 2018, 08:03:55 PM
I have absolutely no idea what made you think that I am "afraid of the Magisterium"!?

Yes, I am aware of and agree with the distinctions between and the limitations of the Extraordinary, the Ordinary and the Authentic Magisterium. That is why believe in R&R and reject SV.

Was you reply maybe meant for someone else?
I didn't even quote you. I quoted Drew. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 15, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
Mr. Drew,

You cite Sheeben as a Magisterial reference when defending "Dogma" as the Rule of Faith. This same Sheeben (among many others) is telling you that it is a dogma that a General Council in union with the Pope has the assistance of the Holy Ghost, therefore cannot err.

Yet you regret this. Why? I wonder then, What "Dogma" really is your Rule of Faith? Is it the Council of Trent in exclusivity? (your position is infallibly condemned in Trent under the errors of Luther). Is it perhaps the thrice infallible EENS dogma? (then, what makes a Catholic to be in "submission" to the Holy Father? one of the premises of EENS)

I ask questions but you provide no relevant answers; only contradictions. I am in agreement with some of your statements but most are off-topic.

Cantarella,

You assume that everything from an ecuмenical council is infallible.  It is not.  Infallibility is only possible when all the necessary criteria stipulated in Vatican I are met: intent to define, a matter of revealed doctrine or morals, by virtue of the "teaching authority" which Jesus Christ empowered His Church, determination to impose the judgment on all the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Even with other councils, such as Trent, although all the docuмents have great authority, only the dogmatic canons have the note of infallibility.

Quote
As Scheenben's says: "Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm) (Acts 15:28 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act015.htm#vrs28)), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the DOGMA it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element.

There was neither the "formula" or the "dogma it enshrines" produced from Vatican II.  No one before the council, during the council or after the council ever said anything to the contrary. And you post your question as if this has not already been addressed over and over again.  But no matter how many time it is said to you, you repeat the same errors again and again.  You are repeating this just as you repeated your belief that the pope possess a personal "never-failing faith."  Well, if you insist on believing these things and leaving the Catholic Church for a church that does not, and will never have any of these problems because it will never have a pope and never have an ecuмenical council ever, you will find the problems you are leaving behind are nothing compared to the problems you will be facing. Remember, your church not only does not have a pope, it does not have the means to ever get one. It is irredeemably defective. This is a fact.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 15, 2018, 11:59:57 PM
Drew, Drew, Drew!  One cannot let facts and logic get in the way of a good story.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 16, 2018, 09:43:26 AM
Just as with Vatican II, Sheeben is to be considered an authority when he agrees with Drew and mistaken (no longer an authority) where he disagrees with Drew.  Drew subjects Vatican II to the same criterion or truth/falsehood, his own private judgment and superior theological (and reading comprehension) skills ... unlike that bumbling idiot +Guerard who, with his multiple degrees and credentials, can't hold a candle to Drew.
Such puerile reasoning as this could be understood if coming from prots or NOers, I guess, sadly, coming from sedes is also to be expected.
 
Like the Baltimore and other Catechisms, most of what the catechisms teach is good and holy and agrees with what the Church has always taught, yet there are some teachings within the catechisms that need correcting - the same applies to theologians. Even the greatest of all theologians, the Angelic Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas, admits this.

Sheeben along with van Noort, Guerard, Fenton and etc. are to be considered an authority when they agree with the Church, not with Drew. Drew, as well as the rest of us, agree with the theologians when the theologians agree with the Church's teachings, and we disagree with them when they disagree with the Church's teachings, same as the catechisms. It's not complicated.

The problem is that you believe that all of the teachings of those 19th/20th century theologians are actual teachings of the Church - which is entirely wrong and wrong headed, but this false idea has, as +ABL said, permeated all the manifestations of the Church, and it is this same false thinking which you embrace, that has lead billions to accept those false theological speculations as if they are official teachings of the Church, in turn leading them to lose their faith - and YOU, in spite of being corrected umpteen times, are guilty of promoting those same false ideas as if they are actual teachings of the Church -poop head.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 16, 2018, 11:59:53 AM
It does not matter what Drew personally interprets the dogma to mean. Catholic are still required to give faithful assent to ALL MAGISTERIUM. Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Protestant heresy. 

If you accept Pope Francis as a valid Pope and the V2 Church as the true Catholic Church, you MUST assent to its teachings. There's no way around that.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 16, 2018, 01:01:58 PM
There's nothing puerile about this.  You just can't get your mind around it.  I say that Van Noort agrees with the Church, whereas Drew says he does not.  So, then, does he or doesn't he?  I say Fenton agrees with the Church, but you say he does not.  So does he or does he not?  You're saying that YOUR perspective is consistent with dogma, and the other one is wrong.  I guess that leaves each one of us to decide what is consistent with dogma and what is not ... without a final arbiter.  So then our own private judgment becomes our own rule of faith.

That's where the Magisterium comes in ... for Catholics anyway, as that objective arbiter.  This is Catholicism 101 vs. the Protestant heresies.

Why do you think the Prots have split up into some 23,000+ sects.  Person A decides that X is consistent with Scripture, Person B decides that X is not consistent with Scripture.  And for each person there's a unique rule, his own private judgment.
And 23,000 sects doesn't cover the half of it. Each Protestant pastor feels comfortable disagreeing with his own sect on whatever issues he pleases, and even Protestant laymen feel perfectly free to disagree with their own pastor. Not to mention the so-called "non-denominational" "Christians". Truly the road Drew would have us follow is a road to ruin. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 16, 2018, 02:03:16 PM
It's already happening to a degree.  Look at how many Traditonal groups there already are out there.  It's because there's a vacuum of Magisterium.  It's because the Shepherd has been struck that the sheep are scattered.
You refuse to believe what the Magisterium even is. The Magisterium is not the hierarchy, nor does it become what the hierarchy teaches - and it certainly is not the pope. See if it is possible for you to wrap your mind around this - at least give it a try for once..........

Magisterium:

"...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." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter


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. - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council


Start wrapping - (not rapping).
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 16, 2018, 02:07:09 PM
You refuse to believe what the Magisterium even is. The Magisterium is not the hierarchy, nor does it become what the hierarchy teaches - and it certainly is not the pope. See if it is possible for you to wrap your mind around this - at least give it a try for once..........

Magisterium:

"...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." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter


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. - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council


Start wrapping - (not rapping).
The ordinary Magisterium is what the hierarchy teaches. You are conflating it with infallible Magisterium. The universal ordinary Magisterium are issues on which all Bishops and the Pope are in agreement on, and are infallible. The extraordinary Magisterium are teachings from Ecuмenical Councils or ex cathedra.

We are required to give religious assent to ALL of the Magisterium, whether infallible or not. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 16, 2018, 02:19:13 PM
The ordinary Magisterium is what the hierarchy teaches. You are conflating it with infallible Magisterium. The universal ordinary Magisterium are issues on which all Bishops and the Pope are in agreement on, and are infallible. The extraordinary Magisterium are teachings from Ecuмenical Councils or ex cathedra.

We are required to give religious assent to ALL of the Magisterium, whether infallible or not.
Did you not just read from V1 those things that we are bound to believe? He does not say we are to give religious ascent to ALL the Magisterium because THAT makes no sense whatsoever. Read his instructions again read it over and over until you fully understand what he is saying.

A few examples of the Ordinary teachings of the Universal Magisterium that the pope is talking about:

Doctrine of Divine Providence
Limbo
St. John the Baptist born without Original Sin
Doctrine of our Guardian Angels
Doctrine of the Church's Indefectibility


These are all "...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." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 16, 2018, 02:21:40 PM
He's conflating about 3 or 4 different things in that last post.  He's always conflating things.
FYI, you are the conflation expert, I am simply reading what is written.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 16, 2018, 02:28:42 PM
"III. 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

This agrees with the Church's teaching from Pope Pius IX's both Ordinary teaching and infallible teaching - which disagrees with Ladislaus' idea of what the Magisterium even is - which in Lad's estimation, means I conflated 3 or 4 different things, when all I actually did, was quote the pope.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 16, 2018, 02:30:16 PM
It does not matter what Drew personally interprets the dogma to mean. Catholic are still required to give faithful assent to ALL MAGISTERIUM. Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Protestant heresy.

If you accept Pope Francis as a valid Pope and the V2 Church as the true Catholic Church, you MUST assent to its teachings. There's no way around that.

Really?

Was St. Paul wrong not to assent to St. Peter's Magisterium and to resist him to the face instead?

Was the Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople wrong not to assent to pope Honorius's Magisterium but to posthumously condemn and excommunicate him?

I think there's something wrong in your post, and in your thinking!! Can you "posthumously" detect the fallacy in your own short post? ;D

In fact, like Caiphas, you said something very deep and meaningful, without really realizing what you said: "Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Protestant heresy." Is this not in a nutshell the definition of sedevacantism?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 16, 2018, 02:35:11 PM
St. Peter was not teaching the things that St. Paul resisted him for.  That was not a question of Magisterium at all but of bad example and scandal.

You mean as in "the Vatican II popes never taught what we are resisting them for"? So, we have to make a distinction then, between "teaching" and "Teaching"?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 16, 2018, 02:43:52 PM
>>>"Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Protestant heresy." Is this not in a nutshell the definition of sedevacantism?

In fact, that is Catholicism in a nutshell.

So, you believe that "Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Catholicism in a nutshell" ?? :o :o :o

I have never encountered a mind so darkened as yours. You are truly far gone. May God have mercy on you.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 16, 2018, 03:21:32 PM
What does it say here?

(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30705396_10155588410078691_4171739362217061638_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=86a7ec02ae77011c1f662d6d6f42063c&oe=5B5BE2A9)

Can you please give a reference, as my Haydock bible seems to say something else. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong gospel/verse?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 16, 2018, 03:28:19 PM
Can you please give a reference, as my Haydock bible seems to say something else. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong gospel/verse?

I think I found the reference online, but I would still like you to confirm it first. And if you read the whole commentary, it actually says the opposite of what you are trying to say!!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 16, 2018, 03:35:02 PM
Your emphasis on the word "in" suggests that the Magisterium is the Deposit of Faith?  Or the actual "teachings" from the Popes?

We discussed this earlier in the thread, but we never ventured any further than our agreement that the Magisterium (no matter the adjective placed in front of the word) is, indeed, infallible.  

Just looking for some clarity...
I emphasized the word "in" to designate two things that Pope Pius IX said.

1) He said: "all those things are to be believed which are contained.... in her ordinary and universal magisterium." He previously, in that sentence, tells us exactly what it is we are to believe, which binds us, and where those things are to be found - in both the ordinary and universal magisterium.

Those things which we are bound to believe are "contained in" (vs the NO idea of "taught by"):
A) Scripture
B) Tradition
C) Solemn judgements (ex cathedra pronouncements)
D) Ordinary teachings of the Church's Universal Magisterium - which, quoting Pope Pius IX, I already (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604317/#msg604317) enunciated.

2) To attempt to correct Lad by demonstrating what the Magisterium actually is as explained according to Blessed Pope Pius IX and also Sheeben, so that he might actually cease promoting his vague and NO inspired ideas of what it is, in place of what it actually is.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 16, 2018, 03:36:46 PM
Really?

Was St. Paul wrong not to assent to St. Peter's Magisterium and to resist him to the face instead?

Was the Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople wrong not to assent to pope Honorius's Magisterium but to posthumously condemn and excommunicate him?

I think there's something wrong in your post, and in your thinking!! Can you "posthumously" detect the fallacy in your own short post? ;D

In fact, like Caiphas, you said something very deep and meaningful, without really realizing what you said: "Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Protestant heresy." Is this not in a nutshell the definition of sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism does not reject the Magisterium at all, it rejects that the V2 Popes are real Popes at all. Discerning whether someone who claim to be a member of the Church hierarchy is telling the truth or not is something every Catholic must do. Or else you'd have to believe every random crazy who declared themselves Pope and follow their teachings. Just because we disagree on whether or not Francis is Pope does not mean that you do not discern whether someone is Pope or not just as we do. And of course, you would only follow the teachings of a real Pope, just as we would. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 16, 2018, 03:53:58 PM
"III. 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

This agrees with the Church's teaching from Pope Pius IX's both Ordinary teaching and infallible teaching - which disagrees with Ladislaus' idea of what the Magisterium even is - which in Lad's estimation, means I conflated 3 or 4 different things, when all I actually did, was quote the pope.
Even the fallible teachings of individual Bishops must be shown religious assent. Not even the post Vatican 2 Church supports your Protestant heresies. 
Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 25
Quote
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 16, 2018, 04:11:53 PM
Just to be clear, you believe that the Magisterium is the body of teachings of the Church...yes?
Sorry, my job kept side tracking me..... yes, the truths (teachings) we must believe are contained in the Magisterium. Those are his words, not mine.

These truths (teachings) contained in the Magisterium consist of Scripture, Tradition and ex cathedra teachings - these are where the teachings are to be found and how we learn these truths which we must believe. We also learn "them" by the Church's "day to day teachings" aka the "Church's Ordinary Magisterium".

By "them", I mean, as Pope Pius IX explained; "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."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 16, 2018, 04:16:01 PM
.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 16, 2018, 04:42:20 PM
Sorry, my job kept side tracking me..... yes, the truths (teachings) we must believe are contained in the Magisterium. Those are his words, not mine.

These truths (teachings) contained in the Magisterium consist of Scripture, Tradition and ex cathedra teachings - these are where the teachings are to be found and how we learn these truths which we must believe. We also learn "them" by the Church's "day to day teachings" aka the "Church's Ordinary Magisterium".

By "them", I mean, as Pope Pius IX explained; "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."
We are required to give religious assent to the "day to day teachings" too. If the Pope, or even a Bishop, says x is y regarding faith or morals, you give religious assent unless it clearly contradicts existing universal or extraordinary Magisterium. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 16, 2018, 06:19:45 PM
I believe that the Pope's personal Roman Faith cannot fail. Our Lord specifically prayed for this intention. It was not only for St. Peter but for his legitimate successors as well. If Christ prayer is inefficacious, what hope is there for mine?

Of one thing I am certain though and it is not an opinion of mine: It is impossible that the Pope teaches judicially against the Faith...as teaching heretical error in an Ecunemical Council.  

Popes may err personally; not judicially or definitely.

I see you found the rest of that quote as well. Here it is for everyone else to see and judge:

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.
Comment to Luke 22:31, Douay Rheims, 1582

So it DOES NOT mean that "Peter and any of his successors can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing".

But it DOES mean that "Peter and his successors 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".

If I am not mistaken, then "judicially conclude or give definitive sentence" is another way for saying "bind". So they cannot bind us to error. And if they cannot bind us, we can resist them in these errors.

Do you at least agree that your opinion that the pope cannot even privately fail in his faith contradicts these comments?

ETA: I see you now changed your formula to "personally err", but if I am not mistaken, it used to be "his faith cannot fail at all".
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 16, 2018, 08:14:05 PM
>>> If I am not mistaken, then "judicially conclude or give definitive sentence" is another way for saying "bind". So they cannot bind us to error. And if they cannot bind us, we can resist them in these errors.

You are mistaken.

Decrees promulgated by an Ecunemical Council are universally binding to all faithful.

Your logic is playing tricks with you.

1. I said that "they cannot bind us to error".

2. You said "you are mistaken, decrees ... are binding".

If I am mistaken in #1, then you believe the opposite to be true, i.e. "they can bind us to error"!? I don't think this is what you believe.

So, your answer should have been: "You are correct, and therefore, decrees ... cannot contain error because they are binding". So, we actually agree on one thing: "they cannot bind us to error"!

Where we don't agree is this:

The comments from the 1582 Douay Rheims bible mentioned "erring in understanding, private doctrine or writing" on the one hand, and "judicially conclude or give definitive sentence" on the other hand.

Therefore:

1. Can everything be put into either one of these two categories, or is it possible there is a gray area in the middle? For example, in which category would you put pope Francis' so called "plane interviews"? Are they mere "errors in private understanding" or are they "definitive sentences"?

2. Where do "decrees promulgated by an Ecuмenical Council" belong, and more specifically, what are the specific requirements to consider a decree as "promulgated by an Ecuмenical Council"? Does it include everything said by anyone during that council, or are there certain criteria that need to be met in order to be considered such a "decree"? And does every "decree" have the same force? For example, if or when the theological notes of the council are missing, is everything said or "decreed" automatically considered as infallible? If you think so, if you think everything is black and white, then why did the Church ever bother with theological notes?

3. When before you claimed that a pope's faith "cannot fail", not even privately, is that compatible with "erring in understanding, private doctrine or writing"? In other words, can one "err in understanding, private doctrine or writing" without his faith being in any way affected? "Erring in private doctrine" sounds to me very close to (if not the same as) "occult heresy". Or am I mistaken again?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 16, 2018, 08:31:58 PM
What does it say here?

(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30705396_10155588410078691_4171739362217061638_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=86a7ec02ae77011c1f662d6d6f42063c&oe=5B5BE2A9)

Cantarella,
 
You have made your personal profession of faith that everything from every ecuмenical council is infallible.  You have made your personal profession of faith the each and every pope possess a personal never-failing faith. Both of these are odd “dogmas” in your make-believe church that does not or ever will have a pope or an ecuмenical council. You would think that fact that two ecuмenical councils ratified by their reigning pontiffs approved declarations that “anathematized” Pope Honorius for “heresy” should at least make you stop and consider the hopeless contradictions that are running around in your head.
 
It is absurd that you should be posting a reply to defend your “dogma” that the pope possesses a personal never-failing faith with this simple citation that does not even support your claim.  The quote you have provided only says regarding the never-failing faith of the pope is that “he may not judicially or definitively err” which is exactly what has been already affirmed. It is absurd because I have already posted from the commentaries from St. Thomas’ Catena Aurea, Rev. George Haydock’s Commentary, and Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary on this subject. St. Thomas and Haydock’s do not even mention the question of a personal never-failing faith as a possibility.  Lapide’s Commentary directly refutes it:

Quote
“But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”.
For thee, because I destine thee to be the head and chief of the Apostles and of My Church, that thy faith fail not in believing Me to be the Christ and the Saviour of the world. Observe that Christ in this prayer asked and obtained for Peter two especial privileges before the other Apostles: the first was personal, that he should never fall from faith in Christ; for Christ looked back to the sifting in the former verse, that is the temptation of His own apprehension when the other Apostles flew off from Him like chaff and lost their faith, and were dispersed, and fled into all parts. But Peter, although he denied Christ with his lips, at the hour foretold, and lost his love for Him, yet retained his faith. So S. Chrysostom (Hom. xxxviii.) on S. Matthew; S. Augustine (de corrept. et Grat. chap. viii.); Theophylact and others. This is possible but not certain, for F. Lucas and others think that Peter then lost both his faith and his love, from excessive perturbation and fear; but only for a short time, and so that his faith afterwards sprang up anew, and was restored with fresh vitality. Hence it is thought not to have wholly failed, or to have been torn up by the roots, but rather to have been shaken and dead for a time.
 
Another and a certain privilege was common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith. So S. Leo (serm. xxii.), on Natalis of SS. Peter and Paul; S. Cyprian (Lib. i. ep 3), to Cornelius; Lucius I., Felix I., Agatho, Nicolas I., Leo IX., Innocent III., Bernard and others, whom Bellarmine cites and follows (Lib. i. de Pontif. Roman).

For it was necessary that Christ, by His most wise providence, should provide for His Church, which is ever being sifted and tempted by the devil, and that not only in the time of Peter, but at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world, an oracle of the true faith which she might consult in every doubt and by which she might be taught and confirmed in the faith, otherwise the Church might err in faith, quod absit! For she is as S. Paul said to Timothy, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. iii 15). This oracle of the Church then is Peter, and all successive bishops of Rome. This promise made to Peter, and his successors, most especially applies to the time when Peter, as the successor of Christ, began to be the head of the Church, that is, after the death of Christ.

Rev. Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary, Luke 22:32

This is in perfect accord with Vatican I definition of papal infallibility which specifically cites the gift of never-failing faith and dogmatically affirms exactly what that means.

Quote
Vatican I, Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren

 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.

 But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

 Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, 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.

What is “the divine assistance promised to him (the pope) in blessed Peter which the divine redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine.”?  The answer is given in the narrative text, it is the “gift of truth and never-failing faith (that) was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors.” 
 
The dogma demonstrates that the never-failing faith enjoyed by the popes is exactly what Rev. Cornelius a Lapide said that was, that is, “a certain privilege… common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith.”
 
If you take the trouble to count, you will see that Lapide references more than a dozen Church Fathers, doctors, and popes in support of this interpretation. It is not just that the pope does not possess a personal never-failing faith, to be believe that he does is papolatry which is both the cause and is the fruit of holding the pope as your rule of faith.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 16, 2018, 09:12:40 PM
I was referring to the last part of your sentence "we can resist them in these errors"

We know that General Councils ratified by the Pope do not promulgate heretical errors, so there should be nothing to "resist".

That is why Vatican II Council is so relevant to us, in our struggle against International Jєωry, Masonry and Modernism, because if this Council indeed taught error, then the only way that this could have ever happened was if an anti-Pope, an illegitimate successor of St. Peter ratified it.

It is the indication of an official infiltration to the Holy See.

Besides, it is not only one or two errors in a Letter somewhere that we as Traditionals are "resisting", or an imprudent interview in a plane. It is a complete swift of the Magisterium as to appear coming from a completely alien religion. It is an overwhelming succession of evils for Roman Catholicism. Wouldn't you agree?

How many "errors in understanding, private doctrine or writing" does it take to make a "judicial conclusion or definitive sentence"?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: JPaul on April 16, 2018, 09:17:27 PM
I was referring to the last part of your sentence "we can resist them in these errors"

We know that General Councils ratified by the Pope do not promulgate heretical errors, so there should be nothing to "resist".

That is why Vatican II Council is so relevant to us, in our struggle against International Jєωry, Masonry and Modernism, because if this Council indeed taught error, then the only way that this could have ever happened was if an anti-Pope, an illegitimate successor of St. Peter ratified it.

It is the indication of an official infiltration to the Holy See.

Besides, it is not only one or two errors in a Letter somewhere that we as Traditionals are "resisting", or an imprudent interview in a plane. It is a complete swift of the Magisterium as to appear coming from a completely alien religion. It is an overwhelming succession of evils for Roman Catholicism. Wouldn't you agree?
Canterella,
The conciliar religion is not by any measurable means the, Faith of the Church. It is indeed alien doctrine in concept and in practice. One needs to come to that clear conclusion, before they can discuss what that means and its implications.  There is no sense in discussing whether or not we can be bound to something which is foreign to the Holy Religion.
Vatican II was the Jєωιѕн council, it was executed  by them, along with their Freemasonic brethren and wicked and traitorous Bishops which was a final assault in the collapse of Catholicism started in 1789.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 05:00:32 AM
We are required to give religious assent to the "day to day teachings" too. If the Pope, or even a Bishop, says x is y regarding faith or morals, you give religious assent unless it clearly contradicts existing universal or extraordinary Magisterium.
I would give religious assent to your teaching if it is a Catholic truth. It does not matter who teaches it, if it is truth, we give our religious assent to it. As I previously said, it is the truth that binds us. Truth, is the matter. The way in which we receive that truth, is the method. It is the matter that binds us, not the method. People can be wrong, people can lie - we do not give our religious assent to any person, only to God. V1 plainly says "all those things", not "all those popes" or "all those bishops" or "all those hierarchies".

V1 states "all those things" we must believe, and he says that all those things are contained in Scripture and tradition and proposed by the Church as matters we must believe - "all those things", is the matter - the matter is the truth, it is the matter that binds us.

The way in which we know what "all those things" are, is the method. The method, is via the Church teaching us which of those things we must believe whether via ex cathedra decrees aka "solemn judgement", "or are contained in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" which means those teachings which are contained in  "...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" - which *is* the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.







Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 17, 2018, 07:46:25 AM
Yet, you believe that an Ecunemical Council promulgated by the legitimate Pope (which represents the Church Universal) did just that.

Cantarella,

A personal never-failing faith of all popes is not a "pious" belief that you are free to hold because it is not true.
 
The word "universal" includes the attribute of time.  If you remove the attribute of time, you do not have a "universal." This is by definition and cannot be ignored. Those that do are influenced by the error of nominalism which is absolutely incompatible with the Catholic faith.

You are correct in saying, "Popes may err personally (in faith and morals); but not judicially or definitely. "Judicially" and  "definitely" are qualities necessary for engaging the Magisterium.

There is some truth in all error.  You do not do the defense of the Catholic faith any good by trying to whitewash historical facts.  Two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes "anathematized" Pope Honorius for "heresy."  Either Honorius was not a heretic and two ecuмenical councils approved by the pope erred, or he was a heretic and in spite of his error, God preserved his Church as He promised he would then and as He is doing today. The proof for the Indefectibility of the Church is that there is, and has been, faithful Catholics who keep the dogmas of our faith and worship God by the "received and approved" rites of the Church throughout the current crisis.

Vatican II bound nothing on the Catholic conscience that was not already bound before.
 
Facts have to be normative and Dogma the firm ground of truth on which you stand. If not, you will be washed away in the storm that is coming for things are going to get much worse.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 17, 2018, 12:41:41 PM
Quote
It is probable and may piously be believed
A probability and a pious belief are not official teachings of the Church.  St Bellarmine was basing his OPINION on history.  If he were alive today he would NOT be preaching that those who disagreed with him were heretics. He would realize that V2 is a historical anomaly for the papacy and his view that popes cannot lost the faith was WRONG.  Saints make mistakes too.  How could anyone predict the horrors of V2? Only God knew, which is why He sent His Mother to Fatima to warn us.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 17, 2018, 12:52:35 PM
Sir, YOU do not do the defense of the Catholic faith any good by trying to whitewash historical facts.  



Saint Robert Bellarmine says otherwise...

Here's another historical fact, brought up recently by one who held a contrary "pious belief". And I have yet to see the answer to those important questions.

The comments from the 1582 Douay Rheims bible mentioned "erring in understanding, private doctrine or writing" on the one hand, and "judicially conclude or give definitive sentence" on the other hand.

Therefore:

1. Can everything be put into either one of these two categories, or is it possible there is a gray area in the middle? For example, in which category would you put pope Francis' so called "plane interviews"? Are they mere "errors in private understanding" or are they "definitive sentences"?

2. Where do "decrees promulgated by an Ecuмenical Council" belong, and more specifically, what are the specific requirements to consider a decree as "promulgated by an Ecuмenical Council"? Does it include everything said by anyone during that council, or are there certain criteria that need to be met in order to be considered such a "decree"? And does every "decree" have the same force? For example, if or when the theological notes of the council are missing, is everything said or "decreed" automatically considered as infallible? If you think so, if you think everything is black and white, then why did the Church ever bother with theological notes?

3. When before you claimed that a pope's faith "cannot fail", not even privately, is that compatible with "erring in understanding, private doctrine or writing"? In other words, can one "err in understanding, private doctrine or writing" without his faith being in any way affected? "Erring in private doctrine" sounds to me very close to (if not the same as) "occult heresy". Or am I mistaken again?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 17, 2018, 12:53:51 PM
Quote
Don't you believe that Paul VI erred by promulgating the Novus Ordo Mass?
The promulgation of that new missal was legal.  The use of it is not.  Legal technicalities which the devil loves.

The new mass is a different subject than V2.  If you want to keep changing the subject, go right ahead.

The new mass was was not a “teaching” so it can’t be an “error”.  It is an evil liturgy so it would be sinful/sacrilege but not an error.  But if you want to argue that it is a “teaching” then I’ll say it’s not an OFFICIAL church teaching or liturgy because it’s optional and not required for salvation.  

Anything from V2 and new-Rome which is OPTIONAL, CONDITIONAL and NOT REQUIRED for salvation is NOT PART OF OUR FAITH.  This probably covers 99.9% of stuff since 1965.  

You can bellyache all you want that people aren’t  “submitting to” the pope or whatever but unless the post-conciliar popes REQUIRE their errors as a matter of faith, then they are ignorable, especially when they contradict Tradition.  

The Church’s rules are not optional, in any scenario.  If certain rules are conditional, then they aren’t from the Holy Ghost and aren’t from His Church.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 17, 2018, 12:59:54 PM
Quote
Besides, the PERSONAL never-failing faith is a red herring tossed out here by R&R.  That's a pious belief that may be held ... or it may not be held.  I personally believe this.

What Vatican I teaches is that Peter AS PETER (not personally as Jorge Bergoglio for instance) has a never-failing faith, that as a public teacher exercising his teaching office, he cannot lead the Church into error.  
The only people who have EVER said the pope’s personal faith can’t fail, on this thread, is Cantarella and Bellator.  Cantarella says it’s a doctrine.  And she repeats it every 4th post.  And she’s not “R&R” so you are WAAAAY OFF.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 17, 2018, 01:05:45 PM
I would give religious assent to your teaching if it is a Catholic truth. It does not matter who teaches it, if it is truth, we give our religious assent to it. As I previously said, it is the truth that binds us. Truth, is the matter. The way in which we receive that truth, is the method. It is the matter that binds us, not the method. People can be wrong, people can lie - we do not give our religious assent to any person, only to God. V1 plainly says "all those things", not "all those popes" or "all those bishops" or "all those hierarchies".

V1 states "all those things" we must believe, and he says that all those things are contained in Scripture and tradition and proposed by the Church as matters we must believe - "all those things", is the matter - the matter is the truth, it is the matter that binds us.

The way in which we know what "all those things" are, is the method. The method, is via the Church teaching us which of those things we must believe whether via ex cathedra decrees aka "solemn judgement", "or are contained in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" which means those teachings which are contained in  "...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" - which *is* the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Protestant heresy. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 17, 2018, 01:31:49 PM
Your options depend on your opinion that Honorius was definitely a manifest and obstinate heretic in the same sense as these current apostates. This is NOT definitive. There is a difference between failing to stamp out Heresy and explicitly teaching heresy to the entire Church in his official capacity.

CE on Honorius: "No doubt Honorius did not really intend to deny that there is in Christ a human will, the higher faculty; but he used words which could be interpreted in the sense of that heresy, and he did not recognize that the question was not about the unity of the Person Who wills, nor about the entire agreement of the Divine Will with the human faculty, but about the distinct existence of the human faculty as an integrant part of the Humanity of Christ."

CE on Honorius: "They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter. The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra."

You should read the whole entry about this Pope.

I have said nothing regarding the personal guilt of Pope Honorius excepting that the matter is of no importance to anyone except Pope Honorius. It is a historical fact that two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes, more than two hundred years apart, condemned Pope Honorius by name for the crime of "heresy" and "anathematized" him again by name.

So what are you claiming? Pope Honorius was not guilty of "heresy" and two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes erred in their condemnation? Or that Pope Honorius' heresy was only material and not formal? So what! For those who make the pope their rule of faith, it makes no difference whatsoever if the pope's error is formal or only material. The consequences are the same.

Those who worship the pope seem very anxious about this fact but the effort to excuse Pope Honorius creates a much bigger problem. The claim that the popes possess a personal never-failing faith is not true. Those who keep peddling this myth should simply read the biblical commentaries that draw upon the Church Fathers and Doctors and previous Popes. Not St. Thomas' Commentary, not Rev. George Haydock's Commentary, nor the Great Commentary of Rev. Cornelius a Lapide claim that any Church Father ever held this opinion. It's not as if it were debated question. Not one held this opinion that every pope possesses a personal never-failing faith. As previously posted, Lapide brings it up only to directly and explicitly deny it.

They do the same thing with St. Peter, who did possess a personal never-failing faith, by claiming that the problem with Judaizers was a simple matter of discipline rather than a grave doctrinal and moral error which it most certainly was and remains today. It would have eventually made the Church of Jesus Christ a sect within the ѕуηαgσgυє. They also ignore the fact, as St. Thomas affirms, that faith can be denied by actions as well as words. It can also be denied by failing to act when duty obligates. The "dissembling" of St. Peter lead St. Barnabas into the same error that had been corrected at the Council of Jerusalem. If St. Paul had not "withstood him to the face," he would have continued to lead others into the same grave error. The accusation was for falling away from the "truth of the gospel."  That is a most serious charge, not a question of simple discipline. 

This is why we pray for the pope.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 02:00:24 PM
Yep.  As I said, you clowns don't even believe in the Magisterium, the existence of a teaching AUTHORITY extrinsic to and formally distinct from the truths themselves.  So John Paul II writing an encyclical is the same as some poster on CI?  You're hopelessly daft and have gone completely astray from Catholicism.  This is the logical consequence of Drew's "dogma is the rule of faith" garbage.
In your obstinate refusal to listen to truth, you do not even know what the magisterium even is, but I'll say this much for you, sure looks like you've innovated another branch of sedeism, you should name it sede-magisteriumism.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 02:02:26 PM
Protestant heresy.
Spoken like a true NOer. Also, I won't take you word for it. Lad thinks like you, he knows better than infallible teachings, just like you and the poor fella, he is as lost as a puppy in a rain storm.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 02:09:44 PM
Since you're a person who, up until a couple of years ago, thought the Magisterium was nothing other than the hierarchy, I don't think you should be trying to teach anybody about the Magisterium or debating anything about it. Just my opinion. Also, the person that heeds anything you say about it would be quite foolish.
You're an even bigger clown than Ladislaus is - at least he was formally brainwashed, what's your excuse? Did you study under +Sanborn too?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 17, 2018, 02:23:23 PM
You're an even bigger clown than Ladislaus is - at least he was formally brainwashed, what's your excuse? Did you study under +Sanborn too?
You've openly contradicted Catholic teaching and declared that you need not give religious assent to the teachings of the Pope or Bishops unless you personally believe them to be true. That is as Protestant as it gets. We are required to give religious assent to all teachings of the hierarchy unless they contradict existing infallible Magisterium. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: King Wenceslas on April 17, 2018, 02:25:19 PM
I have said nothing regarding the personal guilt of Pope Honorius excepting that the matter is of no importance to anyone except Pope Honorius. It is a historical fact that two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes, more than two hundred years apart, condemned Pope Honorius by name for the crime of "heresy" and "anathematized" him again by name.

So what are you claiming? Pope Honorius was not guilty of "heresy" and two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes erred in their condemnation? Or that Pope Honorius' heresy was only material and not formal? So what! For those who make the pope their rule of faith, it makes no difference whatsoever if the pope's error is formal or only material. The consequences are the same.

Those who worship the pope seem very anxious about this fact but the effort to excuse Pope Honorius creates a much bigger problem. The claim that the popes possess a personal never-failing faith is not true. Those who keep peddling this myth should simply read the biblical commentaries that draw upon the Church Fathers and Doctors and previous Popes. Not St. Thomas' Commentary, not Rev. George Haydock's Commentary, nor the Great Commentary of Rev. Cornelius a Lapide claim that any Church Father ever held this opinion. It's not as if it were debated question. Not one held this opinion that every pope possesses a personal never-failing faith. As previously posted, Lapide brings it up only to directly and explicitly deny it.

They do the same thing with St. Peter, who did possess a personal never-failing faith, by claiming that the problem with Judaizers was a simple matter of discipline rather than a grave doctrinal and moral error which it most certainly was and remains today. It would have eventually made the Church of Jesus Christ a sect within the ѕуηαgσgυє. They also ignore the fact, as St. Thomas affirms, that faith can be denied by actions as well as words. It can also be denied by failing to act when duty obligates. The "dissembling" of St. Peter lead St. Barnabas into the same error that had been corrected at the Council of Jerusalem. If St. Paul had not "withstood him to the face," he would have continued to lead others into the same grave error. The accusation was for falling away from the "truth of the gospel."  That is a most serious charge, not a question of simple discipline.

This is why we pray for the pope.

Drew

So all of the other popes do not have a promise of "never ending faith" like St. Peter, right? So when Francis ratifies in the future an ecuмenical council's decree (as stated as a possibility by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn on April 1st in the Austrian newspaper Die Presse) that there can be women priests thus overturning JPII's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, what happens?? Does "Pope" Francis's faith fail? Was Francis a pope at all? Is that council a council?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 02:30:16 PM
You've openly contradicted Catholic teaching and declared that you need not give religious assent to the teachings of the Pope or Bishops unless you personally believe them to be true.
No, I did not say nor "declare" that at all. You would know this if you actually read what I wrote. You probably do know this, but like Lad, you are likely on a mission to work iniquity.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 02:35:49 PM
So all of the other popes do not have a promise of "never ending faith" like St. Peter, right? So when Francis ratifies in the future an ecuмenical council's decree that there can be women priests........
We have a fortune teller joining in on the argument now!  C'mon KW, you're really it stretching here.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 17, 2018, 02:44:58 PM
No, I did not say nor "declare" that at all. You would know this if you actually read what I wrote. You probably do know this, but like Lad, you are likely on a mission to work iniquity.
From your last post:
Quote
It does not matter who teaches it
Quote
we do not give our religious assent to any person
These are Protestant heresies. Putting laymen interpreters on the level of Bishops and declaring we owe no religious assent to their teachings. Yes their ordinary teachings are fallible, but we are still obliged to give them religious assent. You are falling into the exact same trap the "reformers" of the Reformation did. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 02:46:55 PM
From your last post:These are Protestant heresies. Putting laymen interpreters on the level of Bishops and declaring we owe no religious assent to their teachings. Yes their ordinary teachings are fallible, but we are still obliged to give them religious assent. You are falling into the exact same trap the "reformers" of the Reformation did.
As I said before, spoken like a true NOer.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: King Wenceslas on April 17, 2018, 02:52:37 PM
We have a fortune teller joining in on the argument now!  C'mon KW, you're really it stretching here.
So it is not going to happen. Ya right. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Really big things are happening in Europe. You need to get out of your ghetto of trad blog sites.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 17, 2018, 02:58:22 PM
As I said before, spoken like a true NOer.
Novus Ordo'er? I'm a sedevacantist.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 03:05:27 PM
Indeed, Stubborn has to be one of the least informed folks on this forum, and yet he believes himself to be in sole possession of absolute truth.
LOL definitely false.

The truth is, I believe you to be the biggest worker of iniquity on this forum, the reason I believe it is because you demonstrate  it with almost every post.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 03:07:48 PM
Novus Ordo'er? I'm a sedevacantist.
Well the you're a recent convert to sedeism from the NO.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 03:11:16 PM
He's completely lost touch with what basic Catholicism even is due to the novel invention of R&R.
I was only born and raised a trad. You must have studied your errors under +Sanborn not long after we left him due to his preaching of errors. So to you, yes, I'm the one that has completely lost touch with Catholicism. See how that works?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 17, 2018, 03:13:35 PM
I was only born and raised a trad. You must have studied your errors under +Sanborn not long after we left him due to his preaching of errors. So to you, yes, I'm the one that has completely lost touch with Catholicism. See how that works?
How is it Traditional Catholicism to put one's own interpretations over the Ordinary Magisterium? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 03:13:47 PM
So it is not going to happen. Ya right. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Really big things are happening in Europe. You need to get out of your ghetto of trad blog sites.
If you says so. I only frequent trad forums in my spare time, I don't need to get out of what I don't get into.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 03:17:39 PM
How is it Traditional Catholicism to put one's own interpretations over the Ordinary Magisterium?
You do not know what the OM even is. I posted to you what the pope's explanation of it is, but you call me protestant - and Lad is all onboard with you - for posting the pope's explanation of it.

So until you understand what the Magisterium even is, don't include it in silly remarks and accusations you don't even understand. We get our fill of that around here from Lad - he shovels all we can take.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 17, 2018, 03:42:35 PM
LOL definitely false.

The truth is, I believe you to be the biggest worker of iniquity on this forum, the reason I believe it is because you demonstrate  it with almost every post.

Agent provocateur? Sure seems that way.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 17, 2018, 03:44:58 PM
You do not know what the OM even is. I posted to you what the pope's explanation of it is, but you call me protestant - and Lad is all onboard with you - for posting the pope's explanation of it.

So until you understand what the Magisterium even is, don't include it in silly remarks and accusations you don't even understand. We get our fill of that around here from Lad - he shovels all we can take.
That quote refers to the universal ordinary Magisterium, when all Bishops agree and the Pope are in agreement on a teaching of faith or morals. Such teachings are infallible. Not all of the ordinary Magisterium is universal however. The teachings of individual Bishops, while not infallible, are part of the ordinary Magisterium and must be given religious assent.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 17, 2018, 04:18:42 PM
Quote
You've openly contradicted Catholic teaching and declared that you need not give religious assent to the teachings of the Pope or Bishops unless you personally believe them to be true.
Religious assent is defined as CONDITIONAL whereby we accept the teaching BUT...we are allowed to question any contradictions and ask for clarifications.  This is not protestantism, which seeks to do the same thing with DEFINED DOCTRINE.  Big, big difference.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 04:23:16 PM
That quote refers to the universal ordinary Magisterium, when all Bishops agree and the Pope are in agreement on a teaching of faith or morals. Such teachings are infallible. Not all of the ordinary Magisterium is universal however. The teachings of individual Bishops, while not infallible, are part of the ordinary Magisterium and must be given religious assent.  
Your understanding of what the magisterium even is coincides perfectly with Lad's and Cantarella's, and the only place that idea is found, is as an official teaching of the conciliar church and only within the docuмents of V2 - Go read Lumen Gentium 25.2.

OTOH, I gave you the explanation of what the Magisterium is as explained by Pope Pius IX himself, but like Lad and Cantarella and AES and most other sedes and even non-sedes, you reject that explanation, choosing instead Pope Paul VI's NO explanation - then you all go on spouting that his explanation is a dogma of the Church - and like the rest, you don't even realize the "doctrine" you are promoting is strictly a new, NO doctrine from a conciliar pope, while you and the rest constantly attempt to pass it off as if that doctrine is an infallible teaching of the Church. Sedes are sooooo screwed up!

So you all can feel free to keep calling those of us heretics who disagree with and expose that NO doctrine, a NO doctrine which you all say you believe is an infallible teaching of the Church.

While your reasoning to call us heretics is based on your false belief and therefore is understandable, your obstinate refusal to accept  correction when the truth is indisputably proven and presented to you over and over again is not only not understandable, it is downright iniquitous already.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 17, 2018, 05:19:16 PM
Your understanding of what the magisterium even is coincides perfectly with Lad's and Cantarella's, and the only place that idea is found, is as an official teaching of the conciliar church and only within the docuмents of V2 - Go read Lumen Gentium 25.2.

OTOH, I gave you the explanation of what the Magisterium is as explained by Pope Pius IX himself, but like Lad and Cantarella and AES and most other sedes and even non-sedes, you reject that explanation, choosing instead Pope Paul VI's NO explanation - then you all go on spouting that his explanation is a dogma of the Church - and like the rest, you don't even realize the "doctrine" you are promoting is strictly a new, NO doctrine from a conciliar pope, while you and the rest constantly attempt to pass it off as if that doctrine is an infallible teaching of the Church. Sedes are sooooo screwed up!

So you all can feel free to keep calling those of us heretics who disagree with and expose that NO doctrine, a NO doctrine which you all say you believe is an infallible teaching of the Church.

While your reasoning to call us heretics is based on your false belief and therefore is understandable, your obstinate refusal to accept  correction when the truth is indisputably proven and presented to you over and over again is not only not understandable, it is downright iniquitous already.
Even your quote, which again is about UNIVERSAL Magisterium, mentions the "ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world". This does not mean Stubborn's authority to interpret dogma as he pleases. This means the authority the Bishops all over the world have to teach doctrine, doctrine we are required to give religious assent to. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 17, 2018, 05:21:37 PM
Religious assent is defined as CONDITIONAL whereby we accept the teaching BUT...we are allowed to question any contradictions and ask for clarifications.  This is not protestantism, which seeks to do the same thing with DEFINED DOCTRINE.  Big, big difference.
But Stubborn has made it clear he rejects that he needs to submit to the fallible Magisterium at all, deciding that any source of what he perceives to be true is as good as any other. Thereby elevating his own interpretations to be on equal footing with the Magisterium. That is exactly what the Protestants did, and now they have 23,000 sects because of people just like him. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 17, 2018, 06:21:42 PM
Even your quote, which again is about UNIVERSAL Magisterium, mentions the "ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world". This does not mean Stubborn's authority to interpret dogma as he pleases. This means the authority the Bishops all over the world have to teach doctrine, doctrine we are required to give religious assent to.
Again, you do not understand what is written, I can say this because you are proving you are giving what is written your own mis-interpretation, instead of what is actually written. Such is the normal result of being brainwashed either through years spent in the NO or by the formal training under heretics.

"Religious assent" is due to God and to the teachings of His Church, not to popes and bishops - as you yourself presumably  demonstrated by leaving the NO church - because they are not God neither are they teachings.

Truth is truth no matter who it comes from just as heresy is heresy no matter who it comes from. This is just the most basic and fundamental of Catholic principles - it is not the least bit complicated - so ask yourself, why is this heresy to you? and let us know what you come up with.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 17, 2018, 06:47:29 PM
Quote
But Stubborn has made it clear he rejects that he needs to submit to the fallible Magisterium at all,

I doubt he believes that.  Secondly, how can one "submit" to a magisterium that doesn't require submission?

Many of you throw around the word "submit" without understanding what the word means.  The Church requires submission to teachings that are necessary for salvation.  V2 and new rome have not required submission and have REPEATEDLY SAID that any novelties should be interpreted 'in the light of Tradition'.  Ergo, they are saying that TRUE SUBMISSION is to be given to TRADITION and CONSTANT TRUTHS of our Faith.  All else does not require submission, only conditional assent.  Conditional assent IS NOT SUBMISSION.  It is impossible to submit to a condition.


Quote
deciding that any source of what he perceives to be true is as good as any other. Thereby elevating his own interpretations to be on equal footing with the Magisterium.

V2 new-rome has said that any novelties should be interpreted in the light of tradition.  If you want to argue that Stubborn's INTERPRETATION is wrong, fine.  But you must admit that he's not making stuff up; he's quoting Traditional passages.


Quote
That is exactly what the Protestants did, and now they have 23,000 sects because of people just like him.

Protestants questioned INFALLIBLE, DOCTRINAL, DEFINED TEACHINGS.  Any catholic who questions V2, which we are allowed to do, is not remotely close to protestantism.  

---
In all my debates with sedevacantists, with very, very few exceptions, the vast majority are quick to call fellow catholics heretics, schismatics, protestants, etc.  They are always very quick to judge, condemn and crucify.  Deep down, they don't argue to learn or grow, but "to win".  It goes to show the true motive of most of these individuals, which is not charity, nor the search for truth (for they have too much pride to be open to the truth, or to admit they could be wrong).  Their search is ultimately for the juvenile and immature "feeling" of security, which they MUST have, at all costs, because the crisis in the Church is too much for them to handle emotionally.  

Much like Martin Luther, whose heresies were born from a false fear of God and of extreme despair that he would be saved, and who rejected all catholic truths which were remotely connected to his having to worry over hell...So most sedes have an inordinate fear of chaos and error, and of not trusting in their knowledge of Tradition or their prayers for God's wisdom, so they throw out the entire roman curia, even the pope, so to remove the temptation that they would be corrupted.   And those catholics who do not follow them into this rash reaction, this self-anointed judgement of rome, and this extreme view of papal adulation, they cast out of their 'pope-less church' and they declare they are the only catholics who "have it right".  In their false efforts to protect the Truth, they make themselves the sole authority, to the detriment of their humility and the unity of tradition.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 17, 2018, 07:15:55 PM


Pax Vobis said:

Quote
In all my debates with sedevacantists, with very, very few exceptions, the vast majority are quick to call fellow catholics heretics, schismatics, protestants, etc.  They are always very quick to judge, condemn and crucify.  Deep down, they don't argue to learn or grow, but "to win".  It goes to show the true motive of most of these individuals, which is not charity, nor the search for truth (for they have too much pride to be open to the truth, or to admit they could be wrong).  Their search is ultimately for the juvenile and immature "feeling" of security, which they MUST have, at all costs, because the crisis in the Church is too much for them to handle emotionally. 


Very true. And this is another thing they have in common with "conservative" Catholics.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 17, 2018, 07:42:03 PM
If only they (like all of us need to) would realize that the chaos in the Church is ALLOWED by God, and not WHOLLY HUMAN in origin, because God's Providence GOVERNS and ALLOWS ALL, then they would realize that God is in control, and He knows to what limit He will allow confusion to reign.  And though sin is everywhere and truth is forgotten, error has not and will not touch His Spotless Bride of the Church, just like God allowed Pilate to pronounce judgement on Christ, though He was guiltless and pure.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 17, 2018, 07:56:35 PM
I doubt he believes that.  Secondly, how can one "submit" to a magisterium that doesn't require submission?

Many of you throw around the word "submit" without understanding what the word means.  The Church requires submission to teachings that are necessary for salvation.  V2 and new rome have not required submission and have REPEATEDLY SAID that any novelties should be interpreted 'in the light of Tradition'.  Ergo, they are saying that TRUE SUBMISSION is to be given to TRADITION and CONSTANT TRUTHS of our Faith.  All else does not require submission, only conditional assent.  Conditional assent IS NOT SUBMISSION.  It is impossible to submit to a condition.


V2 new-rome has said that any novelties should be interpreted in the light of tradition.  If you want to argue that Stubborn's INTERPRETATION is wrong, fine.  But you must admit that he's not making stuff up; he's quoting Traditional passages.


Protestants questioned INFALLIBLE, DOCTRINAL, DEFINED TEACHINGS.  Any catholic who questions V2, which we are allowed to do, is not remotely close to protestantism.  

---
In all my debates with sedevacantists, with very, very few exceptions, the vast majority are quick to call fellow catholics heretics, schismatics, protestants, etc.  They are always very quick to judge, condemn and crucify.  Deep down, they don't argue to learn or grow, but "to win".  It goes to show the true motive of most of these individuals, which is not charity, nor the search for truth (for they have too much pride to be open to the truth, or to admit they could be wrong).  Their search is ultimately for the juvenile and immature "feeling" of security, which they MUST have, at all costs, because the crisis in the Church is too much for them to handle emotionally.  

Much like Martin Luther, whose heresies were born from a false fear of God and of extreme despair that he would be saved, and who rejected all catholic truths which were remotely connected to his having to worry over hell...So most sedes have an inordinate fear of chaos and error, and of not trusting in their knowledge of Tradition or their prayers for God's wisdom, so they throw out the entire roman curia, even the pope, so to remove the temptation that they would be corrupted.   And those catholics who do not follow them into this rash reaction, this self-anointed judgement of rome, and this extreme view of papal adulation, they cast out of their 'pope-less church' and they declare they are the only catholics who "have it right".  In their false efforts to protect the Truth, they make themselves the sole authority, to the detriment of their humility and the unity of tradition.

Pax,
 
Well said. These people you are addressing do not themselves submit to anything. 
 
They do not submit to the Magisterium claiming it is “dormant.”  They do not submit to the pope claiming there is none. They do not submit to Dogma claiming that it is not the proximate rule of faith and that anyone who interprets Dogma by its literal meaning of the words is a “Protestants” engaging in “private interpretation.” They do not submit to the norms of Catholic moral theology regarding the regulation of obedience under the virtue of Religion. They do not even submit to the bald arrogance of established facts which seems to frighten them.
 
All their arguments are grounded in gross distortions of the Church to drive others into their camp of “I will not serve.” They distort the Magisterium regarding things that are fallible as infallible such as Vatican II.  They distort the pope into a deity where he is both infallibly infallible and fallibly infallible at the same time attributing to him a personal “never-failing faith.” They deny the authority of Dogma as the proximate rule of faith yet they never cease calling everyone that does not joint their camp a “heretic.” 
 
In this, they really deny the Magisterium altogether.  When they reject the literal meaning of dogma claiming that only the Magisterium can “interpret” dogma, they are really saying to the Magisterium, “I do not like your Dogma as written. Go back and give me another.”  In the end they arrive in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith. Furthermore, it has no means or the intent to ever correct any of these deficiencies while at the same time accusing R&R faithful of destroying the Church’s Indefectibility.  
 
No two lots of sedevacantists and sedeprivationists can agree on anything.  They cannot even agree on the validity of each other orders. They cannot even serve each other. They serve nothing but themselves.
 
All this non-sense accusing R&R of not “submitting” is just one big hypocritical scam. In the end it is all demonic and the longer this goes on, the more their bad will is manifested.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 17, 2018, 08:58:40 PM
Speaking about Professions of Faith, here is the Tridentine Profession of Faith, which also mentions the Roman's Pontiff infallible teaching and to whom we swear true obedience:

Cantarella,

This is as mindless a post as you have made.  The Tridentine profession of faith, which was used at the opening profession of Vatican I, is a litany of dogmas which I believe and hold as divinely revealed truths that constitute my proximate rule of faith.  It was at Vatican I that papal infallibility was formally defined and, if your read it, you will learn that the pope’s never-failing faith only means that he will never Magisterially bind the Church to doctrinal or moral errors as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.

You on the other hand, deny dogma as the rule of faith. You, like Ladislaus, must go to your “dormant” magisterium to find out what these dogmas really mean because, if you try to figure that out on your own, you will be guilty of “private interpretation” like the “Protestants.”

So since your magisterium is “dormant,” let me help.  “True obedience” is always regulated by the virtue of Religion. Therefore, we find in the Tridentine profession of faith the acceptance of the “received and approved” rites that were dogmatized at the Council of Trent.  “True obedience” demands the rejection of the Novus Ordo because of this dogma.  Your false obedience believes that the Novus Ordo must be accepted and dogma be damned.

I attribute bad will to your posts. You just repeat the same mindless cants as if reiteration is the soundest sign of truth. Your church has not pope, no magisterium, no councils and no creeds and never will. No creeds because creeds are just a bunch of unintelligible dogmas that are not your rule of faith. This church that you now belong to is not the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

By the way, the Tridentine profession of faith reaffirmed the "anathemas" of all previous councils.  That would include the "anathema" against Pope Honorius for "heresy." Only those who practice "true obedience" would have avoided following him in his error.  Just as St. Barnabas, if he had practiced "true obedience" would have withstood St. Peter to his face before St. Paul arrived instead of following him in his "dissimulation."

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: ignatius on April 17, 2018, 10:50:56 PM
Drew-

Thank you for all of your writing on this topic.  For myself I am learning a lot through your knowledge on this subject regarding the rule of faith.  Do you happen to have a stand alone article on this particular topic in contrast to the rule of faith in the magisterium you are describing?

If not, will you consider making one for the good of the church we can pass around?  It is superb.

If and when you do, please post a copy of it and or PM me with it.  It will be much appreciated and forwarded in emails.

Thanks again for your time on this important subject.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 17, 2018, 11:37:54 PM
In the Tridentine Profession of Faith Roman Catholics swear TRUE obedience to the Pope.

Your position is not that of TRUE obedience.

Actually, your position advocates quite the opposite. It promotes disobedience towards the Roman Pontiff, "resistance to his face", as they say.

In our position, we ignore the impostor. In yours, you disobey the Pope, in opposition to the Tridentine profession of Faith.

Which of the two do you think is more in accord with the Roman Catholic religion?

Please explain the difference between:

1. We have what looks like a good and valid pope who one day teaches error. Some people reject the error, but keep the pope.

2. We have what looks like a good and valid pope who one day teaches error. Some people reject the error, as well as the pope.

Which of these two positions do you believe is that of "TRUE obedience"?

Hint: you may wish to consult St. Thomas Aquinas on the "TRUE meaning of obedience"!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 18, 2018, 12:19:26 AM
This is a discussion of the deaf.

Simple questions are "down thumbed" and ignored, in typical sedehypocrisy style.

I have better things to do. I hope to see you all in Heaven one day. Good luck!

PS : Drew, I am still thinking about your position on the Rule of Faith. I am not convinced, but I will let you know via PM if I want to further discuss this with you.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 18, 2018, 03:40:06 AM
In the Tridentine Profession of Faith Roman Catholics swear TRUE obedience to the Pope.

Your position is not that of TRUE obedience.

Actually, your position advocates quite the opposite. It promotes disobedience towards the Roman Pontiff, "resistance to his face", as they say.


In our position, we ignore the impostor. In yours, you disobey the Pope, in opposition to the Tridentine Profession of Faith.

Which of these two above do you think is more in accord with the Holy Roman Catholic religion?
Cantarella, his position is that of TRUE obedience, same as all Catholics. Your issue is that his position is not one of BLIND obedience.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 10:06:20 AM
Quote
We reject the Novus Ordo Mass simply because it is promulgated by an anti-Pope,
You reject the novus ordo because you believe Paul VI was an anti-pope, yet you believe he was an anti-pope BECAUSE the novus ordo is not catholic.

CIRCULAR REASONING TO THE EXTREME!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 10:12:48 AM
Quote
At the end of the day, you reduce the Magisterium to nothing more than a man (the Pope) or a group of men (Fathers of Vatican II) opining about doctrinal matters.  If what they happen to say is true, then it has authority.  If what they happen to say is false (by my judgment), then it has no authority.
If they do not engage the solemn magisterium and teach 'with certainty of faith' then their magisterium is FALLIBLE and CONDITIONAL, ergo, yes - they are teaching with their simple authority inherent in their offices as simple bishops, or theologians.

And yes, in this case, the litmus test is whether or not their fallible teachings AGREE WITH TRADITION and the UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM (which is the CONSTANT teachings over the 2,000 years of the church, not (as you incorrectly define it) as being "universal" just because it came from an ecuмenical council.)  The word "universal" means over the course of Church history.  It refers to the past magisteriums of the Church; it does not refer to the PRESENT DAY in any scenario.  If you would change your mindset on this, you might figure things out.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 10:15:22 AM
Quote
Do you think that rejecting an Ecunemical Council and a Liturgical Rite promulgated by the legitimate Pope is true obedience in any way?
Neither V2 nor the novus ordo is required to be accepted 100%, nor attended at all.  You can't reject what is not required.

Your agenda prevents you from seeing the Truth.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 18, 2018, 10:22:53 AM
It is a quintessential sign of the heretic and the schismatic to think and act in hostility against the Roman Pontiff.  

The progressives/liberals in the conciliar church believe that the Pope should absoulutely be followed without question. I guess that's one thing you have in common with them. However, I don't think it's an act of hostility to not follow a pope in his errors.




Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 10:29:52 AM
Quote
Also, I notice another contradiction in your position. Whereas you reject Vatican II Council and the conciliar Popes on the basis of not having defined any "dogmas" or ex-cathedra statements; you are rather quick to condemn Pope Honorius of formal heresy when it is obvious that he did not engage the infallible Magisterium, defined any doctrine, or pronounce an ex-cathedra statement. 
There's no contradiction.  Pope Honorius was labeled a heretic.  The post-conciliar popes are/will be labeled as heretics (at some point).  Neither taught error using their infallibility (which God would never allow anyway).  All of these pope's errors should be (and must be) ignored, if one wants to get to heaven.  A layman in either case has the responsibility to 'stick with Tradition' and worship God in the only, True way.  There is nothing else for the layman to do - his job is not to judge the pope, nor consider his seat vacant, nor run around to try to "fix" the Church.  This is all God's responsibility, for it is HIS Church, not ours.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 18, 2018, 11:07:31 AM
Yet another case of conflating simple obedience with assent to Magisterium and Universal Discipline ... on purpose in order to make this specious argument over and over again.

Says someone who believes that I'm a heretic for believing that Francis is the Pope, right?

You've said twice, in the past, that I'm a heretic because I believe that Francis is the Pope.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 18, 2018, 11:33:06 AM
Regarding the case of Pope Honorius, I could take side with the Gallicans and other enemies of the Papacy on his case, but as a Roman Catholic why in the world should I ever do that?

I rather take side with the Church fathers in Vatican I Council when defining the dogma of Papal Infallibility, as well Pope Leo XII when in the letter of confirmation of the Council, when he clearly interprets it as intending to criticize Honorius not for error of belief, but rather for "imprudent economy of silence". In other words,  he was condemned, not for having taught error, nor as a formal heretic, but only for not acting proactively against the propagation of Monotheletism.

This is the Catholic version.

Also, I notice another contradiction in your position. Whereas you reject Vatican II Council and the conciliar Popes on the basis of not having defined any "dogmas" or ex-cathedra statements; you are rather quick to condemn Pope Honorius of formal heresy when it is obvious that he did not engage the infallible Magisterium, defined any doctrine, or pronounce an ex-cathedra statement.

It is the quintessential sign of the heretic and the schismatic to think and act in hostility against the Roman Pontiff.  

Cantarella,
Have you gone mad? Where did Drew "condemn Pope Honorius of formal heresy"? Let me refresh your mind since Drew has a long day at work today:


Quote
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg586898/#msg586898
 
D. M. Drew:
There are a number of problems with your reply to Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve on December 20.
 
Firstly, no Church father or doctor or magisterial docuмent has ever claimed that each individual pope possessed a "never-failing faith."  St. Thomas and Rev. Haydock do not even address the question in their commentaries.  Rev. Cornelius a Lapide in his great Commentary specifically addresses this question and says that the "never-failing faith" was a personal grace granted to St. Peter alone.  The promise to his successors was that they would never engage the Church's attribute of infallibility to teach error.  Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by at the Sixth Ecuмenical Council that was approved by the Pope Leo II. It matters not whether his heresy was formal or only material except to Honorius himself.  If the pope is taken as the rule of faith, then he must be preserved from even material heresy because for the faithful following his example it would make no difference.
 
Furthermore, there is not logical contradiction between Infallibility and a pope being a heretic and more than the heretic, Caiaphas being the high priest, who was a Sadducee and denied the doctrine of the resurrection, prophesized being the High Priest, that Christ should die for the nation. Even Balaam's Ass can be used by God to teach the truth.  
St. Thomas' denying the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with this argument. St. Robert Bellarmine may or may be correct that a pope has never fallen into formal heresy but the point is moot. Again, it makes no difference whatsoever, except to the pope himself, whether or not the heresy is formal or merely material...


And you replied:

Quote
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg587166/#msg587166
This is a good point, Mr. Drew. Whether the heresy is material or formal, is completely irrelevant as the effect would be the same.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 11:36:26 AM
Quote
Indeed...  Once again we see that Pax is making things up to suit his agenda. 
First off, I don't care if he was a heretic or not.  I'm not the one who thinks papal heresy affects his chair (unless the Church deposes him).  It is irrelevant to my "agenda" whether Honorius believed the heresy, or simply kept quiet.

Secondly, there are 9 ways to be an accessory to someone else's sin - silence being one of them.  And since the pope has the SUPREME duty to condemn error, and Honorious did not, then it's logical to say that his silence accepted the heresy, in some degree - and the pope to a higher degree is guilty, since his duty is greater.  As St Thomas Moore, a lawyer, always said of the law:  "Silence gives consent".  Thus, it is just that Honorius is connected to heresy and rightly condemned.

But really, it doesn't matter if he was a heretic officially.  He's not one in the same manner as the V2 popes, but you're the one who thinks this matters, not I.
Quote
Also, I notice another contradiction in your position. Whereas you reject Vatican II Council and the conciliar Popes on the basis of not having defined any "dogmas" or ex-cathedra statements; you are rather quick to condemn Pope Honorius of formal heresy when it is obvious that he did not engage the infallible Magisterium, defined any doctrine, or pronounce an ex-cathedra statement. 
In conclusion, Cantarella, your above statement then is retarded.  You're saying that Drew has a contradiction because he treats V2 popes the same as Honorius.  I explained that the treatment being the same is not a contradiction.  Then you said the situations AREN'T the same, and my explanation is wrong.  Well...YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SAID THEY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You even contradict yourself in a matter of posts.  Amazing.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 18, 2018, 01:07:03 PM
First off, I don't care if he was a heretic or not.  I'm not the one who thinks papal heresy affects his chair (unless the Church deposes him).  It is irrelevant to my "agenda" whether Honorius believed the heresy, or simply kept quiet.

Secondly, there are 9 ways to be an accessory to someone else's sin - silence being one of them.  And since the pope has the SUPREME duty to condemn error, and Honorious did not, then it's logical to say that his silence accepted the heresy, in some degree - and the pope to a higher degree is guilty, since his duty is greater.  As St Thomas Moore, a lawyer, always said of the law:  "Silence gives consent".  Thus, it is just that Honorius is connected to heresy and rightly condemned.

But really, it doesn't matter if he was a heretic officially.  He's not one in the same manner as the V2 popes, but you're the one who thinks this matters, not I.In conclusion, Cantarella, your above statement then is retarded.  You're saying that Drew has a contradiction because he treats V2 popes the same as Honorius.  I explained that the treatment being the same is not a contradiction.  Then you said the situations AREN'T the same, and my explanation is wrong.  Well...YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SAID THEY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You even contradict yourself in a matter of posts.  Amazing.
The Church cannot depose a Pope. All it can do is recognise the seat as having been vacant. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 01:55:58 PM
Quote
Universal Discipline
The current magisterium can never have a universal discipline, because universal refers to all magisteriums, ever, in the history of the Church.  Universal refers to time; it does not refer to 'the present church'.  Something is only universal if it has ALWAYS been taught, everywhere, and by all.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 01:58:02 PM
Quote
The Church cannot depose a Pope. All it can do is recognise the seat as having been vacant. 
That's debatable.  There's no clear teaching on the matter, unless you are a 'sola bellarmina' (i.e. you only follow St Bellarmine, and reject the 100s of other theologians.)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 02:00:24 PM
Quote
Yep.  He's been exposed for this about 4 or 5 times now.
Oh, please.  Either Honorius was a heretic, or he just supported heresy by being silent.  Potato, potatoe. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 18, 2018, 02:04:15 PM
You're wrong.  I'd say it was outright calumny, except that you just can't understand what I'm saying ... even after I've explained it half a dozen times.  I have never accused anyone of heresy for considering Francis to be the pope ... as the status of a heretical pope is disputed among theologians.  What I have problems with is the heretical ecclesiology that VERY OFTEN accompanies R&R.

You've said twice in the past, in debating this topic, that I'm a heretic because I believe that the Pope is the Pope and that he does have jurisdiction. Are you denying this?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 18, 2018, 02:34:20 PM
In the Tridentine Profession of Faith Roman Catholics swear TRUE obedience to the Pope.

Your position is not that of TRUE obedience.

Actually, your position advocates quite the opposite. It promotes disobedience towards the Roman Pontiff, "resistance to his face", as they say.


In our position, we ignore the impostor. In yours, you disobey the Pope, in opposition to the Tridentine Profession of Faith.

Which of these two above do you think is more in accord with the Holy Roman Catholic religion?


You obviously didn't get read the reply.

Quote
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604503/#msg604503

Cantarella,

This is as mindless a post as you have made.  The Tridentine profession of faith, which was used at the opening profession of Vatican I, is a litany of dogmas which I believe and hold as divinely revealed truths that constitute my proximate rule of faith.  It was at Vatican I that papal infallibility was formally defined and, if your read it, you will learn that the pope’s never-failing faith only means that he will never Magisterially bind the Church to doctrinal or moral errors as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.

You on the other hand, deny dogma as the rule of faith. You, like Ladislaus, must go to your “dormant” magisterium to find out what these dogmas really mean because, if you try to figure that out on your own, you will be guilty of “private interpretation” like the “Protestants.”

So since your magisterium is “dormant,” let me help.  “True obedience” is always regulated by the virtue of Religion. Therefore, we find in the Tridentine profession of faith the acceptance of the “received and approved” rites that were dogmatized at the Council of Trent.  “True obedience” demands the rejection of the Novus Ordo because of this dogma.  Your false obedience believes that the Novus Ordo must be accepted and dogma be damned.

I attribute bad will to your posts. You just repeat the same mindless cants as if reiteration is the soundest sign of truth. Your church has not pope, no magisterium, no councils and no creeds and never will. No creeds because creeds are just a bunch of unintelligible dogmas that are not your rule of faith. This church that you now belong to is not the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

By the way, the Tridentine profession of faith reaffirmed the "anathemas" of all previous councils.  That would include the "anathema" against Pope Honorius for "heresy." Only those who practice "true obedience" would have avoided following him in his error.  Just as St. Barnabas, if he had practiced "true obedience" would have withstood St. Peter to his face before St. Paul arrived instead of following him in his "dissimulation."

Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 18, 2018, 02:39:46 PM
Do you think that rejecting an Ecunemical Council and a Liturgical Rite promulgated by the legitimate Pope is true obedience in any way?
Absolutely it's true obedience. Again, you are confusing blind obedience to error, with true obedience to truth.

True obedience is blind obedience to God in all things and at all times. What true obedience is not, is blind obedience to a pope and council that taught - and still teach errors.

You say a pope and council cannot teach error even though it did, and from there, iniquity reigns.







Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 18, 2018, 02:52:43 PM
Drew-

Thank you for all of your writing on this topic.  For myself I am learning a lot through your knowledge on this subject regarding the rule of faith.  Do you happen to have a stand alone article on this particular topic in contrast to the rule of faith in the magisterium you are describing?

If not, will you consider making one for the good of the church we can pass around?  It is superb.

If and when you do, please post a copy of it and or PM me with it.  It will be much appreciated and forwarded in emails.

Thanks again for your time on this important subject.


Thank you, Ignatius. It has been very difficult for my husband to take the time with his busy work schedule but if only one person would benefit from his posts, it was well worth! God bless you.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 18, 2018, 03:24:55 PM
The current magisterium can never have a universal discipline, because universal refers to all magisteriums, ever, in the history of the Church.  Universal refers to time; it does not refer to 'the present church'.  Something is only universal if it has ALWAYS been taught, everywhere, and by all.
Incorrect. Anything that is taught by all the Bishops and the Pope in unity is infallible. It does not have to always have been taught. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 04:53:37 PM

Quote
Incorrect. Anything that is taught by all the Bishops and the Pope in unity is infallible. It does not have to always have been taught. 
So you’re saying that the pope/bishops can teach something new?  How is this possible?  They can teach a doctrine different from what Christ handed down, or different from Scripture?  OF COURSE NOT!

This is where many people’s specific/modernist view of the magisterium is wrong.  You want to argue that the current magisterium is free from error - always.  Yet, you also want to say that it must jive with Tradition/Scripture.  IT CANT BE BOTH.  So what’s the solution?

As has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, the solution is that 1) the current magisterium is infallible when they teach SOLEMNLY, or 2) when they teach non-solemnly, yet infallibly, and they are RE-AFFIRMING TRADITION.  

The third option is they teach non-solemnly, and non-infallibly and therefore can err.  Like at V2.  

There are no new truths, no new doctrine, no new cathechism.  We must believe today the SAME EXACT TRUTHS as Christians of the 1st century.  If the current hierarchy isn’t RE-TEACHING what has always been taught, as St Paul said “They are anathema!”
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 05:38:05 PM
But your acknowledgment/recognition of this fact (assuming it can be proven) means nothing.  What you or I believe, as we are laymen, means nothing.  The Church was built on Christ/pope.  When we die, the Church will continue.  It exists outside of us and whatever we “acknowledge” is irrelevant.  How can our opinion matter, when it is Christ’s Church?

How has your acknowledgement of your theory affected Rome?  How has it affected your local diocese?  It hasn’t affected them at all, because our vote doesn’t count...
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 18, 2018, 05:44:08 PM
So you’re saying that the pope/bishops can teach something new?  How is this possible?  They can teach a doctrine different from what Christ handed down, or different from Scripture?  OF COURSE NOT!

This is where many people’s specific/modernist view of the magisterium is wrong.  You want to argue that the current magisterium is free from error - always.  Yet, you also want to say that it must jive with Tradition/Scripture.  IT CANT BE BOTH.  So what’s the solution?

As has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, the solution is that 1) the current magisterium is infallible when they teach SOLEMNLY, or 2) when they teach non-solemnly, yet infallibly, and they are RE-AFFIRMING TRADITION.  

The third option is they teach non-solemnly, and non-infallibly and therefore can err.  Like at V2.  

There are no new truths, no new doctrine, no new cathechism.  We must believe today the SAME EXACT TRUTHS as Christians of the 1st century.  If the current hierarchy isn’t RE-TEACHING what has always been taught, as St Paul said “They are anathema!”
By your warped logic, any dogma or doctrine defined after the 1st Century is heresy. No, new teachings and doctrines do not in any way contradict the old. They invent nothing, they merely make clear the correct interpretations of beliefs that had previously been contested and undefined by the Church. There are many cases in history where the Saints held beliefs that would be heretical today but were not then, as the doctrine had not been defined yet. Nothing new is created, merely old contested issues are clarified and made clear for all the faithful to believe, resolving the debate around them.  

Similarly, new teachings by the universal ordinary Magisterium does not mean that they are inventing anything or contradicting the old. They CANNOT, as the universal ordinary Magisterium is infallible. THAT is traditional Catholic teaching for you. If you can prove the universal ordinary Magisterium to be teaching heresy, then it is clear that it CANNOT be the real Church hierarchy. As it is ancient and clear Church teaching that it is infallible.

Quote
There are no new truths, no new doctrine, no new cathechism.  We must believe today the SAME EXACT TRUTHS as Christians of the 1st century.  If the current hierarchy isn’t RE-TEACHING what has always been taught, as St Paul said “They are anathema!”
This is just blatantly false. The Assumption of Mary was dogmatically defined in 1950 you tool. And there's a new cathechism every couple of decades. I never said the truth changes, but what we know and are required to believe does. As I said before, many dogma we hold as infallibly defined now were under debate for much of Church history with even Saints disagreeing with what the Church would later conclude was the truth. To deny that the Church has expanded its teachings is just to deny history plain and simple. It is to deny teachings such as the Assumption of Mary. It is a denial of reason and faith. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 18, 2018, 05:45:02 PM
But your acknowledgment/recognition of this fact (assuming it can be proven) means nothing.  What you or I believe, as we are laymen, means nothing.  The Church was built on Christ/pope.  When we die, the Church will continue.  It exists outside of us and whatever we “acknowledge” is irrelevant.  How can our opinion matter, when it is Christ’s Church?

How has your acknowledgement of your theory affected Rome?  How has it affected your local diocese?  It hasn’t affected them at all, because our vote doesn’t count...
Freemasons cannot be Popes. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 18, 2018, 06:59:55 PM
Care to explain how is it that the Novus Ordo Mass is not an "approved and received" rite when we see the "Popes" offering the Sacrifice of the Mass daily and publicly with it?

To avoid this Tridentine Anathema...

How can you say that the Church does not use the Novus Ordo rite?

How can you say that Paul VI did not approve it?

Faith does not contradict reason.

Cantarella,


God takes His revealed truth seriously and He expects everyone else to do so as well.  The faithful are called the "faithful" because they are faithful to believe what God has revealed on the authority of God.  What God has revealed is found in Scripture and Tradition.  This is called the remote rule of faith and the proximate rule of faith is that part of Scripture and Tradition that has been formally defined by the Church's Magisterium that we call Dogma.  Since Dogma is proximate in time to Scripture and Tradition, it is called the proximate rule of faith.  Dogma is a two edged sword.  For the faithful it makes God's revelation so explicit that there can remain no doubt whatsoever regarding what God wants us to believe, so Dogma is called, "the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  But as a two edged sword it cuts both ways. Those who reject any Dogma suffer the direct condemnation by God through his Church.  That is what "anathema" means: 'Go to Hell'. Sedevacantists and sedeprivationists should reflect upon this most seriously because both these theories lead directly to the denial of Catholic Dogma.

The "received and approved" rites of the Catholic Church are the subject of Dogma. From the book, ѕυιcιdє in Altering the Faith in the Liturgy attributed to Fr. Paul Kramer (N.B.: For the record, Fr. Kramer has admitted that he is not the actual author of many parts of the books attributed to him, therefore, if any further explanation of this quote is wanted, he may not be the person to ask.")


Quote
The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.”  The “received and approved rites” are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII).  Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.”  
Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

This "Tridentine anathema" is leveled at anyone who denies the Dogma in word or deed. Pope Paul VI had no authority even as pope to alter the "received and approved" rites. Paul VI was a heretic which, for those who hold Dogma as the rule of faith, it is someone who denies a Dogma.  Those who do not hold Dogma as the rule of faith cannot call anyone a heretic because they have no standard by which to judge.  You and Ladislaus hold the "Magisterium as the rule of faith" which is the same as saying the pope is your rule of faith since it is the pope who hold the keys to the Magisterium.  You believe whatever the "magisterium" says at any particular time (sometimes).  So by what right do you have to complain about the Novus Ordo?  I can reject it because I keep the Dogmas of the Catholic Church. You do not.

And because I have no problem in understanding that the "received and approved" rites are not, and never could be, the subject of mere Church discipline, or as you and your buddy like to believe, mere ecclesiastical faith, I know that there is no "magisterial" power on earth that can overturn revealed Truth, i.e.: Dogma.  Faithful Catholics do not participate in the Novus Ordo and those who do are at least guilty of material heresy.  It is the form of worship for a Novus Ordo religion that can be compared analogously to the countless times in the Old Testament where those "sitting on the chair of Moses" lead and/or participated in idolatrous worship for the time of Moses himself to the time of the Maccabees.  

"Faith does not contradict reason." I have no problem accusing the conciliar popes of heresy because I adhere to Dogma as my rule of faith.  God has kept His promise to prevent these heretics from using the Magisterium, that is, the 'teaching authority' of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Authority and Infallibility to bind the faithful to doctrinal and/or moral error over the last 50 years.  God is faithful even when we are not.  All you are called upon to do is keep His revealed Truth.  The problem is His revealed Truth is not good enough for you. You want to be the lord of the harvest.  Where God is patient, you are not. I am telling you most seriously, those who make themselves "lord of the harvest" will find themselves bundled with the chaff.

Drew




Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 07:32:06 PM
Forlorn, your understanding of dogma is a little off.  The Assumption is a dogma now, and was not before the 50s but it was ALWAYS held to be true, until Protestants cane around.  The Assumption is not a new truth; it’s from Apostolic times.  

The Immaculate Conception is also from Apostolic times.  It started being debated in the Middle Ages and was RE-TAUGHT as a dogma in the 1800s.  

ALL TRUTHS of our faith are Apostolic.  Just because the immaculate conception was debated in the Middle Ages does not mean it was NEW, it just means the truth was corrupted and not understood.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 18, 2018, 07:51:06 PM


It may help Forlorn:

In Lamentabili Pope St. Pius X condemns the proposition that, "The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself." Again in the same docuмent St. Pius X condemns the error that holds that, "The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 08:18:37 PM

Quote
Freemasons cannot be Popes. 
That's debatable.  Can they be validly elected popes, since they are excommunicated for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?  Yes.  Pope Pius XII changed the rules of the conclave (as did Pius X) and ordered that even those who are excommunicated shall not be prohibited from voting or being voted for, in the conclave.

I tend to believe that both Pius X and Pius XII saw the growing disorder and heresy in the Cardinals and despaired that there would even be any orthodox Cardinals who could be elected, as time went on.  So, to preserve the papacy, since it is a sign of unity of the faith and the visible sign of the visible church, they changed the rules, so that even a heretic/excommunicant could be elected, for a vacant seat is worse than a heretic sitting in it.  This is how important the SIGN and MEANING of the papacy is.

Quote
34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)

Fr Cekada attacks the above on his website (of course he does, because he's obsessed with the papal question).  He says there is usually an interpretation of canon law, though for this one law, he said no interpretation exists.  So, instead of the obvious answer being that NO INTERPRETATION IS REQUIRED (duh?), he goes on to define every major word in the above law, reformulate it's meaning to his own understanding and then say that the above "doesn't mean what it says."  Very modernist of him.    

I'm not comparing Fr C to Bill Clinton by any means, but it reminds me of the Monica-Bill scandal when Bill was asked a question and responded:  "It depends what the meaning of "is" is."  ...Only those who don't want to see the truth, or want to hide it, resort to "high brow", intellectual re-interpretation of the english language.  Anyone who reads the above passage cannot help but see that it says plainly that excommunicated persons can elect and be elected.  It's very simple; it needs no interpretation.

---
Can an excommunicant exercise their spiritual office, after elected?  

I'd lean towards 'no', but that's just my opinion.  The sedeprivationist theory would say their spiritual office cannot be exercised because of their excommunication, but their material office is still valid and in force, for no one can take away the pope's right to be the pope, except God through death, or personal abdication.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 19, 2018, 04:27:26 AM
Incorrect. Anything that is taught by all the Bishops and the Pope in unity is infallible. It does not have to always have been taught.
Then you are a NOer.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 19, 2018, 05:15:14 AM
That was because there was not a Pope, and therefore not a council. That is why there is error.
That whole idea is a lie, don't you fall for it Cantarella. Slap your face a few times and shake yourself out of it!

There was error at V2 because there was no divine protection from error, the reason there was no divine protection from error is because they held the council in order to "make known some new doctrines".

Have you forgotten or do you now deny that it is a dogma of the Church, decreed at V1, that there will be no divine protection at all if the pope wants to make known some new doctrines? This fact alone admits that popes are absolutely able to make known new doctrines - but that there will be no divine protection from error if they do - that is what the Church teaches. Not that the pope and council are always infallible - THAT idea is 19th-20th CENTURY THEOLOGIAN / NOVUS ORDO / SEDEISM TEACHING and is blatant error - snap yourself out of it!



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 19, 2018, 07:11:30 AM
^^^^ The man has officially lost it.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 08:40:08 AM

Quote
So, if dogma is the rule of faith, then why wasn't it heresy for people not to believe in it before it was defined by the Church?  Hmmmmm?  This ALONE puts the lie to Drew's invention (or reinvention of Protestant heresy that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.
I'm not arguing that 'dogma is the rule of faith' or whatever.  Both doctrine and pope are necessary.  I don't understand the debate; it's like arguing over which is more important - scripture or tradition?  Who cares?  You need both.

Any doctrine that has EVER been defined by the Church has ALWAYS been an implicit part of our Faith; the defining of the dogma makes it explicit, and the Church does so when needed.  The Immaculate Conception, the Annunciation, Infallibility, etc, etc, etc have ALL been implicit parts of the faith since Apostolic times.  Notice that if you read the debates on the immaculate conception, 99% of those good, catholics who were debating the idea were NOT attributing to Our Lady multiple sins or vices, etc.  All they were debating was the SPECIFIC how and why of the doctrine.  Everyone agreed, for the most part, that She was a special case, spiritually, than a 'normal catholic' they just couldn't decide to what extent.  So, no, there was no denial of the doctrine even before it was defined - it was a debate on the precise specifics.  Essentially, catholics have always believed Our Lady was given a special grace.  The only thing debated for a time were the secondary characteristics of this special grace.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 08:48:58 AM

Quote
YOU CLOWNS are the ones who say it's possible.
I've never said the Church can teach something new.  That was forlorn.  I'm the one preaching that the Church can only teach "what has always been taught".  Remember?  Or you just like to post witty comments, which make no sense?

You need to re-read posts before you immaturely hurl insults around like a two year old throwing sticks.  I've lost a lot of respect for you, Ladislaus, on this post because you have failed to read many posts and then accused people of saying things they didn't say.  It's very lazy.  Then, of course, your name-calling is anti-intellectual and juvenile, but that's been a pretty consistent part of your posting since i've been on this site, so i'll just have to accept that when you respond in such a manner, you have no facts to back it up.  A shame.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 08:51:02 AM

Quote
To say that the Church can depose a Pope is Conciliarism.
You can call it whatever you want.  You act like it's a condemned idea (which it's not).  Theologians have debated the idea for DECADES, if not centuries.  It's still a matter the Church has never decided.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 08:56:25 AM
Quote
Drew, Stubborn, and Pax -- you are manifest heretics who no longer publicly profess the Catholic faith.  You haven't even the slightest clue about what Catholicism actually is.
Says the man with 1 piece of evidence - a quote from Fenton.  Your entire idea on the magisterium is based on this, which is weak.  You use the word 'universal' incorrectly.  You refuse to accept that there is a fallible magisterium.  You reinterpret the word 'fallible' to mean 'infallible'.  You have no facts to back up your case.  Your agenda keeps you from the truth.

When was the last time you posted a FACT?  A few weeks ago you posted something from the catholic encyclopedia.  Outside of this, it's been at least a month since you posted a quote or evidence.  Most of your posts consist of insults and exaggerations of the other's views.  Sad.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 09:11:12 AM

Quote
from worshiping some bozo wearing white robes and walking around the Vatican gardens.
Isn't it odd that the two main people who are arguing 1) for the inordinate elevation of the magisterium (Ladislaus) and 2) the "never failing faith" of the pope (Cantarella), inadvertently let slip comments similar to the above, where their hatred comes out for the current pope?

They're the ones arguing that 1) he can't teach error in ANY capacity, and 2) his faith will NEVER FAIL.  Yet, they believe, that his SEAT can fail (i.e. it can be vacant).  So, I guess the pope has 3 parts to his papacy - a teaching office, his personal faith and his seat?  Never heard that before.

Secondly, if anyone worships the pope, it's them.  They have him so high up on a pedestal that if he doesn't meet their sanctity requirements, then he's THROW OUT!  What's the reason?  Well, nothing concrete, or factual, or specific, just the use of inductive reasoning.  This is an error for so many reasons, the main one being they are postulating that one can REASON to the status of the pope!  

No, One cannot use HUMAN LOGIC to reason to a SPIRITUAL TRUTH.  One cannot use REASON to judge the SPIRITUAL office of the pope!  This is the error of Rene Decartes, that one can reason to all truth...
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 09:40:15 AM
Quote
It's critical.
Define critical.  The first i've EVER heard of this 'proximate/remote' debate is 2 months ago here.  If it's SOOOO critical, why isn't it in the catechism, or talked about in a council, etc.

It's only important because sedes/novus ordo have placed the papacy on a pedestal.  The novus ordo continues to worship the pope as an oracle; sedes realized their error, but then overreacted and committed another error, by removed the pope altogether.  So now they worship the empty pedestal.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 19, 2018, 09:52:22 AM
So, if dogma is the rule of faith, then why wasn't it heresy for people not to believe in it before it was defined by the Church?  Hmmmmm?  This ALONE puts the lie to Drew's invention (or reinvention of Protestant heresy that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.


For the same reason it wasn't heresy for St. Thomas Aquinas not to believe in the Immaculate Conception. Would he deny it now that the Magisterium has infallible defined the dogma? Would any Catholic, on account of the greatness of St. Thomas? No! That would be heresy.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 19, 2018, 10:08:09 AM
Profound refutation this.

No, buddy, it's you who have lost your way and have lost touch with Catholicism.
Sorry Lad, but it is so simple - you can't find your pope = you lost your faith. Crazy as it is, there's your problem in under 10 words.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 19, 2018, 10:13:02 AM
This is a discussion of the deaf.

Simple questions are "down thumbed" and ignored, in typical sedehypocrisy style.

I have better things to do. I hope to see you all in Heaven one day. Good luck!

PS : Drew, I am still thinking about your position on the Rule of Faith. I am not convinced, but I will let you know via PM if I want to further discuss this with you.
This. Absolutely this.

Also, sedehypocrisy comes and goes with sedesyndrome.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 11:06:29 AM
Quote
If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.
Retarded argument.  It's USE is already condemned by Quo Primum.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 11:25:22 AM
Quote
First, Paul VI made absolutely no changes to the actual Tridentine Latin Roman Rite; he simple promulgated a new order of Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is not an upgrade or modification to the Tridentine Mass. It is a completely brand new rite.
 Yes and no.  It started out as a modification/replacement of the old rite.  But when the sspx kept using the 1962 missal, new-rome said their new missal was just a "different usage of the same rite".  It's a new rite, based off an old one.  It's not brand new, because not everything changed.

Really, your point is irrelevant.  Quo Primum codified the mass and NO ONE is allowed to say a mass using ANY OTHER RITE under pain of sin.  Case closed. 


Quote
Second, if Paul VI was indeed Pope, then he was just exercising his proper authority "when introducing and approving a new rite or modifying those he judged to require modification”. Historical evidence proves this fact. There are many rites out there that the Church has used and approved. Pope Pius XII clearly teaches this in Mediator Dei:
"The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”
I've pointed the above error out to others and I will point it out to you, to give you once chance to have integrity and accept correction.

You are quoting point #58 of Mediator Dei out of context and this is deceitful.  You are basically arguing that the pope can change the mass anytime he wants, with no limits.  THIS IS HERESY.  The mass is Christ's; it is Divine.  There are human elements, which can be changed, but the essense of the sacrifice is from God's hands, which cannot be changed EVER, even by the pope.  As Mediator Dei explains in Point#50, which is a mere 8 points before your point 58..

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circuмstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.

Again, your argument is wrong.  To argue that the pope can change the mass essentially, is to argue that the Church is not of Divine origin.



Quote
If Paul VI was indeed Pope, he could promulgate a new Latin rite given that no Pope has an authority higher than another Pope.

And if you think otherwise, that is an indication of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Papal authority.
Paul VI could've changed the law of Quo Primum, but he did not.  Yes, he had the authority to issue a revised missal, but he did not.  Pope Benedict XVI confirmed that Quo Primum is still in force.  Ergo, the 1962 missal, which is a legal revision of Pope St Pius V's missal, is THE MISSAL of the latin church.  Paul VI's missal is not allowed to be used without sinning, and is not required to be used.


It's also quite funny (and sad at the same time) that you are comparing authority between popes, yet you've made yourself THE highest authority, by judging the pope himself.  Oh the irony! 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 12:45:34 PM

Quote
1) Quo Primum does not bind any of the legitimate successors of St. Peter.
Quo Primum does bind his successors if the successors do not revoke or revise the law!  Once a pope is elected, all previous laws do not just go away!  If a pope wants to change a law, he must change it BY NAME.  This is how laws work.


Quote
2) Paul VI didn't make ANY changes to the Tridentine Rite and this is what St. Pius V was forbidding. 
Go re-read Quo Primum again.  It's a very dense, but short, law.  It has 5 different parts:
1.  A command that his new missal/rite is in force, everywhere and by all...except for the few liturgies which were 200+ yrs at the time.
2.  A prohibition on ALL previous missals/rites...except for those over 200+ yrs old at the time...and that's only if they wanted to keep their old liturgy...some got rid of their old rites and went with the new one.  They had a choice, but it was a one-time choice.
3.  An authorization for ALL priests, under ANY circuмstance, to say and use his missal, in perpetuity, as a direct authorization from the pope himself.
4.  An order that ONLY his missal/rite could be used, under pain of sin.  No other missal/rite (except those 200+ yrs old) could be used.
5.  A penalty of excommunication for those that changed, added to, or deleted from his missal/rite.  Also anyone who used a different missal committed the sin of disobedience to the pope.

St Pius V did a lot more than just forbid changes to the missal.  He ordered everyone to USE his missal ONLY.  Anyone that attends the novus ordo violates Quo Primum and commits a sin of disobedience.  This is why Paul VI did not command or require anyone to go to the novus ordo - because Quo Primum didn't allow that.  And this law is still in effect, as Pope Benedict XVI confirmed in 2007.


Quote
3) Quo Primum is a disciplinary decree.
No one is arguing that Paul VI didn't have the authority to change Quo Primum; he did have the authority.  But he never changed the law, so it's authority is still in effect, as Pope Benedict confirmed in 2007.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 12:50:31 PM
Cantarella,
Why do you keep changing the topic?  Why don't you address your error related to Mediator Dei, pt 50?  Let's stay on topic!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 02:09:58 PM
It is not a sin to avoid the novus ordo.  If you disagree, show me where the Church teaches it is a sin.  If you can't prove this, then it's not required.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 02:43:02 PM
Show me where he has said I must attend under pain of sin.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 03:33:58 PM
Bellator, can you explain to me why you don't think Paul VI was pope?  I'm curious on all of them, but let's just stick with Paul VI.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 19, 2018, 03:45:30 PM


https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604749/#msg604749

1976 article from L'Osservatore Romano?  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 19, 2018, 04:36:58 PM
Is Pope Pius XII wrong?

No pope is above dogma. In fact, their job is to defend and protect the Deposit of the Faith. When it was requested of Leo XIII to add St. Joseph's name  to the canon of the Mass, he responded: "I am only the pope". Pius XII set the stage with Mediator Dei and gave us Msgr. Bugnini. This in spite of the warning of Our Lady of Fatima through Sr. Lucy:



Quote
"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the ѕυιcιdє of altering the Faith in her liturgy..."
...Puis XII Devant L'Histoire

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 19, 2018, 04:51:57 PM
Forlorn, your understanding of dogma is a little off.  The Assumption is a dogma now, and was not before the 50s but it was ALWAYS held to be true, until Protestants cane around.  The Assumption is not a new truth; it’s from Apostolic times.  

The Immaculate Conception is also from Apostolic times.  It started being debated in the Middle Ages and was RE-TAUGHT as a dogma in the 1800s.  

ALL TRUTHS of our faith are Apostolic.  Just because the immaculate conception was debated in the Middle Ages does not mean it was NEW, it just means the truth was corrupted and not understood.  
I repeated countless times that the truth doesn't change you bumbling idiot, but it was not a Church dogma until the 50s. The truth never changes, but as the Church's understanding of the truth expands the room for personal opinions narrows. Nothing changes, nothing old is contradicted or discarded. But formerly contested issues become settled and the truth of it clearly enshrined in dogma. 
St. Thomas Aquinas taught multiple things that would be considered heresy today. But they were not heresy back then as the Church had not settled those issues yet. There was still room for debate. While yes, those dogmas were always TRUE, they were not always TAUGHT infallibly by the Church under pain of heresy. Had the Immaculate Conception been fully defined at the time, St. Thomas would not have erred or spoke falsely on the issue.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 07:57:18 PM
The novus ordo is substantially different than the True Mass.  It did not come from the infallible magisterium.  If it had, it would be required to accept under pain of sin, which it is not.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2018, 08:48:45 PM

Quote
The Roman pontiff can introduce and modify new rites, as long as the substance is intact.
No one said he couldn't.  But if he does, he has to FOLLOW CHURCH LAW in doing so.  If you read Quo Primum (and all laws which follow it, which revise the missal of Quo Primum), each pope specifically names the previous missal he is revising and specifically says what is changing.  Paul VI's law did not revise Quo Primum, nor the 1962 missal, and he never claimed he did.

As you say, Paul VI created a brand new missal/rite.  I agree.  The problem is, in order to USE this new missal, which Quo Primum strictly and specifically forbids, Paul VI would've had to simply insert a few sentences that explained that this minor part of Quo Primum was being changed, to allow for the new missal.  It would've been a very simple legal act, yet he did not do so.  And Benedict XVI confirmed no such change happened in his motu in 2007.  Hence, though Paul VI had the power to change Quo Primum, he didn't use this power.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 20, 2018, 02:40:42 AM

What makes Mr. Kramer and you think that the Pope of Rome falls into the rank of "any ecclesiastical pastor"?


Paul VI does not fall into this condition of "every pastor of the Church" here for two simple reasons:

First, Paul VI made absolutely no changes to the actual Tridentine Latin Roman Rite; he simple promulgated a new order of Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is not an upgrade or modification to the Tridentine Mass. It is a completely brand new rite.

Second, if Paul VI was indeed Pope, then he was just exercising his proper authority "when introducing and approving a new rite or modifying those he judged to require modification”. Historical evidence proves this fact. There are many rites out there that the Church has used and approved. Pope Pius XII clearly teaches this in Mediator Dei:

If Paul VI was indeed Pope, he could promulgate a new Latin rite given that no Pope has an authority higher than another Pope.

And if you think otherwise, that is an indication of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Papal authority.

Cantarella,

You have made the pope your rule of faith which is a massive error that leads to sedevacantism and sedeprivationism.  But those are not the only errors.  A total corruption of worship of God is also a consequence of this corruption since Vatican II.  I have not heard the objections offered by you in at least ten years.  They were very popular among Novus Ordo religious in the 70s and 80s but from about 1975 there has been a continuous publication of new liturgical works and republication of old out of print works that have gradually suffocated these old conservative nostrums.  But here you are resurrecting old errors as if to give them new life.

Your post here contains two massive errors and I am limiting this reply specifically in addressing these two. This first error concerns your posting a mistranslation of Canon 13 from the Council of Trent. The correct translation is:


Quote
If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema.
 Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13

You have used the corrupted translation of "any pastor of the churches" to "every pastor of the churches." Which entirely changes the meaning of the canon.  The correct translations means that 'no pastor can do it', the corrupted translation means 'not every pastor can do it'.  This specific problem was addressed by Canon Gregory Hesse that has been posted in a YouTube video:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gPX7XEBdUQ

at the 19:50 minute mark in this video Canon Hesse specifically addresses this canon.  The entire video is worth hearing and addresses a number of stupid things you have posted elsewhere such as your error that "Quo Primum is a disciplinary decree", etc. which I am not addressing in this post.

It has taken years for this corrupted translation to be buried and here you are again spreading it around possibly leading other into grave error. Please be careful not to do it again.

The second error concerns your reference to Pope Pius XII Mediator Dei and the claim that it authorizes the pope to do whatever he wants in regard to liturgy.  This is only possible when a sentence is taken entirely out of context which is nothing more than a form of lying. There is much that can be said about this encyclical but limiting only to this question whether or not Pope Pius XII is authorizing papal creation of a Novus Ordo.

The quote from the encyclical, Mediator Dei, “It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification,” is the most often quoted authority by liturgical innovators to defend the right to reduce liturgy to mere discipline, and thus create the Novus Ordo. When the quote is examined in context, it does not support this assertion. It is not using the term “new rites” in a broad sense like permitting the Novus Ordo, but is rather using the term in a restrictive sense such as adding a new rite of Mass in honor of the Sacred Heart or the Blessed Virgin. As far as what “he judges to require modification,” several examples are provided such as, “ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the… sacrament of penance, the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate, and again, the practice of Eucharistic communion under a single species.”

After giving these examples of legitimate development he goes on to censure the liturgical plans of the innovators such as use of a table instead of an altar, excluding black liturgical color, forbidding sacred images, distorted crucifixes, corruptions of music, etc. that if followed “would be straying from the straight path.” All these innovations, and more, are now the standard fare of the day.

I think it is profitable to reflect upon these examples to help understand what Pope Pius XII considers the “substance” of the Mass that cannot be touched when he says, “From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians, What is more, it has not been slow—keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact—to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.” Well, the Roman canon is essentially the same in the pre-1962 Missal as it was during the time of Pope Damasus in the 4th century. Obviously, if the hierarchy has “not been slow” to “regulate and enrich” the Mass, not touching upon the “substance”, it is fair to conclude that the Roman canon must be part of that “substance” that should not be touched.

Importantly there is nothing that implies that the pope has the authority to forbid or suppress an immemorial tradition. Pope Pius XII says that “In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly.” The Pope also emphasizes that “the entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church. For this reason whenever there was question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils in their recourse to the ‘theological sources,’ as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the liturgy.” It is therefore impossible that an immemorial liturgical tradition, especially one of wide usage, could not be a perfect expression of the faith and thus to suppress an immemorial tradition indirectly attacks the faith that it expresses. Finally, Pope Pius XII could not have been referring to the papal authority to establish a completely “new rite” of the Mass in this encyclical because such a thing has never been done before. The reference has no historical ground.

There are many other errors that form presuppositions in your post, such as, the belief that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are simple matters of mere discipline, and not as I affirm, necessary attributes of the faith that make it known and communicable to others.  I will try to address these in other posts. But all your errors have the basic source in believing the pope is the rule of faith. You believe that he possesses an infallible infallibility and a fallible infallibility, a never-failing faith, and thus becomes your rule of faith in all that he says and does. Except when he says and does something you do not like and then he is no longer the pope.  Working yourself backwards from this "dogma", you end up corrupting everything in support of your miserable conclusions.

Drew

 
 

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 20, 2018, 08:32:25 AM
Cantarella,
Why do you think Paul VI was not the pope?  I'm curious to know.  Can you explain in detail?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on April 20, 2018, 10:55:20 AM

Cantarella:
Quote
Why do you keep changing the topic?

I had to laugh at this question. Fr. Ringrose dropped out of the discussion at least 25,000 views ago. The original topic has changed over and over again. It’s become stream of consciousness non stop. Whatever is on the poster’s mind, he blurts out on this topic. The very meaning of ‘Topic’ has been obliterated. The thread has become a dumping ground for any and all so-called “topics.”
Matthew, you have taken the liberty in times past to either change the wording of certain topics, or eliminate them altogether. Why don’t you at least take this particular “topic” and name it simply


MISCELLANIA, or, CATCH ALL, or BASH AN ERRANT PRIEST, or SEDEVACANTISM MADE EASY, or I’M CONFUSED, or YOU’RE AN IDIOT, or, DOES FR. JENKINS DYE HIS HAIR,etc.? Anything! But please, let’s not pretend that it has anything to with Fr. Ringrose and the Resistance. Folks lost interest in Father weeks ago and hundreds and hundreds of comments earlier.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Mr G on April 20, 2018, 11:20:56 AM
To bring things back on topic, does Fr. Ringrose believe in Flat Earth? ;D :o ??? ;)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 20, 2018, 11:51:55 AM
Cantarella:
I had to laugh at this question. Fr. Ringrose dropped out of the discussion at least 25,000 views ago. The original topic has changed over and over again. It’s become stream of consciousness non stop. Whatever is on the poster’s mind, he blurts out on this topic. The very meaning of ‘Topic’ has been obliterated. The thread has become a dumping ground for any and all so-called “topics.”
Matthew, you have taken the liberty in times past to either change the wording of certain topics, or eliminate them altogether. Why don’t you at least take this particular “topic” and name it simply


MISCELLANIA, or, CATCH ALL, or BASH AN ERRANT PRIEST, or SEDEVACANTISM MADE EASY, or I’M CONFUSED, or YOU’RE AN IDIOT, or, DOES FR. JENKINS DYE HIS HAIR,etc.? Anything! But please, let’s not pretend that it has anything to with Fr. Ringrose and the Resistance. Folks lost interest in Father weeks ago and hundreds and hundreds of comments earlier.

There has been 1,318 posts on this thread with thousands of viewings. The topic concerns the grave errors of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism, its mortal implications that lead to heresy, its causes and it cures, which is a matter of serious concern to Catholics trying to keep the faith.  There is not in fact a single area of Catholic theology that is not fouled by these errors which distort the papal office, the Magisterium, the Attributes of the Church, the nature of ecclesiastical traditions, and now as we see, even the nature of the worship of God.

If this matter is of no concern to you, go elsewhere.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: songbird on April 20, 2018, 12:05:28 PM
Maybe because he said the New Order mess?  Which is publicly heretical.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on April 20, 2018, 12:12:43 PM
I think Cantarella, Drew and others may be the victims of low frequency, electronic emissions from remote unknown sources.  Tell me, any of you, do you hear a constant buzzing in your ears, especially at night? :jester: :laugh1:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 20, 2018, 12:16:16 PM
Quote
Also, Mr. Drew, you did not address the other contents of my posts, firstly, that Paul VI made absolutely no changes to the actual Tridentine Latin Roman Rite; he simple promulgated a new order of Mass. The Tridentine cannon is explicitly referring to changes made to "received and approved rites". The Novus Ordo is not a "change" to the Tridentine rite; but a completely brand new rite.
I addressed it completely.  If you're going to allow Ladislaus to answer for you, then you have to allow others to answer for Drew.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 20, 2018, 12:30:29 PM
Quote
Why should I have to go through such exhausting mental gymnastics to realize what is evident?
It's not mental gymnastics, it's a matter of law.  To enact, revise or revoke a law requires a PROCESS and one that cannot be done willy-nilly, haphazardly, etc.  Law is very precise and must be.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean anything.  First, are you trained to understand it?  Second, do you have the patience/personality to WANT to understand it?  I would say 'no' to both for you.  (and I don't mean that as a criticism).  Many people might have the WANT, but not the training to read legal docuмents and to read the legal interpretation of what they mean.  I'm not a lawyer but i've had some legal-related jobs.  I'm not an expert at all, but my point is, if you're not used to reading legal docuмents, it will seem like a different language (which it is). 

If you want to learn legal stuff, and become self-taught, then go for it.  But describing legal details as "mental gymnastics" is wrong.  I mean, if I try to read the Church Fathers interpretation of Scripture, where they talk about Greek and Hebrew meanings and tranlsations, wouldn't it be wrong, impatient, and stupid for me to say "well, they're just being too detailed and full of themselves when they talk about this or that meaning, or singular vs plural.  Just give us a translation and be done with it."  That would be a very rash and impatient response.  THE MEANING OF LANGUAGE MATTERS, especially in law!

----

Quote
The Novus Ordo Mass is an invalid rite, not because it did not come from the "Infallible Magisterium" or because the wording "all vs. many" or the priest facing the people, nor the altar girls or the immodest women at the rail; but for the simple reason that the ONLY person on earth with the power of introducing and approving new rites for the Church, this is, the Sovereign Pontiff, was an illegitimate impostor.

He was a false Pope.
Quote
I suspect it because of the Magisterial contradiction in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. Mainly in the docuмents Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate; and Dignitatis Humanae.
Ok, so you're saying Paul VI was a false pope because V2 contradicts Tradition, right?  But WHEN did he become a false pope?  Before or after the council?
Your statement above indicates that you say he was an imposter BECAUSE OF the council, which means he was validly elected and a valid pope AT THE START OF the council?  Yes?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 20, 2018, 01:00:41 PM
This must be the silliest argument I have heard for a while. Hopefully, those who are not participating in this thread realize the extent that R&R must go in order to support their nonsense.
I am starting to wonder, Mr. Drew, if you are actually responding to ME in this thread or just copying and pasting from other articles you write, which are actually quite irrelevant to my replies.

In the previous post, I used the exact wording posted by Fr. Kramer. Posted by YOU:

My question:

What makes Mr. Kramer and you think that the Pope of Rome falls into the rank of "any ecclesiastical pastor"?

Cantarella,

Corrupting a translation, or using a corrupted translation, of a dogma (or for that matter, any papal docuмent) is a grave sin and canonical crime which carries a penalty of excommunication.  You have used a translation that serious Catholics have been addressing for more than 40 years because the corruption destroys the meaning of God's revealed truth.  You are the first I have ever heard characterize this crime as "one of the silliest arguments I have heard in a long time." I am very pleased to have the comments of Fr. Gregory Hesse explaining the implications of your error to others, but his explanation is unfortunately lost on you. 
 
Fr. Hesse also addressed the question you have concerning the pope being an "ecclesiastical pastor." But since he did not convince you, a simple method is to examine the Magisterial docuмent Pastor Aeternus (Eternal Pastor) from Vatican I. The word "pastor" derives from the Latin noun pastor which means "shepherd" and relates to the Latin verb pascere – "to lead to pasture, set to grazing, cause to eat". The term "pastor" also relates to the role of elder within the New Testament (Wiki). The very charge to St. Peter from Jesus Christ to, "feed My lambs, feed My sheep," means 'to pastor' His flock.  The metaphor of the Good Shepherd is intended to give the same teaching. The word, "ecclesiastical" is the adjective of ecclesia which means "Church".
 
You are denying that the pope is an "ecclesiastical pastor." He is so be definition. In fact, if the pope were not an "ecclesiastical pastor", He could not be the chief "ecclesiastical pastor" of the entire Church. Vatican I, in the Magisterial docuмent, Pastor Aeternus, uses the term "pastor" to refer specifically to the pope.
 
Quote
And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep".
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

So if you want to know "what makes me think that the pope in Rome falls into the rank of 'any ecclesiastical pastor'", it is the declarations from the Magisteriuim of the Church.  And if you want to know "who makes me think that the pope in Rome falls into the rank of 'any ecclesiastical pastor'", it is God.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 20, 2018, 02:08:04 PM
The Tridentine Catechism makes mention of the existence of "many solemn rites and ceremonies" used in the Sacrifice of the Mass, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.

If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.

Cantarella,

If you read the address given by Pope Paul VI when he announced the Novus Ordo you will see that he dates the liturgical development to the  Pian Commission which began in 1948 under secretary Annibale Bugnini. Paul VI specifically says that the Novus Ordo has its roots in the 1955 changes to Holy Week. What also may be of interest to you to learn is that Bugnini in his book published in 1990, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948 to 1976, says that the first principles of liturgical reform were adopted by the Pian Commission from the very beginning, never changed, and were consistently applied throughout his tenure.
 
Any traditional Catholic association using any Roman Missal published after 1955 is using a Bugnini transitional Missal.  The current common usage of the 1962 Indult Missal that is in common usage, is in fact a Bugnini transitional Missal.  When Bugnini was asked in 1962 (the mid-point of his liturgical leadership) if that version of the Missal was his last, he replied:
 

Quote
“Not by any stretch of the imagination. Every good builder begins by removing the gross accretions, the evident distortions; then with more delicacy and attention he sets out to revise particulars.  The latter remains to be achieved for the Liturgy so that the fullness, dignity and harmony may shine forth once again.”
The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Fr. Alcuin Reid

There were several versions of transitional Missals between 1962 and the publication of the Novus Ordo, all of which were approved by Paul VI before the final Novus Ordo. The 1962 Missal had all the "gross accretions, the evident distortions" of the immemorial "received and approved" Roman rite of Mass removed by Bugnini, and this continued right up to 1969 with hardly a month passing by without some new corruption being imposed. In fact, except for the three additional canons, there was very little "new" about the Novus Ordo in 1969 that had not already been implemented.
 
Not only is it a dogma that the "received and approved" rites may not be changed by "any pastor of the churches whomsoever," it is also required from the Council of Florence that every pastor offer the Mass according to the "custom" of his rite. The acceptance of the "received and approved" rite was incorporated into the Tridentine Profession of Faith.  It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
 
Since you hold the pope as your rule of faith and believe that liturgical worship is a matter of mere Church discipline, then you have no doctrinal or moral ground to reject his form of worship. I hold dogma as the rule of faith and keep to the "received and approved" rites of the Catholic Church. I formally reject the notion that the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions of the Church are matters of mere discipline but are necessary attributes of the faith by which it can be known and communicated to others. I also hold to the Catholic moral principle that no human authority has the power to impose anything injurious to the faith, and that every Catholic is morally required to reject anything that is injurious to the faith. Furthermore, I have submitted this Rome as is my right as a baptized Catholic for a formal definitive Magisterial judgment which I am morally bound to do.

None of this requires getting rid of the pope which leads only to greater error, formal heresy, and ultimately despair.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 20, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
I guess we can both agree that the canon in Latin is the most accurate, so here it is:


(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31044598_10155596642173691_630274250600117338_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=9e4fd498d7cace51895c5c09e55d4fca&oe=5B534E43)

"Aut in novus alios per quencuмque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse".

"To be changed by any pastor of the Churches".

You are drowning in a glass of water because regardless of the English translation that is used, every pastor, any pastor, a pastor....Trent is not referring to the Pope of Rome!. The Roman Pontiff does not fall into this condition. The Pope alone as a Vicar of Christ on earth can approve and introduce new ecclesiastical rites as he has done in the past. Also, Paul VI didn't make ANY changes to the "approved and received" Tridentine Rite. He promulgated a new order of Mass, a new Rite.

You are really going to excruciating efforts to defend what is indefensible. And really, you got nothing but your personal deductions.

Cantarella,

I am reposting Canon Gregory Hesse's video at the time (19:10) that he directly answers and corrects your error. You only need to listen for a couple of minutes. It won't hurt.

https://youtu.be/2gPX7XEBdUQ?t=1148

Since you hold Dogma in such contempt that its literal meaning can be wholly disregarded, you will have no one but yourself to blame for the consequences, and I am telling you that it is a matter of eternal salvation. You will also have to account for the error in which you may have influenced others. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and serves as a "landmark" for Catholics trying to keep the faith in troubled times.  "Thou shalt not take nor remove thy neighbour's landmark, which thy predecessors have set in thy possession which the Lord thy God will give thee in the land that thou shalt receive to possess". (Deuteronomy 19:14) And again, "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmarks: and all the people shall say: Amen" (Deuteronomy 17:17)

Lastly, your statement, "The Pope alone as a Vicar of Christ on earth can approve and introduce new ecclesiastical rites as he has done in the past," is pure make believe.  There is not a single example in all of Church history of a pope "introduce(ing) new ecclesiastical rites."

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 20, 2018, 02:38:20 PM
Quote
The Tridentine Catechism makes mention of the existence of "many solemn rites and ceremonies" used in the Sacrifice of the Mass, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.

If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.
Quo Primum was made a law AFTER the council of Trent.  The only rites and ceremonies allowed AFTER Quo Primum are 1) those rites 200+ years old as of 1570ish, 2) Tridentine rite.  That's it.

Since the law hasn't changed, then as of today, the only 2 categories of masses/rites are the 2 above.  Paul VI can create a new rite all he wants, but it is illegal to use it.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 20, 2018, 02:56:56 PM
Quote
I am reposting Canon Gregory Hesse's video at the time (19:10) that he directly answers and corrects your error. You only need to listen for a couple of minutes. It won't hurt.

https://youtu.be/2gPX7XEBdUQ?t=1148 (https://youtu.be/2gPX7XEBdUQ?t=1148)
Good research, Drew.  I'm going to have to listen more to Fr Hessee; i've never heard him speak before.
Cantarella,
He also makes a great point, one which I have been making, is that, as a matter of law, the roman missal is NOT a mere disciplinary act.  It is much, much more.  Listen starting at 29:35.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 20, 2018, 03:17:09 PM


We were blessed to be able to attend his conferences whenever possible. We listened to this yesterday. There is another video on Papal Infallibility which is highly recommended and covers what we have been discussing on this video. Enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVh2vdhDeQ



 (https://www.youtube.com/)          
 (https://www.youtube.com/)  


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 20, 2018, 03:25:19 PM
Pope Pius XII is explicit and clear about this teaching in Mediator Dei:

Which is based upon the 1917 Code of Canon Law, # 1257.


(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30727807_10155596813798691_8826181681467649312_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=13180fb9f5663aff69fd64b12ca2446a&oe=5B6C63C3)



The Holy See alone has the right to enact the form of the Sacred Liturgy, as well as to approve the liturgical books.

Because the Holy See is vacant (on account of an impostor acting as "Sovereign Pontiff") the Novus Ordo Mass IS NOT A RITE EITHER PROMULGATED OR USED BY THE CHURCH.


Why don't you try reading the replies before you answer? That has already been addressed.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604807/#msg604807
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 20, 2018, 03:30:35 PM
Once this thread reaches 100 pages, I'm out. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 20, 2018, 03:32:12 PM
Quote
I believe Montini's election was invalid because he was not Catholic. 
Do you mean he was excommunicated because he was a freemason, or that he apostatized?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 20, 2018, 03:34:42 PM

We were blessed to be able to attend his conferences whenever possible. We listened to this yesterday. There is another video on Papal Infallibility which is highly recommended and covers what we have been discussing on this video. Enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVh2vdhDeQ       
 (https://www.youtube.com/)  
I only heard of him off and on and *wrongly*, did not think much of Fr. Hesse until just recently - I changed my tune quick after I actually listened to his talks. I have downloaded them all and listened to most of the ones posted here.  (https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Hesse/MP3-Remastered/Fr.%20Gregory%20Hesse%20Audio%20Files%20(Remastered)/)

Well worth the time for every trad to pay attention and listen to this priest's clear thinking and irrefutable explanations on many issues regarding this crisis. 
 (https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Hesse/MP3-Remastered/Fr.%20Gregory%20Hesse%20Audio%20Files%20(Remastered)/)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 20, 2018, 03:51:02 PM
Cantarella's contradiction #904:

Why was Paul VI not the pope?
Her Answer:  I suspect it because of the Magisterial contradiction in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. Mainly in the docuмents Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate; and Dignitatis Humanae.


So, her reason for Paul VI not being the pope is because V2 contradicts Tradition.


Why is the new mass wrong?
Her Answer: The Holy See alone has the right to enact the form of the Sacred Liturgy, as well as to approve the liturgical books.  Because the Holy See is vacant (on account of an impostor acting as "Sovereign Pontiff") the Novus Ordo Mass IS NOT A RITE EITHER PROMULGATED OR USED BY THE CHURCH.


So, her reason for Paul VI's mass being wrong is because V2 contradicts Tradition.  For if V2 did NOT contradict Tradition, then the pope would have authority to create the new mass.


So where is the contradiction?
1.  She has said repeatedly, ad nauseum, that an ecuмenical council is infallible.  Yet when V2 teaches something against Tradition, she says it's no longer infallible, it's an error and is a "proof" that Paul VI wasn't pope.  Circular logic.

2.  She has said repeatedly, ad nauseum, that a pope's personal faith "cannot fail".  Yet when Paul VI "taught" error at V2 which was against Tradition, she says his faith didn't fail - it's just "proof" he wasn't pope.  Again, Circular logic.

On the one hand, she says it's a "dogma" that an ecuмenical council is infallible.  On the other hand, she says it's a "dogma" that the pope's personal faith "cannot fail".  One of them (and most likely both) are wrong; obviously, they aren't dogmas.  But, the V2 situation has shown her views to be contradictory.  Either one of the above MUST BE FALSE (and probably both.)  Which one is wrong, Cantarella?

The only answer you can make is to say that Paul VI was NEVER pope to begin with, which would be ANOTHER CONTRADICTION of your above, first statement.  Of course, that begs the question of "why wasn't he the pope?".  And since you don't have objective, public evidence like a V2 to point to, your reasons would be highly subjective and very uncertain.

Thus, the foundation of sedevacantism is shown to be quite shaky...
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 20, 2018, 04:01:29 PM
Ma'am, there's nothing wrong with the source I provided.  

However, there is definitely something wrong with a quote you provided on this thread...

There is no such person as Bishop Brizen...he does not exist

If this quote is true, where is the letter?


Actually,  Fr. Hesse has the exact quote with the source (and much more) on the video on Papal Infallibility I posted today. I just posted the first I found online to save time. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 20, 2018, 04:44:16 PM


For those who don't know Fr. Hesse:


Gregory Hesse
(https://www.bing.com/th?id=Ae2f3ed0c8cfdef1cd364f055537f79ad&w=110&h=110&c=12&rs=1&qlt=80&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.2) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Hesse)
Gregory Hesse, S.T.D., J.C.D. of Vienna, Austria was ordained in 1981 in St. Peter's Basilica. He held doctorates in both Thomistic theology and Canon Law. From 1986-88 he served as Secretary to Cardinal Stickler at the Vatican. From 1991, he worked in Austria, Germany and the United States giving lectures and producing theological articles that appeared in Catholic Family News, The Fatima Crusader and other journals. He died of complications due to diabetes on 25 January 2006. Fr. Hesse spoke extensively on the true and false understanding of Papal infallibility and the modern errors in the understanding of sacred tradition, religious liberty and ecuмenism brought about by the errors or obscurity and lack of definition in the docuмents of Vatican II based on established Church teaching from previous councils and Papal encyclicals. He also spoke on the question of the new Mass of Pope Paul VI making distinctions between the terms "valid" and "licit" again supported by past Church teaching.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 20, 2018, 04:54:35 PM
A more reason for despair is to think that a legitimate successor of St. Peter could authorize an invalid or sacrilegious Mass worldwide without the gates of Hell having prevailed against us. And we know, infallibly, that that is impossible.

Guarding the Sacred Liturgy is part of the duty of the Church. Pope Pius XI made it clear in his Apostolic Constitution, Divini Cultus:

A child can see that if the conciliar popes are true popes, then the Holy See has indeed "received and approved" the Novus Ordo rite given that the Popes themselves along with the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy and millions of Catholics throughout the world have been saying it publicly for decades. If the Church, in promulgating the NOM has failed in her duty to safeguard divine worship, then the Church has defected from an essential part of her mission.

So instead of entertaining the possibility of an actual crypto - Jєω infiltrating the Seat of Peter (directly proportional to the raising socio-economic Judaic power over the globe), which would explain every.single.thing. and more, you stubbornly cling to the fact that the Pope has defected, the Magisterium has defected, the Liturgy has defected. Basically, in your position, the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church.  

If Paul VI was indeed pope, you have a defected Church.

Cantarella,

You just don't get it. It is you that belong to a church that has no pope, no Magisterium, no rule of faith and has no intent or means to ever get them. You are in a church that cannot be the Catholic Church outside of which there is neither forgiveness of sins or the possibility of salvation. You shouldn't worry about anyone but yourself. Pope Pius XI, Divini Cultus, only proves that the conciliar popes have failed in their duty. That is there problem.  Our problem is how to keep the faith and the proper worship of God in spite of the failing of the conciliar popes.
 
As I have previously said, the Indefectibility of the Church pertains primarily to the worship of God and the sanctification of souls.  The proof that the Church is Indefectible is that Catholics faithful to dogma and the "received and approved" rites of the sacraments have never been absent from the Church despite the constant contumely of the conciliar popes.  
 
It is impossible that the "received and approved" rites are the Novus Ordo.  It is impossible because anything "received" comes from someone before us as St. Paul says, "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread" (1 Cor.11:23). Divine worship has from the beginning been "received" and handed on.  If you ever read Dom Gueranger's Liturgical Year one of the most striking facts is that Rome has had very, very little to do with the development with the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass. Typically a local tradition is established and spreads and, what may be hundreds of years later, Rome acknowledges the tradition and offers it to the universal Church. The liturgy is the work of the Holy Ghost, not the work of man. 
 
It matters not one iota if Rome defects as long as you remain faithful. The great apostasy has been prophesied and Cardinal Manning said that every Church Father who wrote on the subject says Rome will fall from the faith although he did not specifically identify the hierarchy as responsible.  The mystics also speak of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, undergoing a passion analogous to what our Head suffered. Why should the Passion of the Church scandalize you: "Christ crucified, unto the Jєωs indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:23)?  St. John of the Cross speaks of the annihilation of Jesus Christ in His Passion: Annihilated in His person because physically destroyed, annihilated in His reputation because He was held in contempt by all, annihilated in His soul because He was abandoned by His Father. The Church will suffer an analogous annihilation and those who are scandalized by her in her Passion will walk away. 
 
We have the promise of the Blessed Virgin at Fatima, "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph, Russia will be converted...." Those who share in the Passion of the Church will rise gloriously with her. Those that walk away will not.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 20, 2018, 06:04:53 PM
Cantarella's contradiction #904:

Why was Paul VI not the pope?
Her Answer:  I suspect it because of the Magisterial contradiction in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. Mainly in the docuмents Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate; and Dignitatis Humanae.


So, her reason for Paul VI not being the pope is because V2 contradicts Tradition.


Why is the new mass wrong?
Her Answer: The Holy See alone has the right to enact the form of the Sacred Liturgy, as well as to approve the liturgical books.  Because the Holy See is vacant (on account of an impostor acting as "Sovereign Pontiff") the Novus Ordo Mass IS NOT A RITE EITHER PROMULGATED OR USED BY THE CHURCH.


So, her reason for Paul VI's mass being wrong is because V2 contradicts Tradition.  For if V2 did NOT contradict Tradition, then the pope would have authority to create the new mass.


So where is the contradiction?
1.  She has said repeatedly, ad nauseum, that an ecuмenical council is infallible.  Yet when V2 teaches something against Tradition, she says it's no longer infallible, it's an error and is a "proof" that Paul VI wasn't pope.  Circular logic.

2.  She has said repeatedly, ad nauseum, that a pope's personal faith "cannot fail".  Yet when Paul VI "taught" error at V2 which was against Tradition, she says his faith didn't fail - it's just "proof" he wasn't pope.  Again, Circular logic.

On the one hand, she says it's a "dogma" that an ecuмenical council is infallible.  On the other hand, she says it's a "dogma" that the pope's personal faith "cannot fail".  One of them (and most likely both) are wrong; obviously, they aren't dogmas.  But, the V2 situation has shown her views to be contradictory.  Either one of the above MUST BE FALSE (and probably both.)  Which one is wrong, Cantarella?

The only answer you can make is to say that Paul VI was NEVER pope to begin with, which would be ANOTHER CONTRADICTION of your above, first statement.  Of course, that begs the question of "why wasn't he the pope?".  And since you don't have objective, public evidence like a V2 to point to, your reasons would be highly subjective and very uncertain.

Thus, the foundation of sedevacantism is shown to be quite shaky...

Pax,

Very good post. I hope you did not get vertigo while writing it. The position of sedevacantis/sedeprivationism is full of brainless contradictions that you have here demonstrated only a few. This exchange is analogous to our Lord's parable of the seed falling on different ground. The human mind cannot live with self-evident contradictions if the heart is "good and perfect," but what happens is that the "heart grows gross" and suffocates the conscience in the rocky ground. The replies to your posts have grown more venomous and unreasonable with each reply.

When will Cantarella address these contradictions? Probably never. No more likely than she will ever address the fact that the church she belongs to is not and cannot be the Catholic Church is a evident fact.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 20, 2018, 06:54:48 PM
It is was as simple as this then we were still be hearing Mass in Aramaic and Hebrew. Evidently, there must be an Authority in charge to make the necessary modifications in all liturgical matters, as long as the substance of the Sacrament remains intact. This authority is the Sovereign Pontiff alone. St. Peter himself began to offer the Mass in the Greek language modifying it from what had been "received" in the Last Supper.

As the 1917 Code of Canon Law states and Pope Pius XII confirms it, it is the Holy See alone which has the right to enact the form of the Sacred Liturgy, as well as to approve the liturgical books.  The ecclesiastical docuмents that deal with Divine worship, this is, the prayers, ceremonies, and rites of the Holy Mass belong to the realm of discipline; not dogma.


Cantarella,

You are invincible to facts so, in the end, this post is probably not for you.  I am responding to your claim that, "The Holy Mass belong(s) to the realm of discipline; not dogma." This post is lengthy but important. Our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, the most important of which is the "received and approved" Roman rite of Mass, are not and cannot be a matter of mere discipline open to the free and independent will of any legislator.  It is by these immemorial ecclesiastical traditions only by which the faith can be known and communicated to others. They therefore are necessary attributes of the faith. This is essential to understand because there is no defending the faith without knowing and understanding this fact.  After understanding that Dogma is the proximate rule of faith, this truth necessarily follows. Remember, the Iconoclasts were called "heretics" because they destroyed the images of our faith. The immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are like images and those who would destroy them, or in any way set them aside, are enemies of the faith willy nilly. Upon these two essential principles stand or falls the success of defending the Catholic faith.

Let's begin with a quote that addresses immemorial ecclesiastical traditions in general.

Quote
They (the Modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority.  But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church”
St. Pius X, Pascenedi

Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s quote cited before is worth repeating.  He said:

Quote
"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.' To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
 
 "There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

The important points of fact that can be drawn from Msgr. Gamber are:

1) That “the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass.”
2) That “there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional liturgical rite.
3) That every papal docuмent on the immemorial Roman canon says it is an “Apostolic tradition” and thus no one has the authority to change theological principals with regard to the immemorial Roman canon because Divine and Apostolic tradition is immutable.
4) Canon law restricted (C.1257 in the old code and C. 838 in the new) limits the authority of the Apostolic See to “supervision,” Msgr. Gamber saying that, “It most certainly is not the function of the Holy See to introduce Church reforms. The first duty of the pope is to act as primary bishop (episcopus = supervisor), to watch over the traditions of the Church.”
5) Msgr. Gamber’s emphasis that, "Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology”.
6) Msgr. Gamber includes all the liturgical changes of Msgr. Bugnini when he concludes, “So many of the liturgical innovations introduced … beginning with the decree of February 9, 1951 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII reforming the Easter Week Liturgy; then the “new” Codex of Rubrics of July 25, 1960, long since changed again; then the many small changes made during the following years; and now the “reform” of the Ordo Missae of April 6, 1969 have proved utterly useless and indeed detrimental to the spiritual welfare of the Church.”


Further proof that the immemorial Roman Rite, our “received and approved” rite, is not a matter of simple discipline can be found in Fr. Paul Kramer’s book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy. This has already been posted but worth reading again:

Quote
The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.” The ‘received and approved rites’ are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII). Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.”
Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

Pope Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, said regarding the error of liturgist

Quote
"They wander entirely away from the true and full notion and understanding of the Sacred Liturgy, who consider it only as an external part of divine worship, and presented to the senses; or as a kind of apparatus of ceremonial properties; and they no less err who think of it as a mere compendium of laws and precepts, by which the ecclesiastical Hierarchy bids the sacred rites to be arranged and ordered."
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
 
Pope Benedict XVI, said in his book, Spirit of the Liturgy:

Quote
The Liturgy cannot be compared to a piece of equipment, something made, but rather to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development. In the West there has been, of course, another factor involved. This was the Papal authority, the Pope took ever more clearly the responsibility upon himself for the liturgical legislation, and so doing foresaw in a juridical authority for the forth setting of the liturgical development. The stronger the papal primacy was exercised, the more the question arose, just what the limits of this authority were, which of course, no-one had ever before thought about. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression has been made that the Pope, as far as the Liturgy goes, can actually do everything he wishes to do, certainly when he was acting with the mandate of an Ecuмenical Council. Finally, the idea that the Liturgy is a predetermined ''given'', the fact that nobody can simply do what he wishes with her, disappeared out of the public conscience of the Western [Church]. In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch! Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word. The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy. The Liturgy is no ''creation'' of the authorities. Even the Pope can be nothing other than a humble servant of the Liturgy's legitimate development and of her everlasting integrity and identity. 
Pope Benedict XVI, Spirit of the Liturgy

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said:

Quote
“What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy, the fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced -- as if in a technical production -- by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true visionary and with the fearlessness of a true witness, opposed this falsification and tirelessly taught us the living fullness of a true liturgy, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge of the sources. As a man who knew and who loved history, he showed us the multiple forms of the evolution and of the path of the liturgy; as a man who saw history from the inside, he saw in this development and in the fruit of this development the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, which is not the object of our action, but which may marvelously continue to blossom and to ripen, if we join its mystery intimately.”
 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from his introduction in the French edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s book, The Reform of the Roman Rite
 
Pope Pius XI refers to the "canon of faith" (i.e.: dogmas are "canons of faith") that Pope Celestine I "proposed and expressed" regarding the "formulas of the liturgy." Suffice to say, if liturgical prayer determines "belief" than prayer that is "received and approved" must be as equally as true as the doctrine that it determines.

Quote
Once one realizes that liturgical worship is not and could never be a matter of mere discipline it make perfect sense.  St. Prosper of Aquitaine’s maxim, “lex supplicandi legem statuat credenda; let the law of prayer determine the law of belief,” was first used in the context of his apology for the doctrine of grace when he said, “let our tradition of prayer confirm this particular belief.”  It has been since widely cited in papal docuмents.
There is a primacy of worship over belief.  “Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.” Matt. 22: 37-38.  God is the author of Divine worship. 
 “And the liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for, through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our faith, and we are obligated to it by a most serious duty because of the benefits and helps received, of which we are always in need.  Hence a kind of intimate relationship between dogma and sacred liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Celestine I proposed and expressed a canon of faith in the formulas of the Liturgy: ‘Let the law of supplication establish the law of believing.  For when the leaders of holy peoples administer legislation enjoined upon themselves they plead the course of the human race before divine Clemency, and they beg and pray while the entire Church sighs with them.’
Pope Pius XI, Divini cultus

Regarding the canon that the law of prayer determines the law of belief, we have the distinguished linguist and author of Banished Heart, Geoffrey Hull, said regarding the meaning of the word “orthodoxy”:

Quote
“Reflective of the primacy of prayer over understanding is the semantic development of the term ‘orthodoxy’ in the Christian context.  The Classical Greek compound noun orthodoxia originally signified ‘right opinion’.  However, since the second component doxa had also the secondary meanings of ‘glory’ and ‘praise’, the word came, in the usage of Greek speaking Christians, to mean ‘right worship.’  Hence the Old Slavonic loan-translation pravoslavie (‘orthdoxy’, but literally ‘right praise’) adapted the secondary (Christian) rather than the primary (classical) meaning of orthodoxia”.
Geoffrey Hull, Banished Heart

It used to be that routinely get this ignorant sap that liturgy was just a matter of discipline in the 60s and 70s. With the great expansion of liturgical studies especially since 1990 this claim that the liturgy is a matter of mere discipline is still held by Novus Ordites and those formed by the SSPX who have a low regard for Dogma. It is an unfortunate fact that the person really responsible for this mess is none other than Pope Pius XII.  In his encyclical Mediator Dei, which in most respects is an excellent encyclical, took the liberty of inverting this "canon of faith" by Pope Celestine I and said, 'Let the law of belief determine the law of prayer.' He then set up the Liturgical Commission and placed Rev. Anabale Bugnini in charge with license to remake the law of prayer.  Unfortunately for all the faithful, this man Bugnini was a certain Modernist and probable Mason and thus, it is his belief that formulated the Novus Ordo prayers and liturgical praxis.

The "received and approved" rites, including the immemorial Roman rite of Mass, is a canon of faith in the Tridentine Profession of Faith that must be believed with "divine and Catholic faith."  No disciplinary subject, that are in the category of authority/obedience, is neither true nor false and can never be that object of Dogma.

But then Cantarella, What is Dogma to you?

Drew 

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on April 20, 2018, 07:16:36 PM
Pax Vobis: 
Quote
Once this thread reaches 100 pages, I'm out. 

Thanks, PV, but it won't matter much.  Drew could push it over 100 pages all by himself.  He, perhaps with the help of Cantarella, might well  have it over 150 pages by the end of April. :o
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 20, 2018, 07:33:32 PM
If it gets to 150, i'll be back to push it to 200!  Drew and Cantarella both have good posts, it's just that conversations get sidetracked.  If there could be one on one conversations, more would get accomplished.  The "peanut gallery" is too often indulged instead of ignored...
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 21, 2018, 04:55:23 AM
Mons. Des Lauriers has much more credentials that Fr. Hesse.
Dominican Theologian who became Sedevacantist - Novus Ordo Watch (https://novusordowatch.org/2018/02/in-memoriam-guerard-des-lauriers/)

:facepalm:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 21, 2018, 06:04:33 AM

Liturgical rites being of a disciplinary nature; not dogmatic, is easily proved by the fact that they are not universal, which you yourself have mentioned several times is a crucial element of "Dogma".

A "dogmatic definition" automatically means that it is UNIVERSALLY applicable to all Catholics of every rite, universally binding on all Catholics, and FORMALLY revealed by God as dogma.

That is how we can tell that Quo Primum for example, is a disciplinary decree, because it is only applicable to the Western Rite church and it had absolutely no binding power on the Eastern Rite churches.

Cantarella,


What is dogmatized is the principle that every Catholic must worship according to their "received and approved" rites. You typically being with a personal notion and then inductively work toward some willful resolution, while I try to begin from dogma, that is, divinely revealed truth, and look for certain deductive conclusion that are necessarily true. If any conclusion leads to an evident conflict with dogma, I reject it. You on the other hand are indifferent to the fact that your inductive "musings" lead to conclusions that overturn dogma. It does not matter to you at all that your "musings" have brought you into a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, nothing and, what is worse, no intent or means of every correcting this defect. The church you belong to cannot be the Catholic Church because it does not have her necessary attributes and never will.

Adherence to the "received and approved" rites is a Dogma that has been, with other Dogmas, incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith. This divinely revealed truth is where you should begin but you won't.  You repeat again that "Quo Primum for example, is a disciplinary decree" when the subject matter is dogma, the "received and approved" rites. When the subject matter is Dogma, the decree cannot, by definition, be merely disciplinary.

Your proposal is nonsense.  Compare and contrast the condemnation of Iconoclasm as a heresy. No individual icon is a universal anymore than a particular liturgical usage. The principle is the universal truth an attack upon the images of our faith is an attack on the faith itself. Each particular "received and approved" rite is like a perfect icon, the work of the Holy Ghost, who leads the Church to the perfect worship of God.

There is a strong relationship between the error of Nominalism and modern philosophical and theological errors.  Your approach to this problem is nominalistic and grossly mechanistic.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 21, 2018, 06:31:21 AM
Those who are looking from the fence can realize the plain falsehood of this statement and this is just a quick example among many.

Here is the canon in question:

(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30727807_10155596813798691_8826181681467649312_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=13180fb9f5663aff69fd64b12ca2446a&oe=5B6C63C3)


Please read what is explicitly stated. This is not a mere "supervision" function. The canon is very clear that the Holy See alone has the right to ENACT the form of the Sacred Liturgy. Enacting is not merely supervising.

Looking at the dictionary definition of the word ENACT:

Make (a bill or other proposal) law.

"Make" is not the same as "supervise".

Cantarella,

Just a short comment on your approach to this problem.  You are not presenting an argument. You are offering yourself as an "expert" to set your opinion against the opinion of Msgr. Klaus Gamber who was generally recognized and accepted as great liturgist.

I know of canon lawyers that you could quote who would agree with you completely. For example in 2001, John M. Huels, OSM, JCD, who at the time was a Servite priest, influential liturgical canonist, professor of canon law and vice-dean of Saint Paul University in Ottawa. His his opinion was published by the Canon Law Society of America. Your opinion is in perfect agreement with Huels.

I do not agree with Huels but I acknowledged that he was a recognized "expert" so when I disagree with his opinions, I have to offer reasoned arguments from higher authority to canon law, or at a minimum, produce a comparatively qualified expert who disagrees.

That's how it works.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on April 21, 2018, 11:06:08 AM
PV:
Quote
... it's just that conversations get sidetracked.
We all need a good laugh at least once a week. :jester:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 21, 2018, 11:11:43 AM
Haha.  But the sidetracks which sidetracked the ORIGINAL sidetracks were worth exploring.  We just didn’t leave any breadcrumb trail back to Grandmas house...
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on April 21, 2018, 12:23:40 PM
PV:
Quote
But the sidetracks which sidetracked the ORIGINAL sidetracks were worth exploring.

You're right.  Not to mention the sidetracks, of the sidetracks, of the sidetracks, of the sidetracks, of the sidetracks of the ORIGINAL sidetracks.  Don't forget them.!  And particularly, the matter of Fr. Jenkins having possibly dyed his hair.  That sidetracked topic alone warrants in depth analysis and discussion.  Why, it could push viewing totals well beyond 50,000, though certain CI members might collapse from exhaustion at the end of it all. ??? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 21, 2018, 01:31:58 PM

Quote
Why, it could push viewing totals well beyond 50,000
One can dream
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 21, 2018, 02:57:13 PM


Fr. Hesse on Pope Honorius:

https://youtu.be/VVVh2vdhDeQ?t=660
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 22, 2018, 12:53:35 AM

Fr. Hesse on Pope Honorius:

https://youtu.be/VVVh2vdhDeQ?t=660
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVh2vdhDeQ&feature=youtu.be&t=660
https://youtu.be/VVVh2vdhDeQ
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 22, 2018, 06:25:16 AM
The fundamental error you are making here is that you forget that it is the Holy See alone; and not Mr. Drew, who gets to decide which rites are those "received and approved" by the Church to be used in both Western and Eastern churches. If Paul VI was indeed Pope, then it must be said that the Novus Ordo rite is valid, good, and also pleasing to God, because we know infallibly that the Church does not put forth "incentives to impiety" for the faithful. This is only of course, if Paul VI was a legitimate authority.

The Church has all authority in the promulgation of liturgical rites and the administration of the sacraments, as long as the substance remains untouched. You may not like it; but it is just the way it is. Nothing in the Church gets accomplished however, without the express approval of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Pope of Rome.

The Council of Trent stated concerning "the power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist":

Cantarella,

Sedevacantism/Sedeprivationism (S&S) is a mass of hopeless contradictions that end in objective heresy and schism.  These hopeless contradictions are never addressed in the arguments. What the S&S argue is that the R&R is likewise buried in hopeless contradictions that are more problematic. But this charge of the S&S is entirely grounded upon gross distortions of the Church in all her Attributes. The great majority of the posts on this thread have addressed these distorted presuppositions of the S&S, such as:

1) The Magisterium is the rule of faith and is free to re-interpret any doctrine or dogma.
2) The pope is infallibly infallible and fallible infallible.
3) The Indefectibility of the Church means the pope possess a fallible infallibility in all his ordinary actions.
4) Ecuмenical councils are infallible in everything.
5) The pope and the bishops of the world at one specific moment of time constitute the "universal" magisterium.
6) Every Catholic owes absolute obedience to the pope irrespective of  the virtue of Religion.
7) Liturgy is man-made and entirely a matter of mere discipline that the pope can do whatever he pleases.

This sample could be extended but covers the most important errors of the S&S.  This reply continues to address the nature of Liturgy.

What you are describing as a "fundamental error" is founded upon a gross distortion of the papacy and the Magisterium. You act as if the pope possess arbitrary power to make anything a "received and approved" rite.  This is not so.  St. Pius V in Quo Primum established the historical sign of 200 years of continuous usage to indicate if a rite was a "received and approved" rite and made it clear that his decree would not suppress such rites.  Why?  The answer is that he had no authority to do so.  

When Pope Nicholas II ordered the suppression of the Ambrosian Rite, he was opposed by the Catholics of Milan who refused his order. This order was subsequently overturned by Pope Alexander II who declared it to have been “unjust.”  Why "unjust"? Human law, even the highest form of human law imposed by the pope, has all the limitations of every human law. That is, it must be a promulgation of reason, by the proper authority, promoting the common good, and not in any way opposed to Divine or natural law. As St. Thomas has said, an ‘unjust law is not a law.’ St. Thomas lists three principal conditions which must be met for any human law to be valid: 1) It must be consistent with the virtue of Religion; that is, it must not contain anything contrary to Divine law, 2) It must be consistent with discipline; that is, it must conform to the Natural law; and 3) It must promote human welfare; that is, it must promote the good of society (Fr. Dominic Prummer, Moral Theology). These criteria, required for the validity of any human law, make the suppression of immemorial tradition impossible to legitimately effect. The pope has no authority to bind an unjust law and therefore the Catholics of Milan were completely within their rights to refuse the order of Pope Nicholas II.  And Catholics today are, like them, within our rights to refuse any of liturgical innovations that overturn immemorial custom.  This truth has furthermore been made an formal object of divine and Catholic faith at the Council of Trent, and of all the Dogmas declared at Trent, this Dogma has the added singular honor of being incorporated into the Tridentine Profession of Faith.  

The "received and approved" rites of the Church are not the work of man but of God and learning this truth is one of the great benefits of the daily reading Dom Gueranger's Liturgical Year. This truth is presupposed throughout the work.

None of this can be said for the Novus Ordo. It is not a "received" rite. This fact is lost on you as you try to apply the infallible canons of Trent regarding the "received and approved" rites to what even Benedict/Ratzinger described:

Quote
"What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced -- as if in a technical production -- by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment."
Pope Benedict XVI, introduction to the French edition of Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book

You attribute an authority to the pope that even Benedict/Ratzinger does not accept:

Quote
After the Second Vatican Council, the impression has been made that the Pope, as far as the Liturgy goes, can actually do everything he wishes to do, certainly when he was acting with the mandate of an Ecuмenical Council.  Finally, the idea that the Liturgy is a predetermined ''given'', the fact that nobody can simply do what he wishes with her, disappeared out of the public conscience of the Western [Church].  In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch!  Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word.  The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy.  The Liturgy is no ''creation'' of the authorities.  Even the Pope can be nothing other than a humble servant of the Liturgy's legitimate development and of her everlasting integrity and identity.
Pope Benedict XVI, Spirit of the Liturgy

Lastly, Msgr. Gamber describes the Novus Ordo as a complete violation of the virtue of Religion.  A Catholic is not just permitted to disobey such an imposition, he is required to reject on the pain of sin.  

Quote
We are now involved in a liturgy in which God is no longer the center of our attention. Today, the eyes of the faithful are no longer focused on God’s Son having become Man hanging before us on the cross, or on the pictures of His saints, but on the human community assembled for a commemorative meal. The assembly of people is sitting there, face to face with the ‘presider,’ expecting from him, in accordance with the ‘modern’ spirit of the Church, not so much a transfer of God’s grace, but primarily some good ideas and advice on how to deal with daily life and its challenges.
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

The pope does not possess the authority to invent worship. He does not possess the authority to injure the faith. You end-up utterly corrupting the papal authority and all Catholic morality. You turn divine worship into a man-made creation. What is universally true from the time of Cain and Able to this day is that God is always the determinator of divine worship that man must "receive".  No man-made worship is ever acceptable to God.  You only purpose in making these claims is to smear R&R Catholic so as to justify your S&S overturning of Catholic Dogma.
 
As I said in my previous post to you, you are not offering arguments from a higher authority or even offering authorities of equal or superior standing. What you offer is you personal interpretation without any supporting evidence.  In the end you offer only yourself and your "musings" to affirm that the quotation you provided from Trent authorized the pope to produce the Novus Ordo.  You have become the very definition of hubris.

Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 22, 2018, 11:35:16 AM
Great summary, Drew.  By and large, personal sedevacantism (i.e. outside of a Church decision) is an extreme over-reaction to the extreme errors of heresy.  It is a human attempt to deal with spiritual chaos.  While it is psychologically and emotionally understandable, it is not catholic because it views supernatural things - the Faith, the Mass, and Divine Truth - through a natural lens.  It attempts to fix a Divine problem without following God's Divine Plan - which is to wait for the Church to act.  As has been said many times by various posters, it is proven that personal sedevacantism is fruitless, both on a practical level and from God's point of view, when the result of accepting this view leads to the final and unanswerable question:  "So we've gotten rid of the bad pope...now what?"
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 22, 2018, 11:48:55 AM
Great summary, Drew.  By and large, personal sedevacantism (i.e. outside of a Church decision) is an extreme over-reaction to the extreme errors of heresy.  It is a human attempt to deal with spiritual chaos.  While it is psychologically and emotionally understandable, it is not catholic because it views supernatural things - the Faith, the Mass, and Divine Truth - through a natural lens.  It attempts to fix a Divine problem without following God's Divine Plan - which is to wait for the Church to act.  As has been said many times by various posters, it is proven that personal sedevacantism is fruitless, both on a practical level and from God's point of view, when the result of accepting this view leads to the final and unanswerable question:  "So we've gotten rid of the bad pope...now what?"
Wait for the Pope who actively preaches heresy and celebrates a false rite every Sunday to condemn himself? A Pope who, by virtue of his heresy, is not a member of the Church he leads. A Pope who is still somehow apparently valid and yet you completely ignore and reject all his authority.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 22, 2018, 11:56:08 AM
God can use the Church to correct a pope (as some Cardinals recently corrected 'Amoris Laeticia').  God can also end a papacy anytime He likes, through death, a fact which you fail to remember.  Just as war is a punishment for sin; bad leaders are also a punishment.  God can end the punishment at anytime.  For the present, I suspect He is using it to separate the sheep from the goats.  Nothing happens by accident with God or without His permission.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on April 22, 2018, 12:06:24 PM
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVh2vdhDeQ&feature=youtu.be&t=660
https://youtu.be/VVVh2vdhDeQ

Within the first several minutes Fr. Hesse says: "I am not today discussing if the sedevacantists are right or not. I personally believe that the pope is the pope because he is not yet in formal heresy."

This is the meat and potatoes of the Recognize and Resist position. It was, as far as I know, the official position of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. John Paul 2 had a distorted notion of Tradition but believed he was acting in accordance with Catholic Tradition. I can understand this position.

However, some of those in the Resistance claim that they are the only ones continuing in the true path blazed out by Archbishop Lefebvre just because they are militant anti-sedevacantists (sometimes apparently more so than anti-modernists or anti-Feeneyites). This doesn't help the Crisis but only adds to it because they attack their fellow Catholics on the grounds in the name of being true to Archbishop Lefebvre, which if examined closer doesn't exactly seem to be the case.

Most recently and especially with the alleged pontificate of Bergoglio we see those of the Recognize and Resist position come out as being dogmatic sedeplenists. Books are written entitled "the heretical pope" affirming that a pope can indeed fall into (or always have been) a manifest and formal heretic. Sean Johnson argues in official Resistance publications that the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact and applies this to the alleged pontificate of Francis, thus excommunicating his fellow Traditional Catholic brethren from the tiny remnant in which he finds himself.

Suddenly, those claiming to be the only true spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, while casting into doubt the Catholicity of all other Traditional Catholics, waste great energies to defend the alleged papacy of Bergoglio because, they claim, a formal and manifest heretic continues to be pope and it is a dogmatic fact. You have to be extremely ignorant or foolish to truly believe that Fr. Hesse, Bishop De Castro Mayer and Archbishop Lefebvre would support such claims had they been alive today.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 22, 2018, 12:30:17 PM
God can use the Church to correct a pope (as some Cardinals recently corrected 'Amoris Laeticia').  God can also end a papacy anytime He likes, through death, a fact which you fail to remember.  Just as war is a punishment for sin; bad leaders are also a punishment.  God can end the punishment at anytime.  For the present, I suspect He is using it to separate the sheep from the goats.  Nothing happens by accident with God or without His permission.
To separate the sheep from the goats? All the Vatican 2 Church is doing is welcoming in the modernists and relativists, while excommunicating good honest traditionalists like +Lefebvre. It's kicking out the sheep and welcoming the goats with open arms.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 22, 2018, 04:17:51 PM
Within the first several minutes Fr. Hesse says: "I am not today discussing if the sedevacantists are right or not. I personally believe that the pope is the pope because he is not yet in formal heresy."

This is the meat and potatoes of the Recognize and Resist position. It was, as far as I know, the official position of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. John Paul 2 had a distorted notion of Tradition but believed he was acting in accordance with Catholic Tradition. I can understand this position.

However, some of those in the Resistance claim that they are the only ones continuing in the true path blazed out by Archbishop Lefebvre just because they are militant anti-sedevacantists (sometimes apparently more so than anti-modernists or anti-Feeneyites). This doesn't help the Crisis but only adds to it because they attack their fellow Catholics on the grounds in the name of being true to Archbishop Lefebvre, which if examined closer doesn't exactly seem to be the case.

Most recently and especially with the alleged pontificate of Bergoglio we see those of the Recognize and Resist position come out as being dogmatic sedeplenists. Books are written entitled "the heretical pope" affirming that a pope can indeed fall into (or always have been) a manifest and formal heretic. Sean Johnson argues in official Resistance publications that the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact and applies this to the alleged pontificate of Francis, thus excommunicating his fellow Traditional Catholic brethren from the tiny remnant in which he finds himself.

Suddenly, those claiming to be the only true spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, while casting into doubt the Catholicity of all other Traditional Catholics, waste great energies to defend the alleged papacy of Bergoglio because, they claim, a formal and manifest heretic continues to be pope and it is a dogmatic fact. You have to be extremely ignorant or foolish to truly believe that Fr. Hesse, Bishop De Castro Mayer and Archbishop Lefebvre would support such claims had they been alive today.

Centroamerica,
 
You may be right about Archbishop Lefebvre but not about Fr. Hesse.
 
I am grateful for what Archbishop Lefebvre did but I also recognize two great errors that he saddled traditional Catholics with that are still present in those he formed in the priesthood which have led many of them into S&S. Firstly, he did not hold Dogma as his rule of faith.  This is evident in his belief that a Jєω as a Jєω, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Hindu as a Hindu, a Protestant as a Protestant, etc., by virtue of trying to be "good" Jєωs, Muslims, Hindus and Protestants, etc., could be invisible members of the Catholic Church, in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven.  He followed the error of the 1949 Holy Office Letter which taught that every Dogma that touches upon what is necessary for salvation as a necessity of means, that is, explicit faith in a divinely revealed Truth, reception of the sacraments, membership in the Church and submission to the Roman Pontiff are subject to being reinterpreted by the magisterium and taken in a metaphorical or non-literal sense.  He actually followed the error that treated these revealed Truths as mere commands that did not bind anyone in cases of necessity, excessive physical or moral difficulty, or any of the other conditions that mitigate or excuse from the obligation of obedience to a superior.   
 
The second error of Archbishop Lefebvre is that he held that the Divine Liturgy was a matter of mere discipline. In +Lefebvre's defense it should be added that there has been a wealth of liturgical publications since 1990 that he had not seen which may have changed his views on this important matter. And even though he did not accept Dogma literally, he had enough innate Catholic sense to recoil at the Prayer Meeting of Assisi which lead to his consecration of the four bishops.
 
Both of these errors ultimately make defending the Faith and our ecclesiastical traditions impossible. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  Dogmas are Truths "fallen from heaven."  They are immutable in both there form and matter, that is, in the Truth they define and the words by which they are defined. Dogmas are divinely revealed Truths in the category of truth/falsehood and not ever to be treated as if belonging to the category of authority/obedience.  Immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are necessary attributes of the faith that make it knownable and communicable to others. They therefore cannot be matters of mere discipline.
 
Canon Gregory Hesse did not follow these two errors.
 
Pope Francis is a manifest heretic but so were his conciliar predecessors. There is no more reason to become a S&S under Francis/Bergoglio than there was with his predecessors.  It is in fact disappointing to see conservative Catholics recoil at Pope Francis/Bergoglio and wish for the return of Pope Benedict/Ratzinger. They are the ones that traditional Catholics should be recruiting but that will only happen when we make an open appeal to the immutable Catholic Dogmas as our rule of faith, and uphold the right that every Catholic possess to the immemorial "received and approved" rites of the Church.
 
Lastly, there is no real reason a manifest heretic cannot be pope. Heresy itself does not materially remove a baptized person from the Church. Every Church Father held that in the parable of the cockle and wheat that the cockle represents heretics. Our Lord counsels that they remain until the harvest, but the Church, which is her right, has determined that in her judgment, if the individual cockle is more harmful to the wheat, it may be uprooted before the harvest. The heresy of Pope Francis is his personal sin and those who recognize him as pope, although we suffer under his sins, are no more tainted by his heresy than Jesus Christ was by the Pharisees and Sadducees who were sitting on the "Chair of Moses". The conciliar popes are punishments for our sins and only by prayer and penance will we obtain the mercy of God to cleanse His Church.
 
The only thing you have to do is keep the faith and do all you can to insure that those for whom you are responsible for do so as well. S&S leads necessarily to heresy and schism and to justify this disaster they corrupt the Magisterium, Dogma, the liturgy, the moral law, and canon law. They end up in a church of their own making that cannot be the Catholic Church because it has no pope, no Magisterium and no intent to ever get one.  They have no intent because they have no material means or instrumental means to ever correct the problem. The S&S church is permanently deficient of necessary attributes that identify the Catholic Church.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 23, 2018, 05:18:45 AM




Thank you, Sean Johnson, for posting this article. Leave it to sedevacantes to deceive. And Ladislaus, all you can do is insult the authors, your MO. 

 
WHY FR. KRAMER AND THE SEDEVACANTISTS
 MISUNDERSTAND BELLARMINE

 
       In True of False Pope?, we demonstrate that the Sedevacantists have entirely misinterpreted Bellarmine’s opinion concerning the loss of office for a heretical Pope. As we have noted in recent feature articles, their erroneous interpretation of the famous Fourth and Fifth Opinions is evident by reading what Bellarmine wrote just a few paragraphs earlier (in the Second and Third Opinions).  But they would not know this, because these additional paragraphs were never translated and posted online, which is where almost all the Sedevacantists get their information. Their handlers conveniently translated only those portions of Bellarmine which they were able to “interpret” to “support” their position. 
       The portion they have translated consists of Bellarmine’s attempted refutation of Cajetan’s opinion on how a Pope loses his office (Fourth Opinion), and Bellarmine’s own opinion (the Fifth Opinion). By providing these opinions alone, and by not explaining (or not knowing) what Cajetan’s position entailed (and hence what Bellarmine was objecting to), the priests and bishops of the Sedevacantist sect were able to convince unsuspecting souls that Bellarmine’s own opinion supported their Sedevacantist position, when, in reality, it does not. By this deceitful tactic, these Sedevacantist clergy were able to lead countless souls out of the Church and into their heretical sects.  
       The Novus Ordo trained priest, Fr, Paul Leonard Kramer, has embraced this erroneous interpretation of Bellarmine, hook, line and sinker, and has been causing further confusion by spreading it to a new group of Catholics via is Facebook Page. As we will show in this article, John of St. Thomas, who is one of the main commentators on the debate between Cajetan and Bellarmine, directly refutes the Sedevacantists’ false interpretation of Bellarmine, and confirms exactly what we have been saying for years. This is because John of St. Thomas knew Cajetan’s opinion well, and hence also knew what Bellarmine was objecting to. Understanding Cajetan’s opinion (which almost no Sedevacantist does, since his teaching is found nowhere on the Sedevacantist websites) is the key to understanding what Bellarmine meant.
 
For the whole article:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/whyfr.html

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 23, 2018, 05:27:18 AM
5) The Bishops around the world in union with the Pope do not need a gathering of a General Council in order to teach infallibly. These teachings are free from heretical error, also and Catholics must give assent.
This doctrine is strictly Novus Ordo Cantarella. This NO doctrine you keep referencing entirely ignores that universality in time is also necessary for a doctrine to be guaranteed infallible. V1 decreed that “all those things are to be believed as found in scripture and tradition...”
 
All the "Bishops around the world in union with the Pope" teach the new and novel teachings of V2, a new and novel teaching, by definition, cannot be “found in tradition.” A novel teaching is a teaching that has not been taught in all times and therefore lacks universality, therefore is not infallible.

Why on earth do you keep promoting this NO doctrine when you do not even believe it yourself?

Do you realize that if you actually believed it was a teaching of the Church, that you and all the rest of us would be bound to be in league with all those people who actually *do* believe the NO doctrine you keep referencing, and who actually *do* give their assent to the V2 teachings? - the reason they wrongfully give their assent is because unlike you, they actually they believe that  "These teachings are free from heretical error and Catholics must give assent."?
 
You are very confused Cantarella, you are in a terrible situation with your loss of faith in everything - even the NO doctrine you keep referencing.  :pray:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 23, 2018, 05:59:29 AM
Cantarella, this is the dogma as quoted directly from V1:

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.


This is that same dogma, only in this quote, I replaced the words "in her ordinary and universal magisterium", with Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the ordinary and universal magisterium is, as he taught it from Tuas Libenter. The dogma's meaning has not been changed.

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 "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 only commonality the true dogma has with the false NO doctrine you keep referencing, are the words, "spread over the whole world".

In the false NO doctrine you constantly reference as if it is a true teaching of the Church, it is the bishops who are infallible - whether spread over the whole world, or not, just as long as they're in union with the pope. Again, this is a false teaching, do not believe it! -  and this false teaching has proven to be the cause of the loss of faith of billions.

In the true dogma, it is the teachings that are infallible, provided those teachings have been taught by the Church always and everywhere. This is the same as saying: "in her ordinary and universal magisterium."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: kiwiboy on April 23, 2018, 03:41:15 PM
To bring things back on topic, does Fr. Ringrose believe in Flat Earth? ;D :o ??? ;)
We're working on it.....
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 04:57:48 PM

Quote
These types of authorities have no effect on Drew
Coming from the man who disagrees with Cantarella that everything from a council is infallible, it’s the height of contadiction for you to declare Drew is in the wrong, when you would be as well. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 23, 2018, 05:06:48 PM
Coming from the man who disagrees with Cantarella that everything from a council is infallible, it’s the height of contadiction for you to declare Drew is in the wrong, when you would be as well.
Cantarella never said that. What she said is what the Church teaches, that all matters of faith defined at Ecuмenical Councils are infallible. Disciplines are not, because disciplines are not matters of faith or religion. They are neither fallible or infallible. They're just rules of Church governance that may be changed, and therefore can neither be true or false. They are just either in effect or are not. And if they are in effect they must be obeyed until revised. 
But all teachings and doctrines of an Ecuмenical Council are infallible. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 05:14:09 PM
I’ve been on this thread from the start.  She’s said it multiple times.   Go back and re-read every post.  Have fun. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 06:42:37 PM
Yep, I know, and Ladislaus disagrees with you, while still saying your arguments are good.  Nonsensical of him.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 24, 2018, 12:38:15 AM
:jester:

Well, OK, Drew, if you say so.  Hey, at least it avoids the ACTUAL heresies of your position ... rather than the imagined ones of ours.

Ladislaus,

I thought this thread was through with your Ladislausisms, those little bumkin notions of yours that are so entertaining.

You have accused me of “heresy” because I have taken Dogma literally. For you, the “Magisterium is the rule of faith,” so Dogma must be forever interpreted by the magisterium and anyone taking Dogma literally making it there rule of faith is guilty of “private interpretation” and therefore a “Protestant” and therefore a “heretic.”  But Ladislaus, heresy is the failure to keep Dogma as the rule of faith. That is what heresy is by definition. You have turned the very definition of heresy on its head.  

Should anyone be surprised that you do not know the definition of heresy?  After all, you are the one who did not know the definition of "supernatural faith."  Remember? I had to correct you on that one.  And, after all, you are the one who thought that the “Magisterium was not part of (the content) of divine revelation." And after that big mistake, you thought that the “Magisterium was not part of (the act) of divine revelation," an even bigger mistake.  You are the guy who did not even know what hylomorphism means and that if you split the form and matter of a material being you cause a substantial change.  From that big blunder you split the definition of faith dividing its two necessary attributes that make supernatural faith what it is.  And then you split the office of the pope dividing its form and matter and thought no one would notice that you destroyed it.

Since heresy is failure to keep the faith, and you do not even know what supernatural faith is or that Dogma is the proximate rule of faith, how could you possible know what heresy is?

You know what Ladislaus? All the S&Sers can get together and elect you as their pope and then everything you say will become necessarily true.

Glad to have you back on this thread for comic relief.

Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Don Paolo on April 24, 2018, 06:53:19 AM
What Sean Johnson hasn't figured out is that the Salza/Siscoe critique of Fr. Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine is based on the totally gratuitous and false assumptions that, 1) Fr. Kramer does not understand Cajetan's argument, which Bellarmine refutes. (Although Salza & Siscoe speak only of Bellarmine's "attempted refutation" of Cajetan.) Cajetan's argument is presented in my book. I know perfectly well what Bellarmine was refuting; and I present a much more in depth critical examination of Bellarmine's doctrine on this point than anyone else who is writing on the topic at the present time; and 2) that Fr. Kramer fails to take into account Bellarmine's refutation of the Second Opinion; according to which a pope who is put into the papacy by men is not removed from the papacy without the judgment of men. I have fully explained this point in Part III of my soon to be published book; which is that a secret heretic cannot simply fall from office in the manner of a manifest heretic who publlicly defects from the faith and ceases by himself to be pope. Only when the formal heresy becomes publicly manifest can an officeholder in the Church fall from office automatically (ipso facto); without any declaration (sine ulla declaratione), and without any judgment by authority, but by operation of the law itself (ipso jure); as is explicitly set forth in canon 188 n. 4 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and is so explained in the 1952 Commentary the Pontifical Faculty of the University of Salamanca, (and remains the same in the 1983 Code, as Ecclesiastical Faculty Canon Law of the University of Navarre explain in their 2005 Commentary). Salza & Siscoe have exhumed a defunct opinion that was totally abandoned after Vatican I (Pastor Æternus) solemnly defined that the pope is the supreme judge in ALL CASES THAT REFER TO ECCLESIASTICAL EXAMINATION , and condemns the proposition that anyone can reject his judgment or judge against his judgment; or appeal to an ecuмenical council against his judgment:

Constitutio Dogmatica «Pastor Aeternus» Concilii Vaticani I: Et quoniam divino Apostolici primatus iure Romanus Pontifex universae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus etiam et declaramus, eum esse iudicem supremum fidelium (Pii PP. VI Breve, Super soliditate d. 28 Nov. 1786), et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus ad ipsius posse iudicium recurri (Concil. Oecuм. Lugdun. II); Sedis vero Apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maior non est, iudicium a nemine fore retractandum, neque cuiquam de eius licere iudicare iudicio (Ep. Nicolai 1 ad Michaelem Imporatorem). Quare a recto veritatis tramite aberrant, qui affirmant, licere ab iudiciis Romanorum Pontificuм ad oecuмenicuм Concilium tamquam ad auctoritatem Romano Pontifice superiorem appellare.

   The definition makes no allowance for any exception; and its wording positively excludes such an interpretation; ERGO: The Salza/Siscoe doctrine which professes against the above quoted dogmatic definition, to wit, that papal heresy is an exception to the doctrine of papal injudicability defined in the quoted text of that Dogmatic Constitution, is HERESY.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Don Paolo on April 24, 2018, 07:00:48 AM
     St. Robert Bellarmine teaches most explicitly (De Romano Pontifice, II xxx) that it is heresy by its very nature, (ex natura haeresis), which severs the heretic from the Church, and causes the immediate loss of ecclesiastical office: “Thenceforth, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto.”  Salza desperately attempts to interpret the Fathers as teaching that the heretic’s severing himself from the Church and the subsequent loss of office result from an ecclesiastical censure or judgment. Bellarmine, in his refutation of the Fourth Opinion utterly destroys that argument: “Nor does the response which some make avail, that these Fathers speak according to ancient laws, but now since the decree of the Council of Constance they do not lose jurisdiction, unless excommunicated by name, or if they strike clerics. I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy. Moreover, the Council of Constance does not speak except on the excommunicates, that is, on these who lose jurisdiction through a judgment of the Church. Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.” (Neque valet, quod quidam respondent, istos Patres loqui secundum antiqua jura, nunc autem ex decreto Concilii Constantiensis non amittere jurisdictionem, nisi nominatim excommunicatos, & percussores clericorum; hoc, inquam, nihil valet. Nam Patres illi cuм dicunt haereticos amittere jurisdictionem, non allegant ulla jura humana, quae etiam forte tunc nulla extabant de hac re: sed argumentantur ex natura haeresis. Concilium autem Constantiense, non loquitur nisi de excommunicatis, id est, de his, qui per sententiam Ecclesiae amiserunt jurisdictionem. Haeretici autem etiam ante excuмmunicationem sunt extra Ecclesiam, & privati omni jurisdictione: sunt enim proprio judicio condemnati, ut docet Apostolus ad Titum3. V. II. Hoc est: praecisi a corpore Ecclesiae, sine excommunication, ut Hieronymus exponit.) Thus, St. Robert Bellarmine proves that it is the teaching of scripture, interpreted unanimously by the Fathers, that heretics are outside the Church and lose all jurisdiction by themselves before any judgment is made by the Church. 
     It is also shown by reason – by the very meaning of the words schism, heresy, apostasy suapte natura in Mystici Corporis, and and ex natura haeresis in De Romano Pontifice, that what is being spoken of is heresy in itself, in its very own nature, and not heresy considered as a violation of ecclesiastical law; because a thing considered in its nature, is considered formally as a principium motus in eo quod est. St. Thomas takes this definition straight from the Physics of Aristotle (Aristotle, Physics, III, I, 201 a 10 s.); and says, “Naturalia enim sunt quorum principium motus in ipsis est." (Sancti Thomae de Aquino, De motu cordis ad magistrum Philippum de Castro Caeli) Thus to speak of heresy suapte natura, or of heresy ex natura haeresis, refers to it as a principle of motion that is intrinsic to itself, and by which it separates the heretic from the Church, and not by any extrinsic principle such as the force of a human positive law. 
     Thus, as explained above, it is by faith that one is first united to God; and by the external profession of faith, and the sacrament of faith, that one enters the Church, because it pertains properly to the nature of faith that it unites one to God and to his Church; and it is by the contrary disposition of the sin of infidelity – of heresy or apostasy, by which one, with an external act, rejects faith, and leaves the Church. Such is the motion proper to each nature, as St. Thomas explains, that the natural motion of fire is upward, and of earth downward ([M]otus autem naturalis ad unam partem est, ut ignis sursum, et terrae deorsum); so likewise the motion of faith brings one into the Church, and heresy suapte natura takes one out. 
     Bellarmine explains that even bad Catholics are united to the Church and are members, they are united by the soul through faith, and by the body through the confession of faith and the visible participation of the sacraments. (Nam Catholici enim mali sunt uniti, & sunt membra; animo, per fidem; corpore per confessionem fidei, & visibilium Sacramentorum  participationem); and secret heretics are united and are members only by external union, but a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church in any manner, by neither soul nor body, neither by internal nor external union. (haereticus manifestus, nullo modo  est membrum Ecclesiae, id est, neque animo, neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa)     
     Applying this doctrine to the hypothetical case of a manifestly heretical pope, Bellarmine explains in what manner faith is simpliciter a necessary disposition for one to be pope; and faith being removed, by its contrary disposition, which is heresy, the pope would straightaway cease to be pope, with the necessary disposition for the form of the papacy not being able to be preserved. (ista dispositione sublata per contrariam quae est haeresis, mox papa desinit esse; neque enim potest forma conservari sine necessariis dispositionibus.) It is therefore on this theological foundation that Bellarmine judges the fifth opinion to be the “true opinion”, and according to it that Bellarmine’s explication of it must be interpreted. Thus, when Bellarmine affirms that a manifestly heretical pope can be “deposed”, it is clearly his meaning that he refers not to a pope while still in office, but one who has already ceased to be pope by himself, or; as Pope Gregory XVI expressed it of the claimant Pedro De Luna (Benedict XIII), if ever he was pope, would have already “fallen” (decaduto) from the papal throne for having attacked the dogma “unam sanctam”.  
     The correct understanding of the doctrine of St Robert Bellarmine, which exposes the absurdity of the Salza & Siscoe interpretation of Bellarmine’s doctrine on the question of a heretic pope, is explained by the Jesuit canonists Franz Xavier Wernz S.J. and Pedro Vidal S.J. in, Jus Canonicuм (1938) Chapter VII:
“453. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. (Per haeresim notoriam et palam divulgatam R. Pontifex si in illam incidat, ipso facto etiam ante omnem sententiam declaratoriam Ecclesiae sua potestate iurisdictionis privatus existit) Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved. [NB - The term notorious in the expression, by heresy which is notorious and openly made known, is clearly denoting the common meaning of the word, (equivalent to public, manifest, evident or known ) in the context that the authors are using it, and not according to the strict canonical definition of the term as it is defined in penal law, as some authors arbitrarily interpret it; seizing upon the word notorious, and uncritically assuming it to denote a canonical delict that a judge has pronounced by a judicial sentence – (something that is impossible in the case of a manifestly heretical pope); or denoting a notoriety that would need to conform to  stricter criteria than those set forth in the 1917 Code of Canon Law of the canonical requirements for a delict to be considered notorious by fact in penal law. Thus it is manifestly evident that Wernz and Vidal do not apply the term in its strictly canonical sense, but in its ordinary sense, because the authors are not expounding a point of Canon Law, but of speculative theology, namely, the loss of office ex natura haeresis, as is manifestly evident from the context. What is canonically notorious is a question of law, and is therefore determined by legislation, jurisprudence, and principles of law. Although in Moral Theology, as far as the moral imputability of the act is concerned, the definition of notorious heresy in the sense of not merely material heresy, but of formal heresy, would be more or less materially equivalent to the definition of notorious heresy in the case of a delict of heresy as it is understood in its penal/canonical connotation of notoriety of fact; the moral-theological definition is nevertheless formally disgtinguished from the penal/canonical definition by the fact that it is not a question of law determined by legalities, but is determined by the moral object of the act, and according to the nature of that which morally constitutes the sin of heresy as a notorious act. It is in this moral-theological sense, that an act of formal heresy can plainly be considered to be notorious when the act of obstinate denial or doubt of a revealed truth of faith is public, and concerns: 1) a revealed truth that pertains to natural law ; 2) a universally known dogma that no Catholic is ignorant of ; 3) or if the heretic explicitly acknowledges his belief to be contrary to dogma; 4) or if the doubt or denial persists after correction.]
    “A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church... The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be ‘extremely improbable’. 
    “The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. ‘Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible’, as Bellarmine teaches. 
    “Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church. 
    “Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence... Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.”
      Thus, the great Jesuit canonists of the Gregorian University explain that Opinion No. 5 of St. Robert Bellarmine is based on the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, who said in Sermo II: "In tantum enim fides mihi necessaria est ut cuм de caeteris peccatis solum Deum judicem habeam, propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari. Nam qui non credit, iam iudicatus est. (Joh.3 18).", and “I say the less that he can be judged by men, but rather be shown to be already judged.”  Thus it is not an exception to the principle, Apostolica Sedes a nemine iudicatur, as many had taught before the solemn definition of the universal papal primacy of jurisdiction by the First Vatican Council made such an interpretation impossible, but rather, as Paul Hinschius explained in his monumental work on Canon Law , a series of Catholic writers, and already Innocent III and St. Robert Bellarmine, see no exception to that rule, because a pope who falls into heresy would already leave the Church and forfeit the Pontificate, so that a council could no longer  depose him (in the proper sense of a juridical deposition of a reigning Pontiff), but could only declare that the loss of office had taken place: «Eine Reihe katholischer Schriftsteller  wollen aber darin keine Ausnahme von der gedachten Regel finden, weil der in Ketzerei verfallene Papst sich dadurch selbst von der Kirche ausscheide, damit weiter den Pontifikat verwirke und also das Konzil keine Deposition mehr verhängen könne, sondern nur die Thatsache des erfolgten Verlustes der Päpstlichen Würde zu konstatiren habe. [3] (Dieser Gedanke tritt schon bei Innocenz III. auf (im Sermo IV. In consecrat. pontiff. opp. Colon. 1575. 1. 197): «Potest (pontifex) ab hominibus iudicari vel potius iudicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescat in haeresim, quoniam qui non credit, iam iudicatus est» ) Vgl. ferner Bellarmin, christ. Fidei controv. gen. III. De Romano pontifice II. 30. (ed. Ingolstadt. 1605. 1083): «Est ergo opinio quinta vera, papam haereticuм manifestum per se desinere esse [papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse] christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab ecclesia posse eum iudicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum patrum qui docent haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem»; Fagnan. comm. Ad c. 4. X. de elect. I. 6. n. 70 ff; Fragosi, regimen reipubl. Christianae lib. II. c. I. §. 2. n. 21 (Lugduni. 1648. 2, 11); Kober, Deposition. S. 585. » (see translation in Part II)
     With an arrogant stupidity that nearly defies belief, Salza and Siscoe say that it is I who have not understood the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine correctly, in spite of the fact that all the great scholars, canonists, jurists and theologians of recent centuries have unanimously understood Bellarmine’s doctrine in the manner that I have explained it; yet it is on the basis of their own grotesquely inverted interpretation of Bellarmine and of Mystici Corporis that they obstinately justify their heretical doctrine, that heresy by itself does not separate the heretic from the Church without an ecclesiastical censure or judgment – whereas it is plainly set forth and proven by Bellarmine that it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers interpreting scripture that heresy in its very nature severs one from the Church, and directly brings about the loss of ecclesiastical office before and even without any judgment of the Church; and being the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, it must be believed de fide. 
     Salza and Siscoe still adamantly maintain, that, « As we explain in great detail in our book, Bellarmine and Suarez teach that the Pope will lose his office, ipso facto, once he is judged by the Church to be a heretic, without the additional juridical act of vitandus declaration. » Wernz and Vidal have explained that the opinion of Suarez is not that of Bellarmine, who says Opinon No. 5 is the “true opinion”, but that Suarez subscribed to Opinion No. 4. Thus, Salza and Siscoe quote Suarez to justify their errant doctrine, claiming that those who follow Bellarmine in saying that the loss of office takes place before any judgment, «have erred is by interpreting the ipso facto loss of office to be similar to an “ipso facto” latae sententiæ excommunication, which occurs automatically (or ipso facto), when one commits an offense that carries the penalty, without requiring an antecedent judgment by the Church. But this is not at all what Bellarmine and Suarez meant by the ipso facto loss of office.  What they meant is that the ipso facto loss of office occurs after the Church judges the Pope to be a heretic and before any additional juridical sentence or excommunication (which differs from Cajetan’s opinion). In other words, after the Church establishes “the fact” that the Pope is a manifest heretic, he, according to this opinion, is deemed to lose his office ipso facto (“by the fact”). This is clear from the following quotation from Suarez who wrote: 
       ‘Therefore, others [e.g., Azorius] affirm the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy, but this is difficult to say. For Christ the Lord constituted the Pope as supreme judge absolutely; even the canons indifferently and generally affirm this; and at length the Church does not validly exercise any act of jurisdiction against the Pope; nor is the power conferred to him by election, rather [the Church] merely designates a person upon whom Christ confers the power by himself; Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically and by the consent of Christ she would declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would THEN ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ…’ » 
     Incredibly, Salza and Siscoe have interpreted Bellarmine by quoting Suarez (and John of St. Thomas)! In order to arrive at Bellarmine's meaning, it is necessary to make a critical examination of Bellarmine's own words; but Salza and Siscoe attempt to determine Bellarmine's meaning by quoting Suarez and John of St. Thomas — and these are the men who say, Fr. Kramer is an amateur! I will provide a critical commentary on St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on this question in a later segment of this work. Since it may be necessary to devote entire articles to each of the five opinions, I will only comment on them briefly here; since Salza and Sicoe have expounded on this topic so ignorantly, that a full refutation of their errors needs to be done. 
     In their insolent ignorance, these mere dilettantes (Salza and Siscoe), who have no formal education in Sacred Theology or in Canon Law, and who cannot read theological works in Latin (the language of Sacred Theology) , have even gone so far as to say that the above mentioned eminent canonists of the Pontifical Gregorian University have wrongly interpreted Suarez and Bellarmine, saying that they equate the opinion of Suarez with Cajetan; whereas in reality they did no such thing. What they did say is that Suarez and Cajetan were both of Opinion No. 4. Each had his own variation of the Fourth Opinion, but both of them opined that a manifest heretic pope would not lose office until judged by the Church – according to Cajetan by deposition, and according to Suarez, the logically incoherent opinion that the heretic pope would lose office ipso facto for heresy, but only after having been judged juridically by the Church, which amounts to a form of deposition. Wernz and Vidal correctly explain Bellarmine’s Opinion No. 5, which holds that “a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church […] he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence... Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact [of falling into heresy] forfeit his power.” This is exactly what Bellarmine says, to wit,that a manifest heretic pope ceases to be pope, a Christian, and a member of the Church by himself (per se), having left the Church and the pontificate by his own judgment, and not after the judgment of others: “the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church” ; and, “heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment” . Salza & Siscoe simplistically equate the fourth opinion exclusively with the opinion of Cajetan, obvlivious of the fact that many variations of the fourth opinion had already been formulated by medieval canonists centuries before Cajetan. That opinion had achieved its classical formulation from Cajetan in the 16th Century, so in refuting Opinion No. 4, Bellarmine zeroed in on Cajetan’s formulation of it. 
     Opinion No. 2 differs essentially from Opinion No. 5 in that in the case of a secret heretic, the heretic has not pronounced judgment against himself, thereby ceasing by his own judgment against himself to be pope, as does the manifest heretic; and does not cease to be a visible member of the Church as does the manifest heretic. Although he would remain united to the Church by external union only; so, as a practical hypothesis, he would not cease being pope for the sin of occult heresy, because no judgment of men can be pronounced against him, nor does he resign voluntarily – and, since the heretic pope was made pope with the cooperation of men, so he will not be removed except through men. Bellarmine states explicitly, “Nam iurisdictio datur quidem Pontifici a Deo, sed hominum opera concurrente, ut patet; quia ab hominibus habet iste homo, qui ante non erat Papa, ut incipiat esse Papa; igitur non aufertur a Deo nisi per hominem, at haereticus occultus non potest ab homine iudicari; nec ipse sponte eam potestatem vult relinquere.” The reason why God cannot secretly depose a heretic pope is that it is impossible for the visible head of the Church on earth to be invisibly removed, and therefore if he is to be removed, he must be removed by men in a visible manner. In his explanation of Opinion No.No. 5 and his refutation of Opinion No. 4, Bellarmine explained how a heretic pope would be visibly removed from the Pontificate: the manifest heretic pope would cease to be pope “by himself” (per se), i.e., by his own judgment against himself and not by others, and then, having already fallen from the pontificate directly by his own actions, he could then be judged and punished by men; and he explains at some length why a pope while still in office cannot be judged and deposed by his subjects. Bellarmine’s refutation of Opinion No. 2 must be understood according to the unequivocal doctrine he sets forh in his explanation of Opinion No. 5, namely, that the manifest heretic pope would cease “by himself” to be pope, a Christian, and a member of the Church; and “for which reason” (quare) having ceased to be pope, “he may be judged and punished by the Church.” Thus, the judgment he speaks of in order to bring about the removal of the heretic from the papal throne is quite obviously a post factum declaration of the ipso facto loss of office, i.e. a declaratory sentence that the man who was pope has lost office, and not a judicial or juridical sentence, i.e. a judicial or juridical verdict of guilt on the pope while still in office, which as a dispositive cause brings about the ipso facto loss of office; because such a judgment requires the jurisdiction of a superior, and therefore is impossible to be made by non-superiors who lack jurisdiction. Since the solemn definition of the papal primacy, it is no longer permissible to hold the latter opinion, and can be seen to be heretical, that a pope while still in office can be judged by anyone on earth for any reason, because papal immunity pertains to the very essence of the judicial supremacy of the primacy as solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council, and it has been repeatedly taught by the popes that the pope cannot be judged by anyone. Nevertheless, Salza and Siscoe stubbornly hold to their heretical opinion that a heretic pope would not lose office unless judged juridically by the public judgment of the Church; an opinion which directly opposes the doctrine of the injudicability of the pope, which pertains to the essence of the dogma of the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. 
     As I pointed out above, the observation of Hinschius that many Catholic authors had already avoided the conflict between the problematic doctrine that a pope, by way of exception, can be judged by the Church and deposed for heresy, and the principle opposed to it, namely, Apostolica Sedes a nemine iudicatur; by advancing the opinion that the manifest heretic pope falls from office by himself before any judgment is made against him by the Church, so that a Council would not be able to depose him, but would only declare the fact that the pope had fallen from the pontificate;  and he quotes Innocent III and Belarmine as holding this opinion. It remains here only to be said, that Pope Gregory XVI (quoted above) was also of this same opinion as Bellarmine, and he based his opinion on the doctrine of Ballerini, who explained it with great erudition in his work, De Potestate ecclesiastica Summorum Pontificuм et Conciliorum generalium. Pope Gregory had said of papal claimant Benedict XIII, “So then he could be considered, as noted by Ballerini, to have been a public schismatic and heretic, and consequently to have fallen from papacy, even if he had been validly elevated to it.” Ballerini wrote of this same case saying, “For this double reason of schism and heresy Benedict XIII (if one believes him to have been a true Pontiff), by his own will ipso facto abdicated the primacy and the pontificate, [and] rightly and legitimately was able to be deposed by the Council as a schismatic and heretic, which was not the case with John XXIII, which in the sentence passed against him was not stated. One sees by what means the divine providence employed the synod of Constance to end the most tenacious schism, so that that synod did not need to exercise any power of jurisdiction by its authority to depose any true, albeit unknown, actual Pontiff.”   Ballerini says here that if Benedict XIII had been a valid pope; by his heresy and schism he would have ipso facto of his own volition (sua voluntate) “abdicated the primacy and the pontificate” (primatu et pontificatu exauctoratus); and for that reason the Council could rightly and correctly depose him. However, this self-deposition having taken place before any judgment or canonical warnings, (the warnings were not canonical admonitions, but were made only in charity) by the Council, the Council in its judgment declared that he had shown himself to be a schismatic and heretic, therefore, Ballerini explains, the Council did not declare that it had “deposed” him, but simply that he was deposed (depositum declaruit potius quam deposuit). Hence, the Council did not depose him but declared him deposed “as a precautionary measure” (“ad omnem cautelam”),  and that he had been automatically cast out by God, and deprived of all office and ecclesiastical dignity ipso jure due to obstinate heresy and schism. Thus the council's judgment (Session 37) did not depose or in any way cause him to lose office, but merely declared it post factum: “For, how greatly he has sinned against God's church and the entire christian people, fostering, and continuing the schism and division of God's church How ardent and frequent have been the devout and humble prayers, exhortations and requests of kings, princes and prelates with which he has been warned in charity, in accordance with the teaching of the gospel, to bring peace to the church, to heal its wounds and to reconstitute its divided parts into one structure and one body, as he had sworn to do, and as for a long time it was within his power to do ! He was unwilling, however, to listen to their charitable admonitions. How many were the persons afterwards sent to attest to him! Because he did not listen at all even to these, it has been necessary, in accordance with the aforesaid evangelical teaching of Christ, to say to the church, since he has not listened even to her, that he should be treated as a heathen and a publican. All these things have been clearly proved by the articles coming from the inquiry into faith and the schism held before this present synod, regarding the above and other matters brought against him, as well as by their truth and notoriety. The proceedings have been correct and canonical, all the acts have been correctly and carefully examined and there has been mature deliberation. Therefore this same holy general synod, representing the universal church and sitting as a tribunal in the aforesaid inquiry, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence written here, that the same Peter de Luna, called Benedict XIII as has been said, has been and is a perjurer, a cause of scandal to the universal church, a promoter and breeder of the ancient schism, that long established fission and division in God's holy church, an obstructer of the peace and unity of the said church, a schismatic disturber and a heretic, a deviator from the faith, a persistent violator of the article of the faith One holy catholic church, incorrigible, notorious and manifest in his scandal to God's church, and that he has rendered himself unworthy of every title, rank, honour and dignity, rejected and cut off by God, deprived by the law itself of every right in any way belonging to him in the papacy or pertaining to the Roman pontiff and the Roman church, and cut off from the catholic church like a withered member. This same holy synod, moreover, as a precautionary measure, since according to himself he actually holds the papacy, deprives, deposes and casts out the said Peter from the papacy and from being the supreme pontiff of the Roman church and from every title, rank, honour, dignity, benefice and office whatsoever. It forbids him to act henceforth as the pope or as the supreme and Roman pontiff. It absolves and declares to be absolved all Christ's faithful from obedience to him, and from every duty of obedience to him and from oaths and obligations in any way made to him. It forbids each and every one of Christ's faithful to obey, respond to or attend to, as if he were pope, the said Peter de Luna, who is a notorious, declared and deposed schismatic and incorrigible heretic, or to sustain or harbour him in any way contrary to the aforesaid, or to offer him help, advice or good will.”                       

     Thus, the doctrine that a heretic pope would lose office by himself, before any sentence, judgment, or declaration, was already affirmed and applied by the Council of Constance, in the decree that cleared the way for the election of Pope Martin V. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Don Paolo on April 24, 2018, 07:06:27 AM
As Hinschius observed in the above cited passage, this opinion is supported by the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, expressed in the words: «Potest (pontifex) ab hominibus iudicari vel potius iudicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescat in haeresim, quoniam qui non credit, iam iudicatus est» – that the pontiff can be judged or rather that he can be shown to be judged”; and thus Wernz and Vidal cited above, “Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.”
     Ballerini, however, is the most explicit in stating that the fall of a manifest heretic pope takes place without any judgment of the Church. With the Latin text of the book in front of me and the chapter on this topic before my eyes, I cite the key passage: «For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition avoid : knowing that he that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” (Tit. 3, 10-11). He forsooth, who having been once or twice corrected, does not repent, but remains obstinate in a belief contrary to a manifest or defined dogma; by this his public pertinacity which for no reason can be excused, since pertinacity properly pertains to heresy, he declares himself to be a heretic, i.e. to have withdrawn from the Catholic faith and the Church by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence from anyone would be necessary. Conspicuous in this matter is the explanation of St. Jerome on the commended words of Paul. Therefore, by himself [the heretic] is said to be condemned, because the fornicator, adulterer, murderer, and those guilty of other misdeeds are driven out from the Church by the Priests: but heretics deliver the sentence upon themselves, departing from the Church by their own will: this departure is seen to be the condemnation by their own conscience. Therefore a Pontiff, who after such a solemn and public admonition from the Cardinals, Roman Clergy, or even a synod would maintain himself hardened in heresy, and have openly departed from the Church, according to the precept of Paul he would have to be avoided; and lest the ruin be brought to the rest, his heresy and contumacy, and thus his sentence which he brought upon himself, would have to be publicly pronounced, made known to the whole Church, that he by his own will departed, making known to be severed from the body of the Church, and in some manner to have abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold, who is not in the Church. »  
     It is ironic and quite simply incredible that Salza and Siscoe quote this text in support of their opinion that a manifest heretic pope does not lose office unless he is first given official warning by the Church, and then, if he remains obstinate in heresy, he would then lose office upon being judged by the Church. Firstly, Ballerini is clearly presenting this argument against those who maintain that it is necessary in order that the Church render a judgment, such a manifest heretic pope must be judged by an ecuмenical council. In Section II of Chapter IX, he asks why not resort to a simpler solution than convoking a general synod when there is the most grave and present danger of a heretic pope : «But why is it to be believed, that the remedy is to be expected from the not so easily done convocation of a general synod, when a most present and gravest of all  dangers for the faith, which, impending from a Pontiff espousing heresy even in his private judgment, would not be able to be endured through lengthy delays? »   And he says in the case of a pope falling into heresy there is a faster and easier remedy: «Remedium in casu haeresis, in quam Pontifex incideret, promtius & facilius suppetit. » He quotes St. Paul to Titus, saying a heretic after a first and second warning is to be avoided, and that such a one is condemned by his own judgment, and this can be done by any private person, and so it could even be done by cardinals, the Roman clergy, or even a (local) synod of bishops –  and if he does not retract, but remains obstinate in his opinion either contrary to a manifest or a defined dogma, such pertinacity not being able to be excused, he declares himself openly to be a heretic, to have withdrawn from the Catholic faith by his own will, cutting himself off from the body of the Church, without any declaration or sentence being made. In support of this opinion, he quotes St. Jerome, exactly as did Bellarmine. 
     When I explained in an e-mail to John Salza, “The point at issue is about the loss of office without any declaration or sentence by the Church – the public heretic ceases to be pope and member of the Church BY HIMSELF (as Bellarmine says), ‘so that no declaration or sentence from anyone would be necessary’ (as Ballerini says)”; Salza answered with the incredibly ignorant reply: “Your response proves that you don’t even understand our position. WE DO NOT HOLD THAT A DECLARATORY SENTENCE IS REQUIRED FOR LOSS OF OFFICE!  And yet you continually accuse us of this falsehood! Thus, it is you who uses straw men arguments and red-herrings, and you do so either out of profound ignorance or malice, God knows. You confuse the public judgment of pertinacity with a declaratory sentence of the crime, which shows you don’t know the material. As I said in the last email, whether a declaratory sentence is required after the Church establishes the fact of public pertinacity is irrelevant.” This is not an expression of mere, blind ignorance: Salza’s explicitly stated position is that the loss of office does not take place without the public judgment of the Church; and there is no public judgment unless there is either a judicial sentence, or at least a merely declaratory sentence – So Ballerini’s words, "so that no declaration or sentence from anyone would be necessary” plainly state his position that no public judgment of the Church is necessary for the loss of office to take place; yet Salza & Siscoe adamantly and stubbornly insist that a public judgment of the Church is necessary for a heretic pope to fall from office ipso facto; and they claim that this is also the opinion of Ballerini! Salza says, “[W]hether a declaratory sentence is required after the Church establishes the fact of public pertinacity is irrelevant”, but it would only be by a declaratory sentence that the Church could make a public judgment that would juridically estsblish the fact of public pertinacity; since without the promulgation of a declaratory sentence, there would be no public judgment of the Church having any force of law! A more mendacious expression of consummate sophistry can scarcely be imagined than the explanation given by John Salza.
     John Salza does not know what is a declaratory sentence: A public judgment of the Church is either a juridical act which is merely delaratory – a “declaratory sentence” which, with force of law merely declares a fact, such as that one has incurred a penalty or that one has already lost office due to manifest defection from the faith and the Church; or it is a judicial act of pronouncing a penal sentence on a subject by one who has jurisdiction over a person to declare that person guilty of a crime. Without either of these juridical acts, a declaratory sentence, or a judicial sentence of guilt, the Church makes no public judgment of pertinacity. Salza, the Doctor of Law, in the footnote on page 275 of his and Siscoe’s magnum opus most ignorantly declares: “A merely declaratory sentence of the crime is not a juridical act.” A declaratory sentence, however, since it is a clear cut example of administration of the law, to wit, a public judgment of the Church, it is a juridical act,   the execution of which pertains to the administrative power.  In order for it to be a valid juridical act, it must be promulgated by one who has the authority to pronounce it,  and to have force of law it must be declared in such a manner so that it is validly promulgated.  If any of these elements are lacking, ther is simply no valid act of official judgment of the Church.  Therefore, I reply to Salza with his own words: “You are not making even the most basic, elementary distinctions. You are not capable of discussing the finer points of this theology because you don’t even know the basics.” Ballerini’s position is manifestly and indisputably this: that upon the manifestation of pertinacity of a heretic pope, the pope manifests that he has “abdicated the primacy and the pontificate”, or, (as Bellarmine says, “ceased to be pope by himself”), before any judgement by the Church; and the public judgment of the Church is merely a declaration of the fact that the loss of office has taken place. Ballerini also makes it explicitly clear in the above quoted passage, that pertinacity in formal heresy, the rejection of a dogma, is all that is required for the heretic to depart from the body of the Church, when he explained that the pope who “would maintain himself hardened in heresy”, i.e.that he “remains obstinate in his opinion either contrary to a manifest or a defined dogma” would thereby “have openly departed from the Church […] i.e. to have withdrawn from the Catholic faith and the Church by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence from anyone would be necessary.” 
     Ballerini’s explanation of this point coincides exactly with the Church’s magisterial teaching. The Church’s definition of heresy is set forth in the Code of Canon Law: “Can. 751 — Dicitur haeresis, pertinax, post receptum baptismum, alicuius veritatis divina et catholica credendae denegatio, aut de eadem pertinax dubitatio; apostasia, fidei christianae ex toto repudiatio”. The 1917 code of Canon Law defines what a heretic is in precisely the same terms: Can. 1325 §2 — “Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus . . . est.” The canon makes it clear that even those who still claim to be Catholic, but who pertinaciously deny or doubt any truth which must be believed with divine and Caholic faith are heretics. When the Church declares that heretics are outside the Church, she understands the term ‘heretics’ according to this definition as it has traditionally been understood, and which remains applicable even under the 1983 Code: Canon 6 § 2 — “Canones huius Codicis, quatenus ius vetus referunt, aestimandi sunt ratione etiam canonicae traditionis habita.” All who are guilty of this offense are heretics, and are therefore, if the sin is public, they are all severed from the body of the Church and cease to be members according to the very natue of heresy; and for this reason, in addition to the ipso jure loss of office and severance from the body of the Church for public heresy, all, and every single heretic, (as well as apostates and schismatics) incur the penalty of excommunication: Can. 2314. §1 — “Omnes a christiana fide apostatae et omnes et singuli haeretici aut  schismatici: 1° Incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem”.
     Salza manifests his abysmal ignorance again in his failure to understand what it means to reject the magisterium as the rule of faith. Salza, in his delusional mendacity states, «Cardinal Billot and the rest of the Church’s real theologians teach exactly the opposite of you [PK – this assertion is as gratuitous as it is false.] – that pertinacity is established only if the Pope were to renounce the Church as the RULE of faith by PUBLIC PROFESSION (sic). You explicitly reject this unanimous opinion of the theologians (sic). You say heresy is established “by a public external act,” but Cardinal Billot says heresy is NOT established “by those who indeed manifest their heresy by external signs.” » Here one may reasonably ask if heresy is not established by the heretic’s public words and actions, then how is it established – by mental telepathy? Of far greater authority than the personal opinion of Cardinal Billot is the judgment of the catedráticos of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Pontifical and Ecclesiastical University of Salamanca, who teach that what the church understands by the word ‘heretics’ is defined in canon 1325; and that the crime of heresy is determined through its external manifestation by actions or words: «2314   Figuras del delito: 1) La apostasía; 2) la herejía, y 3) el cisma, cuyas definiciones se hallan contenidas en el canon 1325, § 1; mas para que haya delito es preciso que la  apostasía, la herejía, o el cisma se manifesten exteriormente por medio de hechos o de palabras. »  Salza utterly fails to make the critical distinction between a formal act of defection from the Church (canons 1086, § 1, 1117 and 1124), by which one formally declares oneself to have separated from the Church; and public defection from the Catholic faith (can. 171, § 1, 4°; 194, § 1, 2°; 316, § 1; 694, § 1, 1°; 1071, § 1, 4° and § 2) – which comprises the“virtual”  forms  of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith that are deduced from behavior.  Public defection from the faith by means of formal heresy or apostasy by their very nature (suapte natura) sever one from membership in the body of the Church and effects the ipso jure loss of ecclesiastical office; but the canonical consequences of such a defection are not as far reaching as a formal act of defection from the Church, as the cited docuмent explains. 
      Salza continues his errant rant: «Again, he [Billot] also requires a renunciation of the Magisterium as the RULE of faith by PUBLIC PROFESSION. You stand alone (sic) in disagreeing with Billot. You reject Billot’s teaching by saying “it is not necessary that such a one explicitly reject the Church as the rule of faith,” even though Cardinal Billot says “heresy by its nature REQUIRES departure from the RULE of the ecclesiastical magisterium.” » Salza does not understand what is meant by the words, “departure from the rule of faith”. Salza fundamentalistically construes Billot’s words to mean that separation from the body of the Church requires an explicit renunciation of the magisterium as the rule of faith; whereas Billot, in unanimous agreement with all theologians, speaks in the cited passage only of departure from the rule of faith. Tanquerey explains, “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, that is, those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is only material heresy.”  St. Thomas Aquinas explains in II – II, Q. 5, a. 3: “Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith. The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.”
     Elaborating on this teaching of St. Thomas, Msgr. Paul Glenn wrote: “To reject any article of the faith is to reject the faith itself. This is like pulling one stone out of an arch; it is like putting one hole in the hull of a ship. The whole arch tumbles down; the whole ship sinks. A man who has the faith, accepts God’s word. Now, God’s word has set up the Church as man’s infallible teacher and guide. If a man, therefore, rejects one article of the faith, and says that he believes in all the other articles, he believes these by his own choice and opinion, not by faith. Rejecting one article of the faith, he rejects the whole authority of the Church, and he rejects the authority of God which has set up and authorized the Church to teach truth. Hence, it is entirely it is entirely incorrect to say that a man may have lifeless or formless faith in some articles of the Creed while he rejects others; such a man has not the faith at all, living or lifeless.” 
     On page 281 and 282 of their screed, Salza & Siscoe declare: «By referring to heretics as those who “separate themselves from the Church,” who “turn away from the Church,” and who “depart by themselves from her,” Bellarmine is referring not to those who merely profess a heretical proposition, but to those who openly leave the Church (no longer accepting the Church as the rule of faith). » As has been shown above, it pertains to the very nature of heresy as a conscious denial of an article of faith, that it is a rejection of the ecclesiastical magisterium as the rule of faith, and hence, heresy, suapte natura, separates the heretic from the body of the Church.  
     From Bellarmine’s own words quoted above, we gather that same clear meaning as I have explained it, when he says that heretics are outside the Church, and lose jurisdiction and all ecclesiastical dignity “ex natura haeresis”. Heresy in its nature is the obstinate denial or doubt of even a single dogma, and therefore, by its very nature separates the heretic from the body of the Church. If some additional qualifying circuмstance, such as explicitly renouncing the Church as the rule of faith, or formally declaring oneself separated from the Church, or joining some other denomination or sect, were to be necessary for a heretic to be separated from the body of the Church (as Salza & Siscoe maintain); then heresy would not suapte natura separate one from the Church (as Pius XII teaches), but only heresy qualified by some additional circuмstance that alters the species of the act, but not by its own nature would sever the heretic from membership in the Church. But the words, ”heresy suapte natura”, and “ex natura haeresis” mean precisely this: that heresy itself, according to its very nature as a rejection of an article of faith, and therefore by itself, without any other qualifying circuмstances (such as formally rejecting the Church), separates the heretic from membership in the Church. This is also explicitly clear in the teaching of Ballerini, quoted above. Let us consider again the cited text, paying close attention to the bolded and italicized phrases:
«He … who having been once or twice corrected, does not repent, but remains obstinate in a belief contrary to a manifest or defined dogma; by this his public pertinacity which for no reason can be excused, since pertinacity properly pertains to heresy, he declares himself to be a heretic, i.e. to have withdrawn from the Catholic faith and the Church by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence from anyone would be necessary. […] Therefore a Pontiff, who after such a solemn and public admonition from the Cardinals, Roman Clergy, or even a synod would maintain himself hardened in heresy, and have openly departed from the Church, according to the precept of Paul he would have to be avoided; and lest the ruin be brought to the rest, his heresy and contumacy, and thus his sentence which he brought upon himself, would have to be publicly pronounced, made known to the whole Church, that he by his own will departed, making known to be severed from the body of the Church, and in some manner to have abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold, who is not in the Church. »
     Ballerini explains quite explicitly, in unison with the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church, that all manifest heretics, by the very fact of their heresy, i.e. by remaining “obstinate in a belief contrary to a manifest or defined dogma”, without any additional qualification such as explicit rejection of the magisterium etc., are deserters who have have “openly departed from the Church”.  Bellarmine and Ballerini also prove from the authority of scripture and the Fathers, that heretics, by their manifest heresy alone, leave the Church and lose office on their own, without any judgment from the Church. The Church only establishes the fact of defection from the Church and loss of office post factum, and then juridically declares the loss of office as already having happened. Salza and Siscoe base their opinion on loss of office on their heretical belief that heresy by itself does not separate the heretic from the Church by itself suapte natura, but only after authoritative judgment of the Church, explicit rejection of the teaching authority of the Church, or by joining some other religion. If that were true, then heresy would not separate the heretic from the Church suapte natura, because the nature of heresy simply consists in the pertinacious rejection of an article of faith: «Hæresis est error intellectus, et pertinax contra Fidem, in eo qui Fidem sucepit».  If Salza & Siscoe were correct in saying that manifest heresy by itself, without any further qualification, judgment or censure of the Church does not separate the heretic from the body of the Church, then Pius XII would be in error for teaching that heresy separates one from the Church suapte natura, and the Church would already have defected in the Fifth Century, because that is what St. Jerome and the Fathers unanimously taught (as Bellarmine demonstrated in the earlier cited text). Bellarmine is unequivocal and explicit in affirming that the pertinacity of the heretic alone expels him from the body of the Church: «Praeterea ad Tit. 3. Haereticuм hominem post unam et alteram correptionem devita, sciens, quia subversus est qui ejusmodi est, et delinquit cuм sit proprio judicio condemnatus. Ubi apostolus episcopi praecipit, ut haereticuм vitet, quod certe non juberet, si esset intra Ecclesiam. Debet enim pastor non vitare, sed curare eos, qui ad suum gregem pertinent. Et addit rationem, quia talis pertinax haereticus est, proprio judicio condemnatus, idest (ut Hieronymus exponit) non est ejectus ab Ecclesia per excommunicationem, ut multi alii peccatores, sed ipse seipsum ab Ecclesia ejecit. »  Now pertinacity is simply this, as St. Alphonsus explains: for one to consciously remain in an error against the faith after it has been sufficiently explained to him that it is contrary to the faith of the universal Church: «pertinaciter errare … est eum [errorem] retinere, postquam contrarium est sufficienter propositum: sive quando scit contrarium teneri a reliqua universali Christi in terris Ecclesia, cui suum iudicium præferat»  Thus it is demonstrated to be a revealed truth of divine and Catholic faith, that the manifestly pertinacious denial of a single article of faith separates one from the body of the Church, and visibly severs the heretic from membership in the Catholic Church. 
      Salza also strays from the teaching of the universal magisterium on the nature of the pertinacity of heresy: Salza wrote to me, saying, « “Public formal heresy” requires “public pertinacity.” This is your key error, because pertinacity will be considered public only if the person publicly renounced the Church as the infallible RULE of faith – either by publicly defecting from the Catholic religion, or publicly admitting that he knowingly and willfully rejects a dogma of Faith. » In their book and in their articles, Salza & Siscoe state quite plainly that for them, “publicly defecting from the Catholic religion” means that one “publicly defects from the Faith by joining a non-Catholic sect”, or by expressly renouncing the Church as the rule of faith, or by explicitly admitting that one’s belief is heretical. I have just quoted St. Alphonsus, the greatest single authority in Moral Theology who explained that pertinacity is established when it can be seen that one consciously remains in an error against the faith after having been sufficiently explained to the heretic that his belief is contrary to the faith of the Church. De Lugo, who St. Alphonsus considered to be the of the highest authority after St. Thomas, in disp. XX, sect. IV, n. l57-158, elaborates similarly: “For if it could be established, […] given that the doctrine is well known, given the kind of person involved and given the other circuмstances, that the accused could not have been unaware that his thesis was opposed to the Church, he would be considered as a heretic from this fact”.
     This is a huge error they make in their book, that, “‘public heresy’ and ‘public defection from the faith’ are two different things, and that the old 1917 Code of Canon Law taught that in the extreme case in which a prelate publicly defects from the Faith by joining a non-Catholic sect, he is deposed without the need of a declaratory sentence.” (p. 281) On page 139 of The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, Fr. Gerald McDevitt writes: “The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands.” The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac comments on Canon 2197 in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (pp. 349 – 350), that public defection from the faith means: “Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197)” Nor is it required that one formally declare oneself to have left the Church.   This point is underscored by the very wording of Can. 2314. §1 — 3° in the penal section of the 1917 Code, which explicitly upholds the non-penal prescription of can. 188 4°, in mentioning that clerics who join a non-Catholic sect are ipso facto infamous; and are to be degraded to the lay state if warnings go unheeded.  Fr. Charles Augustine explains how defection from the faith takes place: “Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical ofices he may hold; [C. 9, X, V, 7.] not, however, mere schism, if unconnected with heresy.”   Heresy alone, and not joining a non-Catholic sect or formally renouncing the Church, is all that is required for the defection from the faith to take place; and therefore public heretics, are defectors from the faith according to can. 188 4° – «heretics who, having been bapized, retain the name of Christians, but obstinately deny or doubt some of the truths that must be believed by divine or Catholic faith. . . a heretic is one who wilfully rejects or doubts only the one or or other truth revealed and proposed by the Catholic Church. . . Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man. »  This is all that is required for loss of office to take place: the external act of defection that is public or liable to become public, before any judgment, and without any judgment pronounced by the Church.  
     Fr. Gerald McDevitt elaborates on defection from the faith faith in canon 188 n.4 on pp. 136-140 of The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office:
Since it is not only incongruous that one who has publicly defected from the faith should remain in an ecclesiastical office, but since such a condition might also be the source of serious spiritual harm when the care of souls is concerned, the Code prescribes that a cleric tacitly renounces his office by public defection from the faith. Prior to the Code the law imposed a privation of office and benefice on a cleric for such a crime. This penalty was certainly imposed upon those clerics who were publicly guilty of heresy and of apostasy, but because of two apparently contradictory laws it was disputed whether the penalty applied also to those who were publicly guilty of schism. The present law attaches a tacit renunciation instead of a privation of office to a public defection from the faith. Since canon 188, n. 4, uses a general terminology, it necessary to determine the meaning of defection of faith and also to determine the extent of publicity that is required if the act of defection is to become the basis for a tacit renunciation of office.
Since three specific crimes, namely, heresy, apostasy and schism, will enter this discussion, it is necessary to give the definitions of them as found in the Code. These definitions are contained in canon 1325, §2, which reads as follows:
Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus; si a fide Christiana totaliter recedit, apostata; si denique subess renuit Summo Pontifici aut cuм membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est.
These definitions are quite clear. Apostasy is a total defection from the faith, while heresy is only a partial defection, but as MacKenzie remarks (The Delict of Heresy in Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies, n. 77 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1932), p. 19), they are essentially the same, since the rejection of any one truth involves the same blasphemous attitude towards God that is involved in a denial of all the truths.
The authors are not in agreement as to whether schism is to be included in the meaning of the term “defection of faith,” as used in canon 188, n. 4. Augustine, Blat, Toso and Coronata do not regard schism as constituting a defection from the faith as understood in canon 188, n. 4. since schism as such does not essentially militate against the possible retention of the faith even in its entirety. Maroto, Vermeersch-Creusen, Cocchi and Sipos, on the other hand, consider schism pure and simple as sufficient to constitute a defection from the faith and hence to call for the application of the sanction enacted in canon 188, n. 4. Heneghan includes those who are guilty purely of schism in his interpretation of the clause, “qui notorie aut catholicam fidem abjecerunt,” in canon 1065, § 1. The expression which Heneghan interprets in this manner is substantially the same as the expression employed in canon 188, n. 4, which reads as follows: “A fide catholica publice defecerit.”
According to the strict interpretation of the words contained in canon 188, n. 4, and of the definition of schism, it must be admitted that the canon does not indisputably comprehend the condition of pure schism, since in its essence schism does not denote defection from the faith, but rather connotes a violation of obedience and charity. However, one could doubt that the law intends to exclude the consideration of schism from this canon, for in canon 2314, §1, n. 3, which provides penalties for the public adherence to a non-catholic sect, cognizance is taken of canon 188, n. 4, with the words“firmo praescripto can. 188, n. 4.” Since the wording of canon 2314, § 1, n. 3, applies to a schismatical sect as well as to a heretical one, and since the application of canon 188, n. 4, is confirmed in this canon, on could reasonably be led to conclude that the wording of canon 188, n. 4, means to comprise also the condition of pure schism.
In practice it will be extremely rare that a case of pure schism will arise, for almost invariably and all but inevitably some heresy will be joined to it. This is especially true since the time of the solemn definition of the primacy and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. If, however, there should arise a case of pure schism on the part of a cleric, the writer believes that the cleric would not lose his office by a tacit renunciation since the sanction of canon 188, n. 4, is of but doubtful efficacy in view of its questionable comprehension of the condition of pure schism, and especially since the effective application of that sanction involves the forfeiture of a vested right.
The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands. The defection must be public according to the definition of publicity which is found in canon 2197, n. 1:
Delictum est publicuм, si iam divulgatum est aut talibus contigit aut versatur in adiunctis ut prudenter iudicari possit et debeat facile divulgatum iri.
The authors are in agreement that this is the type of publicity postulated for making the defection a public one. Thus the defection from the faith may be public by reason of the fact that it is already known to a notable part of the community. The law does not prescribe any special number as being necessary to constitute a notable part of the community. Determination of this point is left to man’s prudent judgment. Besides being public by reason of actual divulgation, the defection from the faith may be public also because of the fact that the circuмstances force one to conclude that it will be easily divulged in the future. Thus if even only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the faith, or if the sole and only witness was a taciturn person who later threatened to divulge the crime because of an enmity that has arisen between him and the delinquent, the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1.
A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by apostasy or heresy in a public manner according to the explanation just given. Since the writer holds the opinion that tacit renunciation is not of the nature of a penalty, he holds also that the prescriptions of canon 2229 concerning excusing causes with reference to latae sententiae penalties do not apply to the case of a tacit renunciation of office on the part of a cleric who has perpetrated the act which is mentioned in canon 188, n. 4. Thus the writer believes that even if it were thinkable that a cleric was excused from incurring excommunication involved in a defection from the faith in view of the prescriptions of canon 2229, § 3, n. 1, he still would lose his office by a tacit renunciation. In this regard a tacit renunciation is like an irregularity, which, while in many respects it looks like a penalty, is nevertheless not a penalty in a truly canonical sense.
Any confusion that there may have been on this point is entirely cleared up in the 1983 Code, which speaks not only of defection from the faith as effecting loss of office, but of defection from communion with the Church (a communione Ecclesiae), which takes place by an act of heresy, schism or apostasy. Penal sanctions, such as privation of office and deposition, mentioned in the above cited canon (Can. 2314. §1 —2°) , have never been considered applicable in a case of tacit renunciation of office, beause they are applicable only as penal sanctions for canonical delicts, and so are dealt with separately in the section of penal law, i.e. “secundum praescripta canonum de iure poenali”. (Canon 196 — § 2 1983 CIC) Tacit resignation is not a penalty, but, as Fr. Augustine explains, “Besides express or explicit resignation, both the old and the new law admit also a TACIT RESIGNATION, which is brought about and signified by a fact, especially one upon which the law itself has decreed the loss of an ecclesiastical office.”  He then continues on Canon 188: “This canon presumes resignation, to which it applies the effect which certain facts are supposed to produce under the law. This effect is vacancy of the office held, whether adduced by privation, as a punishment, [Really it would be privation, but the Code presumes resignation ipso facto.] or simply due to the incompatibility of certain offices with the newly chosen state in life or other offices. Hence: […] (4) Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold”.  This dispenses witht the nonsensical objecrtion made by Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson, who, quoted by Salza & Siscoe, says, «This particular cause of losing an ecclesiastical office is found in that section of the Code dealing with the resignation of such an office (cc. 184-191), and is part of a canon which lists eight sorts of actions which the law treats as ‘tacit resignations.’ In other words, they are the sorts of actions which can safely be taken as evidence that the cleric in question does not even to want to continue in the office he held up till that time, even though he may never have bothered to put his resignation or abdication in writing. » Whether or not the cleric intends to remain in office or not is of no consequence whatever, since like all canons, they must be understood according to the proper signification of their terms (Can. 18); and the canon in question makes no consideration whaever of whether or not the defecting cleric intends to remain in office, but the sole considerarion specified is public defection from the Catholic faith, and presumes resignation on the basis of this sole fact.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Don Paolo on April 24, 2018, 07:12:18 AM
As I mentioned on page one of this work, “St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism: ‘Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have defected (desciverunt) from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted.’” Defection from the faith is intrinsic to the act of heresy, which consists in the obstinate denial of some revealed truth of faith which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith; and therefore, defection from the faith cannot be understood to take place only when one joins some other sect or denomination; or when one openly declares oneself explicitly to have left the Church. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood according to the proper signification of the terms considered in their text and context  (Can. 17; and Canon 18 in the 1917 Code). Thus, the expression, ‘defection from the faith’ must be understood as the Church defines it, and not according to the arbitrary whims of fundamentalists such as Salza and Siscoe, who gratuitously define the terms themselves in such a manner to make them appear to confirm the errant legalism of their heretical doctrines. According to the expert commentaries of the Schools and scholars of Canon Law, public formal heresy suffices for the loss of office to take place. Salza & Siscoe write, «A simple review of the explanation of this canon, as found in the canonical manuals, explains precisely what the Church means by “public defection from the faith.” » It is precisely such a ‘simple review’ that they have studiously omitted, in order to propagate the lie that ‘defection from the Catholic faith’ means joining some other religion or sect, or expressly rejecting the Church. They also engage in the trickery of interpreting the non-penal Can 188 n. 4 on tacit resignation of office (which presupposes only a fact but not the commission of a crime), according to the commentaries on Can. 2314 in the penal section of the Code, which explain that deposition, or penal deprivation from office is a vindictive penalty. 
     It must also be borne in mind that what is set forth in Canon Law on the nature of defection from the faith or from communion with the Church, and on the consequent loss of office resulting from such a defection, is not a matter of “merely ecclesiastical law” (as mere provisions of purely human positive law in the Code are referred to in Canon 11), but pertain to divine law revealed by God, and that these precepts of divine law are merely enshrined in the provisions of Canon Law that treat of loss of ecclesiastical office due to defection from the faith. That heresy, apostasy, and schism (as demonstrated above) according to their very nature constitute defection from the faith, and sever a man from the body of the Church by themselves, apart from any human law, and therefore without any judgment or censure by ecclesiastical authority, must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It is plainly set forth and proven by Bellarmine that it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers interpreting scripture, that heresy in its very nature not only severs one from the Church, but also directly brings about the loss of ecclesiastical office before and even without any judgment of the Church; and being the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, it must be believed de fide. This has also been demonstrated in Part I of this work. Thus, the commentaries of the canonists which explain that defection from the faith takes place by acts of heresy, even without a formal act of defection from the Church, or joining some other sect; and that the consequent loss of office takes place ipso facto (as an act of tacit renunciation of office), and does not per se, (as a matter of fact determined by doctrine and not by law), require any sentence or declaration by ecclesiastical authority to take place, do not express mere opinions on these points, but truths of faith which require an assent of faith. John Salza and Robert Siscoe have explicitly denied these truths of faith in their articles, in their interviews, and in their book, True Or False Pope. 
True or False Pope website: “After explaining the bonds that unite man to the true Church, the authors explain the distinction between heresy and lesser errors, and how the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church.”
     Thus it can be plainly seen that John Salza and Robert Siscoe are in heresy. Their entire doctrine on heresy and loss of office is based on their heretical proposition, (which I copied straight from their website): «heresy alone does not sever one from the Church. » Their objection, that they qualify their statement by professing that heresy which is public and notorious (not according to the letter of the canons of the Church, but according to their own understanding of “public and notorious”, i.e. according to the above enumerated circuмstances, which according to them, qualifies heresy as public and notorious), severs one from the body of the Church without there being made a judgment by ecclesiastical authority, does not render their opinion any less heretical; because they insist that only heresy that is public and notorious (according to their own specifications which go far beyond public and notorious heresy, and in fact, amount to formal defection from the Church), severs the heretic automatically from the body of the Church without a judgment by ecclesiastical authority – and that public heresy, which is only public, but is not notorious by fact according to their understanding of the term, does not automatically separate the heretic from the body of the Church suapte natura; but for that separation to take place, Salza & Siscoe profess that a public judgment of the Church is necessary. Now that proposition is plainly heretical. It has been perpetually and generally held in the Catholic Church, that not only those convicted of heresy, or those who are guilty of heresy canonically qualified as notorious by fact; but all who obstinately and willfully persist in manifest heresy (i.e. public heresy that is manifestly formal) are cut off from the body of the Church before any judgmengt is made. This belief was already plainly reflected in the Codex Jusinianus (1: 5: 12), which declared to be heretics, “everyone who is not devoted to the Catholic Church and to our Orthodox holy Faith”. As St. Jerome explained, in unanimous consensus with the other ancient Fathers, that heretics leave the Church on their own, and are not expelled by judgment of the Church. Now heretics are by definition ALL who obstinately deviate from even one article of faith; and therefore not only those who join heretical sects or publicly renounce the Church, or publicly admit that that they are in heresy defect from the Church by themselves, but ALL who publicly deviate from even one article of faith in a manner that is patently obstinate separate themselves from the body of the Church. The unanimous opinion of the Fathers, as Bellarmine demonstrates in his refutation of Opinion No. 4, and which is affirmed by Ballerini, Cappellari (Gregory XVI), the Council of Constance, and both the 1917 and 1983 Code of Canon Law, is that heretics are those who obstinately deny even one article of faith, or profess even one heretical doctrine (Can. 751 in the 1983 Code; Can. 1325 §2 in the 1917 Code); and by that very act of heresy, if it be public, they leave the Church by themselves and are separated from the Body of the Church by the very act of heresy suapte natura; and lose office and all ecclesiastical dignity automatically [first and foremost, ex natura haeresis, i.e. by the very nature of heresy apart from the law as Bellarmine explains; and therefore ipso facto “without any declaration” (Canon 188 4° in the 1917 Code); as well as ipso jure, i.e. “by operation of the law itself” (Canon 194 § 2 in the 1983 Code], even before any judgment of the Church is made (“sine ulla  declaratione” Canon 188 in the 1917 Code). So what has been John Salza’s response on this point? All he can say is, “You haven’t addressed Cardinal Billot’s teaching, who was an adherent to Bellarmine’s Fifth Opinion on the loss of office for a heretical Pope … you are not equipped to have this debate with us. You are in way over your head.” Having run out of arguments, Salza writes to Dr. Peter Chojnowski, “Fr Kramer is blind. Only public and notorious heresy separates one from the Body of the Church.”
     Since Salsa and Siscoe remain blindly adamant that I have interpreted both St. Robert Bellarmine and Don Pietro Ballerini incorrectly, an alleged misinterpretation which they maliciously attribute to diminished mental capacity and ignorance, I include here the learned opinion of Don Curzio Nitoglia on Ballerini's doctrine on a heretic pope's loss of office, and his commentary on the interpretation of Frs. Wernz & Vidal on Bellarmine's doctrine on Opinion No. 5. First, Don Nitoglia on the Wernz-Vidal interpretation of Bellarmine: «Secondo il Bellarmino (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, p. 420), siccome gli eretici manifesti, notori e pubblici perdono ipso facto la giurisdizione, ammesso e non concesso che il Papa possa cadere in eresia, in caso di eventuale eresia manifesta egli perderebbe immediatamente l’autorità papale. Questa è l’interpretazione della posizione bellarminiana data dai padri gesuiti Franz Xavier Wernz e Pedro Vidal (Jus Canonicuм, Roma, Gregoriana, 1943, vol. II, p. 517> Secondo il Da Silveira (op. cit., p. 37) Francisco Suarez (De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, n. 11, Parigi, Vivès, tomo XII, 1858, p. 319) e S. Roberto Bellarmino (De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, cap. 7, Milano, Battezzati, vol. II, 1858) difendono la medesima tesi del Billot, ma in maniera meno rigida. Infatti il Billot (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Prato, Giachetti, 1909, tomo I, pp. 617-618) la ritiene esplicitamente una “mera ipotesi, mai traducibile in atto. […]. A priori si può ritenere che Dio non lo permetterebbe mai”. Suarez e Bellarmino impiegano termini meno forti, però la sostanza della loro tesi coincide con quella del Billot, ossia secondo i due Dottori controriformistici il Papa come dottore privato può ipoteticamente e per una pura possibilità o al massimo per una probabilità e mai per una certezza teologica cadere in eresia materiale o favorire l’eresia.» [«According to Bellarmine, since the manifest, notorious and public heretics lose jurisdiction ipso facto, granted but not conceded that the pope can fall into heresy, in the case of an eventual manifest heresy, he would immediately lose all papal authority. This is the position of Bellarmine given by the Jesuit Fathers Franz Xavier Wernz and Pedro Vidal. According to Da Silveira (op. cit., p. 37) Francisco Suarez (De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, n. 11, Parigi, Vivès, tomo XII, 1858, p. 319) and St. Robert Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, cap. 7, Milano, Battezzati, vol. II, 1858) defend the same thesis as Billot, but in a less rigid manner. In fact, Billot (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Prato, Giachetti, 1909, tomo I, pp. 617-618) explicitly holds it to be a “mere hypothesis that can never become actual […] A priori one can maintain that God would never permit it”. Suarez and Bellarmine use less forceful terms, but in substance their theses coincide with that of Billot, or rather according to the two Counter-Reformation Doctors, the pope as a private doctor could fall into objective heresy or favour heresy hypothetically and as a pure possibility, or at most probably, but never as a theological certainty».] 
     The statement, “Suarez and Bellarmine use less forceful terms, but in substance their theses coincide with that of Billot,” does not claim that all three were of Opinion No. 5, but only that “according to the two Counter-Reformation Doctors, the pope as a private doctor could fall into objective heresy or favour heresy hypothetically and as a pure possibility, or at most probably, but never as a theological certainty”; and on this point only, “in substance their theses coincide with that of Billot”. Ballerini likewise admits formal papal heresy as a theoretical possibility; but doubts it will ever happen: “But this hypothesis is not established by any fact, since no private error ascribed to any Pontiff against any evident or defined dogma has been found, or is believed will be.”   Billot, like Bellarmine, is clearly of Opinion No. 5, which holds that a manifest heretic pope would automatically fall from office by the very act of his heresy before any judgment is pronounced; whereas Suarez held that the heretic pope would only fall from office upon being judged by the Church, which is Opinion No. 4. As I will show later in this work, all of the expert canonists and theologians who expound on the five opinions are unanimous in stating that the difference between Opinion No. 4 and No. 5 is that No. 4 requires a judgment to be made by the Church before the pope falls from office, whereas No. 5 holds that the fall from office is automatic, and takes place independently of and before any judgment is made. In order to support their erroneous opinion on this point, Salza & Siscoe in Chapter 11 of their book quote the ambiguously stated opinion of Fr. Sebastian Smith (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, p. 210. 68  Ibid., Preface, p. xi.), who wrote in 1881, “Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals.” It is first to be pointed out that Fr. Smith states ambiguously that there are “two opinions” on the question (there have been five opinions, but only two which admit the removal of a manifest heretic pope); and he says, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”. This statement, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”, simply means that in the case of an ipso jure loss of office which takes place automatically before the declaration, and the case of jure divino “only removable” opinion, in which the loss of office is said to take place immediately upon the declaration: in both cases, a declaratory sentence would be required to enforce the removal and elect a new pope. Expressed in the manner that it is formulated, the statement can superficially be misinterpreted to mean, (in the manner that Salza & Siscoe opportunistically misinterpret it for their own purpose), that the declaration would be required in order for the loss of office to take place. As they do with so many authors (as will be shown later in this work), Salza & Siscoe twist the meaning of a passage to make it appear to say exactly the opposite from what a critical examination of the words demonstrates to be their authentic meaning. Smith is clearly referring to Opinion No. 5 when he says, “one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate”; since he writes in answer to the question, “Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?” Now in Canon Law, the expression that one is deprived ipso jure means that it is automatic – it takes place ipso facto before any judgment is prounounced. This is exactly how the medieval Decretists employed the term in the earliest formulations of Opinion No. 5, and it is employed in exactly the same manner by the Council of Constance when it deposed Pedro de Luna “as a precautionary measure”, and declared that he had already fallen from every ecclesiastical dignity and had been severed from the body of the Church ipso jure before any judgment was pronounced. The term is again employed in exactly the same manner in the 1983 Code of Canon Law of Pope John Paul II. When Smith says of “the other”, i.e. “that he is, jure divino, only removable”, he is clearly speaking of Opinion No. 4 in its less radical formulation (Suarez), according to which the Church would deliberatively determine that the pope is a heretic, and upon the juridical declaration of guilt, the pope would immediately fall from office. If Smith had meant by, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”, that in both cases a declaration of guilt would be necessary for the fall from to take place; that would mean that there would not be two opinions on the question, but only one, namely, “that he is, jure divino, only removable”. Yet this absurd interpretation of the passage is exactly how it is understood by Salza & Siscoe in Chapter 11 of their book: «Fr. Smith expressly states that “both opinions agree” that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church. If he is not found guilty, he remains a true and valid Pope.” ». Then they state their non sequitur conclusion: «The teaching of Fr. Smith confirms John of St. Thomas’ understanding of Bellarmine and Suarez’s position, since he [John of St. Thomas] stated that “Bellarmine and Suarez” both held that a heretical Pope loses his office only if he is “declared incorrigible.” » In reality, what Fr. Smith’s teaching confirms is that John of St. Thomas as well as Salza & Siscoe have failed to correctly understand Bellarmine’s exposition on the question, as well as Opinion No. 5 generally, as it has been elaborated for more than eight centuries. In the first of the “two opinions” in which the heretic pope would lose office ipso jure (automatically) the Church would possess the jurisdiction to declare the See vacant, in the manner that the Council of Constance declared “Benedict XIII” to have already lost all ecclesiastical dignity and to have severed himself from the body of the Church, thus removing the last remaining claimant to the papal throne, and juridically establishing the sede vacante. In the second of the “two opinions”, the Church would not be able to declare the pope guilty of heresy, because an official judgment of guilt of an individual pronounced by the Church absolutely requires jurisdiction to judge that person; but neither the cardinals, nor a synod, and not even a general council possess the jurisdiction to make such an official, juridical declaration – so any judgment a council would make would not be a public juridical act of the Church, but would be a non-juridic statement of churchmen utterly devoid of any force of law or juridical value whatsoever. This is the fatal flaw in all the variations of Opinion No. 4, which holds that a heretic pope does not lose his office until he is judged by the Church. John of St. Thomas, who held this opinion, admitted himself the problematic aspect of the opinion when he wrote: “Concerning the second point, namely by whose authority the declaration and deposition is to be made, there is dissent among theologians, and it does not appear by whom such a deposition is to be made, because it is an act of judgment, and jurisdiction, which can be exercised by no one over the pope.” 
     Salza & Siscoe then carry the absurdity even further: « Because the “two opinions” agree that a heretical Pope “must at least be declared guilty of the crime of heresy by the Church,” there are actually three opinions to be noted, which, for the sake of simplicity and easy recall, could be classified as follows: 1) the “Jesuit” opinion (of Bellarmine/Suarez), 2) the “Dominican” opinion (of Cajetan/John of  St. Thomas), and 3) the unanimous opinion. The Jesuit opinion is that a heretical Pope falls from office after the crime of heresy has been established by the Church. The Dominican opinion is that a heretical Pope falls from office only after the Church commands the faithful to avoid him. But the unanimous opinion is that “he must at least be declared guilty by the Church.” » The belief that there was a single “Jesuit opinion” is the result of an uncritical failure to distinguish between two of the oldest opinions on the question of the deposition or removal of a heretic pope. As Moynihan demonstrates , among the early Decretists there were those, who maintained that a heretic pope would remain in office until judged guilty of heresy by the Church; and others, mainly of the French school of canonists who advocated the opinion that a heretic pope would by his very heresy automatically lose office by himself, ipso jure. It was among the early Decretists that these opinions, enumerated by Bellarmine as No. 4 and No. 5 originated. Bellarmine argued in favour of the fifth opinion which held that a heretic pope would automatically fall from office ipso facto or (as the Decretists would say), ipso jure; while Suarez followed the fourth opinion, which held that the heretic would remain in office until judged guilty of heresy by the Church. By the late 19th Century, the fourth opinion had been universally abandoned; and since then, the fifth opinion (as will be shown below), has been the unanimous opinion among theologians who admit, at least hypothetically, that a pope can become a heretic. Salza & Siscoe have totally inverted the truth in this matter, hysterically claiming that those who follow what is now the unanimous opinion among those theologians who admit at least as a hypothesis, that a pope can become a heretic, (No. 5), (in the manner that it is explained by all of the eminent scholars who have examined each of the five opinions), ‘nonsensically reject the unanimous opinion’ one cannot hold the Jesuit opinion (the Pope loses his office ipso facto), without also holding the unanimous opinion (the Pope must at least be declared guilty of the crime of heresy by the Church).” They then conclude against what has been established and is held with a unanimous consensus of scholars that the “rejection of [what is according to them] the unanimous opinion is clearly not the fruit of sound, scholarly research of the question, but rather a rash and superficial judgment based, in many cases, on snippets read on the internet”. (!)
     Bellarmine explained that the manifest heretic pope would cease “by himself” to be pope, a Christian, and a member of the Church; and “for which reason” (quare) having ceased to be pope, “he may be judged and punished by the Church.” It is unmistakeably clear from the explicit wording of the text that Bellarmine is saying that the manifest heretic pope, completely by himself, i.e. by his own act of defection from the faith, ceases to be pope, a Christian and a member of the Church; and precisely because he would cease to be pope, he, having fallen from office, could then be judged and punished by the Church. Ballerini, following Bellamine, is more explicit in saying that the heretic pope, upon manifesting his pertinacity, would have “abdicated the primacy and the pontificate”, ceasing automatically to be pope, without any judgment, but explains the pastoral reason why a declaratory sentence would need to be made. Pope Gregory XVI endorsed Ballerini’s opinion. A declaratory sentence is absolutely necessary not only for the pastoral reason given by Ballerini, (so that the faithful may be warned about the heretic), but more importantly, as Bellarmine explains in his refutation of Opinion No. 2, it is necessary that a heretic not be invisibly deposed, but visibly removed, and this can only be done by the judgment of men, (i.e. by the post factum judgment expressed in a declaratory sentence stating the fact that the pope fell from office by himself upon his manifest defection from the faith into heresy); otherwise not only would the Church defect by being be subject to the governance of a counterfeit pope, as in the case of a secret heretic according to Opinion No. 2; (and in the case of a manifest heretic, a great number would follow him into heresy if he were to be allowed to continue to usurp the papal throne without being declaed a heretic); but until and unless the heretic intruder be visibly and juridically declared to have fallen from office and removed, a manifestly and certainly valid pope could not be elected and universally accepted by the whole Church while the intruder carries on with his imposture. 
     As they do with the passage of Fr. Sebastian Smith, similarly Salza & Siscoe twist the words of Bellarmine and Ballerini, even falsifying the text of the latter (as is shown later in this work) to fit their own meaning, All three of these authors mentioned in the previous paragraph (Bellarmine, Ballerini and Gregory XVI), were following the ruling of the Council of Constance, which declared that Pedro de Luna had already lost all office and ecclesiastical dignity by himself, prior to his being judged by the Council. By the late 19th Century, Fr. Sydney Smith SJ (in 1895)  testified that it had already become the common opinion that a manifestly heretical pope would cease automatically to be pope, and that in such a case the Cardinals, being duely informed, would only need to issue a declaratory sentence on the one who was no longer pope.  (This is also the explicitly stated opinion of Cardinal Raymond Burke ). Thus, it would seem highly unlikely that Fr. Sebastian Smith would have been so ignorant as to mean by saying, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”, that both opinions held that the fall from office would only take place upon judgment by the Church, as Salza & Siscoe maintain. What his words clearly indicate, if one examines them critically, is that whether the pope would be “divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate” (Opinion No. 5), or, “that he is, jure divino, only removable” (Opinion No. 4), a declaratory sentence would be necessary in order to enforce the loss of office and facilitate the election of a new pope in the former case; and at least a declaratory sentence as opposed to judicial judgment and deposition by a tribunal, would be necessary to effect the removal of the heretic pope from office in the latter. Thus, Smith uses the term “removable” in the same manner as it is used in By Bellarmine in his refutation of Opinion No. 2, rather than that a reigning pope could be juridically judged and deposed from office. What this shows, is that Sebastian Smith is testifying that in his day (1881), the classical position of Opinion No.4 formulated during the Counter-Reformation, which held in favour of a juridical deposition of a heretical pope, had already been universally abandoned, and was replaced by a less radical version of the opinion; which held, contrary to the vast majority who favoured Opinion No. 5, that a heretic pope would fall from office upon the issuance of a merely declaratory sentence after a merely deliberative inquiry. The flaw in this theory is that a mere declaration pronounced on actually reigning pontiff by his subjects would lack all jurisdiction, and would therefore not be an official judgment of the Church, because so long as he is pope, the pontiff, who is solemnly defined to be the supreme and final judge in all cases, is the only one who has the authority to judge his own case. Without jurisdiction to pronounce judgment on the pope, a council’s judgment would not be a judgment of the Church, but a mere opinion of men, who would invalidly presume to convene in a council and pronounce a judgment they are juridically incompetent to make. The belief that the Cardinals, or even an ecuмenical council would be competent to judge a pope juridically is a heresy that directly offends against the judicial supremacy and injudicability of the Roman Pontiff, solemnly defined in Pastor Aeternus; the repeated declarations of the popes teaching that the pope cannot be judgd by anyone, as well as the solemn pronouncement of the fifth Lateran Council that the pope has absolute authority over a council . Bellarmine refuted this opinion in his exposition on Opinion No. 4 destroying the argument, by explaining that neither the bishops nor the cardinals have any power over a pope, and to pronounce official judgment on a pope is to exercise power of jurisdiction over a pope. Wernz and Vidal most conclusively refute and utterly demolish the theory that a council could even pronounce a merely declaratory sentence on a reigning pope:
«Finally there is the fifth view of Bellarmine which was expressed at the outset in the assertion [above] and which is rightly defended by Tanner and others as being more approved and more common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, that is, of the Church as a visible body, cannot be the head of the universal Church. But a pope who falls into public heresy would by that fact cease to be a member of the Church; therefore he would also, upon that fact, cease to be the head of Church.
So, a publicly heretical pope, who by the mandate of Christ and of the Apostle should be avoided because of danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power, as nearly everyone admits. But he cannot be deprived of his power by a merely declaratory sentence. 
For every judicial sentence of privation supposes a superior jurisdiction over him against whom the sentence is laid. But a general council, in the opinion of adversaries, does not have a higher jurisdiction than does a heretical pope. For he, by their supposition, before the declaratory sentence of a general council, retains his papal jurisdiction; therefore a general council cannot pass a declaratory sentence by which a Roman Pontiff is actually deprived of his power; for that would be a sentence laid by an inferior against the true Roman Pontiff. In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact. Meanwhile a declaratory criminal sentence, although it is merely declaratory, should not be disregarded, for it brings it about, not that a pope is “judged” to be a heretic, but rather, that he is shown to have been found heretical, that is, a general council declares the fact of the crime by which a pope has separated himself from the Church and has lost his rank. »       
      Following the doctrine of Innocent III , who taught that the pope, as pope, cannot be judged; Bellarmine says in Book Four, Chapter Seven of De Romano Pontifice, “the Pope cannot be judged”, but only upon having fallen from office ”by himself” (he explains in Book Two Chapter Thirty) he could then be judged and punished by the Church. It suffices to say that if even a council may not judge a pope, then a fortiori neither can any other group or individual which would be less than a council, judge a pope, but could only declare in such a manner that he may be “shown to be already judged” (Innocent III), to have already fallen, to alredy have lost any office and all ecclesiastical dignity ipso jure (Council of Constance) to have “abdicated the primacy and the pontificate” (Ballerini), and to have “fallen from the pontificate” (Gregory XVI). Ballerini states in the most explicit of terms that, a general council has no power to judge a pope, since the pope receives his power not from his electors or from the Church, but immediately from God; by which he is the Pontiff over the whole Church, and superior over general councils, and therefore is entirely removed from the jurisdiction of all others who are inferior to him, and precisely for this reason, the machinations of Basel against Eugenius IV ended up in open schism:

“ . . . contra certum Pontificium jus nulla vel generalis concilii potestas est: cuм ob idem jus non ab electoribus, nec ab Ecclesia, sed a Deo immediate tributum, verus Pontifex toti Ecclesiae, & generalibus quoque synodis (ut probavimus) superior, ab aliorum omnium sibi inferiorum jurisdictione subtrahatur. Hac quidem de causa Basileensium molimina & gesta contra Eugenium IV. unicuм certumque Pontificem illegitima & inania nihil potuerunt ad ipsum deponendum, & in apertum schisma deflexerunt.”    
     
     Peters  attests to the fact that the opinion that a heretic pope would remain in office until even a merely declaratory sentence would effect his removal as a dispositive casuse for his fall from office has been entirely abandoned in his article where he says, «I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis [of Wernz and Vidal]. See, e.g., Ayrinhac, CONSTITUTION (1930) 33; Sipos, ENCHIRIDION (1954) 156; Regatillo, INSTITUTIONES I (1961) 299; Palazzini, DMC III (1966) 573; and Wrenn  (2001) above. As for the lack of detailed canonical examination of the mechanics for assessing possible papal heresy, Cocchi, COMMENTARIUM II/2 (1931) n. 155, ascribes it to the fact that law provides for common cases and adapts for rarer; may I say again, heretical popes are about as rare as rare can be and yet still be. In sum, and while additional important points could be offered on this matter, in the view of modern canonists from Wernz to Wrenn, however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet, would result in the loss of papal office. » Incredibly, Salza & Siscoe adamantly and delusionally insist that the common opinion today is that a manifest heretic pope would not fall from office until he is judged by the Church; and, according to them, the opinion which was originated by the Decretists of the early 1180s, namely, the Fifth Opinion which holds that a manifest heretic pope would automatically fall from office ipso facto by the act of formal heresy itself before any judgment by the Church, is nothing but an opinion of  sedevacantists who do not understand Bellarmine! As I just quoted Peters, “I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis [of Wernz and Vidal]”; yet the two armchair theologians – the tax lawyer and the businessman, who have no formal education in Canon Law or Theology presume to differ with the unanimous opinion of canonists and theologians on papal loss of office, and their learned understanding of Opinion No. 5.
     On the opinion of Ballerini, Don Curzio comments, «In breve ciò che don Pietro Ballerini  mantiene come certissimo è che il Papa nel definire non errerà mai; infine come ipotesi investigativa “ammesso e non concesso” che il Papa cada in errore contrario alla fede, dovrebbe essere ammonito e corretto e dopo due ammonizioni, se si ostina nell’errore, si dichiara da se stesso eretico e decaduto dal Pontificato, ma tutto ciò deve essere opera non di giurisdizione bensì di carità (De Potestate ecclesiastica Summorum Pontificuм et Conciliorum generalium, Verona, 1765, cap. 9, nn. 3-8; cap. 15, n. 21; cfr. T. Facchini, Il Papato principio di unità e Pietro Ballerini di Verona, Padova, Il Messaggero di S Antonio, 1950, pp. 126-128). »
[«Briefly, that which Don Pietro Ballerini maintains as most certain is that in defining the pope will never err; finally as an investigative hypothesis, "granted but not conceded" that should the pope fall into error against the faith, he ought to be warned and corrected, and after two warnings, and if he remains obstinate in error, he declares himself to be a heretic and fallen from the pontificate, but this must not be an act of jurisdiction but a work of charity. »]
     Thus Don Curzio Nitoglia explains the doctrine of Ballerini exactly as I have: there is not even a hint made that the heretic pope would be officially warned by "the Church", but by individuals as an act of charity, not acting in an official capacity (which requires the authority of a superior), and not pronouncing a judicial verdict or even a declaratory sentence while the pope remains in office (which requires jurisdiction). The judgment of condemnation is pronounced by the self-judging heretic, who falls from the pontificate by his own self condemnation before any juridical post factum judgment is made by the Church. This is precisely what the Council of Constance explicitly declared to have taken place in the case of Pedro de Luna (Benedict XIII).
     The proposition stated explicitly by Salza and Siscoe on their website, purportedly refuting my "erroneous" interpretation of Bellarmine, in which they assert that the Church may judge a pope for heresy while still in office, directly opposes the dogma of the universal papal primacy of jurisdiction defined by Vatican I, and which declares most solemnly that no one on earth may judge the pope. Don Nitoglia points out that this is the defined article of faith that the pope cannot be judged by anyone:
«Ma il Concilio Vaticano I (IV sessione, 18 luglio 1870, Costituzione dogmatica Pastor aeternus) ha stabilito la definizione dogmatica circa il principio della ingiudicabilità del Papa: “Insegniamo e dichiariamo che secondo il diritto divino del primato papale, il Romano Pontefice è il giudice supremo di tutti i fedeli […]" (DS, 3063-3064). Il CIC del 1917 al canone 1556 riprendendo la definizione dogmatica del Vaticano I ha stabilito il principio: “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur”, ripreso tale e quale dal CIC del 1983, canone 1404.»
[“But the First Vatican Council (Session IV, 18 July 1870, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus) has established the dogmatic definition on the principle of the injudicability of the pope: ‘We teach and declare that according to divine right of the papal primacy, the Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge of all the faithful [...]’. (DS, 3063- 3064). The CIC of 1917 in Canon 1556 reiterating the dogmatic definition of Vatican I established the principle: ‘Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur’, repeated exactly the same in the CIC of 1983, Canon 1404.”]
     The doctrine that the Apostolic See may never be judged by anyone was already proclaimed in the Fifth Century by Pope St. Gelasius. Hinschius observes: «Schon im fünften Jahrhundert, in welchem die Stellung des Römischen Bischofs sich zu einer wirchlichen Obergewalt umzubilden anfängt, wird indessen aus der demselben beigelegten höchsten Jurisdiction über die Kirche von Papst Gelasius I. der Satz hergeleitet, dass die Römische Kirche dem Gerichte Niemandes unterstehe. [4]
[4] c. 16 (Gelasius I. a. 493) C. IX. qu. 3 : “Ipsi sunt canones qui appellationes totius ecclesiae ad huius sedis examen voluere deferri. Ab ipsa vero nusquam prorsus appellari debere sanxerunt ac per hoc illam de tota ecclesia iudicare,  ipsam ad nullius commeare iudicium nec de eius unquam praeceperunt iudicio iudicari”; c. 17 (idem a. 498) ead. : “Cuncta per mundum novit ecclesia, quod sacrosancta Romana ecclesia fas de omnibus habet iudicandi neque cuiquam de eius liceat iudicare iudicio.” »  
     In the phrase, «ipsam ad nullius commeare iudicium », the injudicability of the Roman Pontiff is declared, a principle which is restated by Pope St. Gregory VII around the year 1075 in Dictatus 19 of his Dictatus Papae : «Quod a nemine ipse (the pope) iudicari debeat», and again Paul IV in 1559 declared that the Roman Pontiff, «omnesque iudicat, a nemine in hoc saeculo iudicandus.» This injudicability pertains essentially to the very nature of the judicial supremacy of the primacy, as Moynihan explains, “This doctrine of papal immunity is incontrovertible […] the authority of the pope is supreme, and by virtue of his own primacy of jurisdiction, no one else is competent to be his judge.”  Hence, it is a proposition against the very nature of the primacy to assert that the pope can ever be judged by anyone, even for the crime of heresy; unless “judging the pope” be understood in a qualified sense, according to which, the manifestly heretical pope would, by the very act of his heresy, cease by himself straightaway to be pope and a member of the Church; and for that reason, (as Bellarmine states) he could then be judged and punished by the Church, i.e. shown to be already judged. Thus it is according to the same qualification and meaning, as both Hinschius observes (in the above cited passage), and Moynihan explains (citing the same passage as Hinschius), that Innocent III teaches, if the pope were to fall into heresy, he could be “judged by men”; but only in the qualified sense that he “can be shown to be already judged”. “Innocent, [Moynihan explains], in this passage is making a veiled reference to the principle elaborated by his teacher, Huguccio of Pisa, who wrote, «cuм papa cadit in heresim, non iam maior sed minor quolibet catholico intelligitur »” . According to this principle as elaborated by Huguccio, a heretic pope would automatically cease to be pope, and would therefore no longer be greater than any Catholic, but less than any Catholic.This principle had already been elaborated less systematically earlier by the authors of the Summa Et est sciendum  and the Gloss Ecce uicit leo . According to this principle elaborated by these early Decretists, a pope who becomes a heretic ceases automatically to be pope (ipso jure) and a member of the Church; and no longer a member of the Church, (excommunicated ipso iure as the author of the Gloss Ecce uicit leo states ) he is no longer greater than any Catholic, but is less than any Catholic. Hence, he can, as Innocent III teaches, be “shown to be already judged”, and “cast out and trampled underfoot by men” – “deposed”, as I explain in Part II of this work. So, explains Moynihan, “In this connection [i.e. on the automatic fall from office for heresy] it is interesting to note the difference of opinion on this question between Huguccio and Innocent III (1198 – 1216). The latter had been a pupil of Huguccio’s at Bologna. […] he could not agree with Huguccio that a pope could be deposed for notorious crimes, but rather only for heresy. There is a veiled attempt at avoiding a papal trial in the following words: «Romanus Pontifex … potest ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus ostendi». […] (Sermo IV).” 
      Thus, it is the constant teaching of the Church going back to the explicit formulations of Pope St. Gelasius, that for so long as the pope is still the validly reigning pope, he is the supreme judge in all cases –  including his own, as Pope Innocent III teaches (see Part II); and cannot be judged by anyone. He can only be judged by his inferiors if he were to consent to being judged, as Pope Hadrian II taught.  The only “exception” is not an exception at all, but only if a pope were to cease to be a member of the Church because of heresy, Schism or apostasy, he would by that very act, publicly defect from communion with the Church, cease to be a member of the Church; and therefore, according to the prescription of Canon 194  (Canon 188 n. 4 in the 1917 Code ); he would lose office automatically (ipso jure); and the loss of office would then be enforced juridically by a merely declaratory sentence (Canon 194 §2). On this point, the canon is absolutely clear and unequivocal: “Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself: […] 2° a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church; […]§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” In the commentary on the Code of Canon Law composed by the Canon Law faculty of the University of Navarre, it is explained: “In the 2nd and 3rd cases, the act of the ecclesiastical authority is declarative, and it is necessary, not to provoke the vacating of the right of the office, but so that the removal can legally be demanded (also for the purposes of 1381 § 2), and consequently the conferral of the office to a new officeholder can be carried out (cfr. C. 154).”  Since the loss of office takes place ipso jure, it does not depend in any way on the subsequent declaration which merely enforces it; and for this reason, as the quoted canon of the 1917 Code explains, the actual loss of office by tacit renunciation takes place ipso facto without any declaration (“Ob tacitam  renuntiationem  ab ipso iure admissam  quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla  declaratione”). The Canon Law commentary of the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca explains that the sole necessary condition for such a loss of office to take place, is that the act be freely committed, and then the loss of office follows necessarily: “El hecho por el que se presupone la renuncia debe ser puesto voluntariamente, a tenor del canon 185; pero, cuмplida esta condición, la perdida del oficio se produce necesariamente.”  That the canon is applicable to all ecclesiastical offices is stated explicitly with the words, “quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto” – and therefore necessarily includes the office of the Supeme Pontiff. The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac explained, in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, on Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices, that such loss of office (Canons 185-191) “applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” (p. 346)
     There exists only one case in the entire history of the Church that a papal claimant has been validly and legitimately deposed by ecclesiastical authority, and that was the deposition of Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna) by the Council of Constance (Sess. 37), which followed the same procedure as rhat which is prescribed in the canons in force at present. The Council did not presume to remove him by any judicial act of judgment, but rather, it followed and applied the teaching of Innocent III, and declared him to have already lost all office and ecclesiastical dignity by himself ipso jure; and thus, having already been reduced to the state of minor quolibet catholico by his own actions, the Council then deposed him “as a precautionary measure” (ad omnem cautelam privat et deponit et abiicit).  
     The subsequent developments brought it about, that the Conciliaristic tendency on the part of the hierarchy to attempt to limit papal power by means of creating exceptions to immunity were overcome, so that, (as Hinschius observed already in 1869 ), “The course of the further development, however, has, as is known, eliminated episcopalism in the Catholic Church, and the principle, apostolica sedes a nemine iudicatur is now in full force.” Based on the foundation of the doctrine of Pope Innocent III and its application by the Council of Constance, St. Robert Bellarmine formulated his exposition on the doctrine of the automatic loss of office of a manifest heretic pope, which he briefly stated in De Romano Pontifice II xxx as Opinion No. 5. Pietro Ballerini elaborated the same opinion more systematically, basing it explicitly on the firm foundation of the ruling of the Council of Constance; and Pope Gregory XVI explicitly endorsed Ballerini’s doctrine on the question of a heretic pope in his book, saying such a heretic would have “fallen from the pontificate by himself” . After the First Vatican Council infallibly defined the dogma of papal primacy, thus giving dogmatic force to the principle of papal injudicability, the principle “Prima sedes a nemine judicatur” was incorporated into the Code of Canon Law; and has been interpreted according to the mind of the Church, and in conformity with the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium, by the officially approved commentaries on Canon Law, to admit no exceptions. 
     After all my lengthy argumentation and copious docuмentation, Salza & Siscoe remain entrenched in their position. Salza's chronic and habitual dishonesty comes to the fore in his most recent piece of sophistry, an e-mail message which blindly ignores the arguments which expose his fallacious (and fraudulent) reasoning, and simply re-affirms his thoroughly refuted, errant propositions:
《Every apologist for the Sedevacantist sect asserts that it is the “nature” of heresy, and not any declaration from Church authorities, that severs one from the Church.》
     This is a glaring red-herring argument. I have amply demonstrated in this work, from the most explicit magisterial pronouncements and the texts of the popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, that it is in the nature of manifest heresy that it is per se a defection from the faith and the Church; and that therefore, by the very act of manifest formal heresy, one ceases to be a member of the Church. This is the clear and explicit teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Salza & Siscoe falsify the teaching of that encyclical, modifying and changing it by adding their own qualifications to the teaching which do not pertain to simple and unqualified doctrine expressed in that docuмent. 
      Salza quotes his faulty translation of Pius XII, and misinterprets the passage with a gramatically flawed and logically impossible hermeneutic:  《For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.》
     Salza gratuitously interprets the word "admissum" strictly to mean "crime" in the canonical sense of a delict, and then, against the rules of grammar, attempts to qualify the phrase later on in the sentence with that strict modification, whereby the words "schisma, vel heresis, vel apostasia faciunt suapte natura" are no longer understood according to their clear and proper signification as sins; but are errantly and gratuitously qualified to designate these sins only in so far as they are canonical delicts, i.e. according to their generic nature as crimes, but not according to their specific nature as sins. Schism, heresy and apostasy are not canonical offenses according to their nature, but are crimes only in virtue of legislation, which is extrinsic to their nature. Thus it is not in the nature of crimes, that by their very nature they sever a man from the Church, as do schism, heresy or apostasy, but only by the authority of the Church do they sever one from the body of the Church; whereas according to the nature of schism, heresy and apostasy, i.e. according to the intrinsic nature of the sin as a manifest external act, it is an act of defection from communion with the Church, that by itself visibly severs one from the body of the Church apart from anyone else's judgment, or any act or judgment of ecclesiastical authority; and without any need of further qualification such as, 1) explicit formal defection from the Church, 2) formal rejection of the Church’s magisterial authority as the rule of faith; or, 3) joining another religion –  because the act of formal heresy is in its very nature, a rejection of the authority of the Church, as St. Thomas explains in the above cited passage. I have already sufficiently explained this point and exposed the sophistry employed by Salza as the basis of his bogus interpretation of Mystici Corporis. Pius XII clearly and explicitly distinguishes between the sins which by themselves, according to their very nature (suapte natura) cut one off from the body of the Church, and all other sins, which only effect the separation of one from the body of the Church "by the legitimate authority of the Church", i.e. by excommunication because they are penal offenses, and do not sever one from the Church suapte natura. If one interprets the words, "schism, heresy, and apostasy -- suapte natura" to denote these species of sins according to the errantly qualified sense under their formal aspect of the accidental circuмstance of their being crimes, or according to the nature of their genus as external acts, then the distinction made by Pius XII in that paragraph between the specific acts which by themselves, by their own specific nature separate one from the Church, and all other species of acts which separate one by legitimate ecclesiastical authority is thereby destroyed, making irrational nonsense of Pacelli's magisterium on this point; since all crimes without exception pertain to the genus of external acts, and in their generic nature as external acts are absolutely identical. If Pius XII’s words are interpreted to mean that by their generic nature as external acts, schism, heresy and apostasy separate one from the Church suapte natura, then all external sins would by their very nature separare the perpetrator from the body of the Church – yet it is precisely only these three species of the sin of infidelity that the encyclical teaches, separates one from the body of the Church suapte natura, and for all others, men are “severed by the legitimate authority” of the Church: «ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt. »Thus, Salza & Siscoe do violence to the teaching of the Church on the nature of heresy; and against the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Magisterium in 1943, Salza appeals to a previously expressed opinion written before the question was closed, such as that of Cardinal Billot (which errs on the specific nature of the matter of heresy, confusing it with the generic nature of infidelity) , and the clearly contrary opinion of John of St. Thomas. The opinion of John of St. Thomas, which holds that even for heresy, the judgment of the Church is required for the heretic to be severed from the body of the Church is explicitly contrary to the teaching of Pius XII, who explained in Mystici Corporis, that according to its very nature, heresy by itself separates one from the body of the Church, so that while those guilty of other crimes are severed from the body of the Church, by legitimate authority, heretics, according to the nature of heresy (suapte natura), miserably separate themselves from the unity of the body. The idea advanced by John of St. Thomas and advocated by Salza & Siscoe, namely, that the judgment of authority is required for the heretic to be separated from the body of the Church, is diametrically opposed to the teaching of Mystici Corporis, which explicitly excludes that the separation takes place by authority, and hence, the Salza/Siscoe doctrine is patently opposed to this clearly expressed papal doctrine which pertains to the universal and ordinary magisterium. The proposition affirmed by Salza & Siscoe, that the Church, “judges the quality of the crime that excludes from the Church without any over added censure, as long as it is declared by the Church”, is plainly contrary to the explicitly stated doctrine of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. 
      In the above cited texts, I have quoted the verbatim translations (of the passage of Mystici Corporis), and the commentaries of two of Salza's favorite authors, Msgrs. Van Noort and Fenton, both eminent theologians who translate and interpret the passage of Mystici Corporis exactly as I do; yet Salza blindly and obstinately insists that such an interpretation is a sedevacantist "abuse" of a faulty translation of Mystici Corporis (which would mean that Salza, who does not know Latin, translated the passage correctly, and Fenton, Van Noort and the official website of the Apostolic See translated it wrongly) Thus, Salza is not only wrong, but is plainly blind and obstinate against the mind of the Church. 
     It is the act of manifest formal heresy by itself, i.e. the manifestation of pertinacity, without any additional qualifications or conditions, and without any censure or judgment of authority, which separates the manifest heretic from the body of the Church, and takes place according to the very nature of heresy (suapte natura), and hence, ipso jure, by the operation of the law itself, (as I have amply explained and docuмented), and therefore severs both the spiritual and visible bond with the Church.
     Siscoe likewise remains entrenched in heresy, "I applied the Thomistic distinction of quoad se/quoad nos to show that, just because heresy of its nature severs a person from the Church (spiritually), does not mean heresy, of its nature, causes a person to cease being a member of the Church (legally).  And I quoted the great John of St. Thomas who explained it exactly the way I did." Siscoe elaborates: “Did you even read John Salza’s recent article that prompted this e-mail exchange?  John and I both contributed to that article so it represents both of our opinions.  We both affirm that the sin of heresy, of its nature, separates a person from the Church quoad se (of itself), but the sin of heresy, of its nature, does not result in a separation from the Church quoad nos (according to us), nor does it result in the loss of office. […] As long as a person remains a member of the Church quoad nos – even if he has committed the sin of heresy and has lost the faith - he remains a legal member of the Church; and if the person in question is a bishop or Pope, he retains his office until the crime has been legally established by the proper authorities.” Then he quotes John of St. Thomas: 
“[J]ust as the Church, by designating the man, proposed him juridically to all as the elected Pope, so too, it is necessary that she depose him by declaring him a heretic and proposing him as vitandus (one to be avoided).  Hence, we see from the practice of the Church that this is how it has been done; for, in the case of the deposition of a Pope, his cause was handled in a general Council before he was considered not to be Pope, as we have related above. It is not true, then, that the Pope ceases to be Pope by the very fact [ipso facto] that he is a heretic, even a public one, before any sentence of the Church and before she proposes him to the faithful as one who is to be avoided.  Nor does Jerome exclude the judgment of the Church (especially in so grave a matter as the deposition of a Pope) when he says that a heretic departs from the body of Christ of his own accord; rather, he is judging the quality of the crime, which of its very nature excludes one from the Church—provided that the crime is declared by the Church—without the need for any superadded censure; for, although heresy separates one from the Church by its very nature, nevertheless, this separation is not thought to have been made, as far as we are concerned [quoad nos], without that declaration.”
     Siscoe then comments, “Before continuing, notice the point he makes about heresy, of its nature, severing a person from the Church without the need for any additional censure.  This is how heresy, schism and apostasy differ from other mortal sins, which, of their nature, deprive a person from sanctifying grace, but do not separate them from the Church. It requires an additional censure for other sins to sever a person from the Church. For example, abortion severs a person from the Church, not by the nature of the sin, but due to the censure of excommunication that has been attached to it by the Church.” Siscoe is simply saying that other sins require the additional censure of excommunication for one to be cut off from membership in the Church, but for heresy, schism and apostasy, excommunication is not necessary, but only the judgment of the Church by which one is declared a heretic. He again quotes John of St. Thomas:
 “Likewise, we respond to his reasoning in this way: one who is not a Christian, both in himself (quoad se) and in relation to us (quoad nos), cannot be Pope; however, if in himself he is not a Christian (because he has lost the faith) but in relation to us has not yet been juridically declared as an infidel or heretic (no matter how manifestly heretical he is according to private judgment), he is still a member of the Church as far as we are concerned (quoad nos); and consequently he is its head.  It is necessary, therefore, to have the judgment of the Church, by which he is proposed to us as someone who is not a Christian, and who is to be avoided; and at that point he ceases to be Pope in relation to us (quoad nos); and we further conclude that he had not ceased to be Pope before [the declaration], even in himself, since all of his acts were valid in themselves.”
     Siscoe concludes: “If you disagree with the great John of St. Thomas - who was known, even in his own day as the second Thomas’ - explain why he is wrong.” It is not difficult to explain why he is wrong: John of St. Thomas teaches that the manifest heretic remains a member of the Church, who “has not yet been juridically declared as an infidel or heretic” and, he is still a member of the Church as far as we are concerned (quoad nos)”, since “It is necessary, therefore, to have the judgment of the Church, by which he is proposed to us as someone who is not a Christian”. Thus, John of St. Thomas teaches that even heretics are severed from the body of the Church and cease to be members, but not without the authority of the Church. Pius XII teaches in unison with the universal and ordinary magisterium that all other sins, which separate one from the body of the Church, do so “by legitimate authority”, but heresy, schism and apostasy do not separate one from the body of the Church by legitimate authority, but do so suapte natura, and by divine law (jubente Domino) heretics “miserably separate themselves” from the body of the Church.
     Salza & Siscoe reply in their Formal Reply Part II: «Dispositive vs. Formal Separation: This distinction explains different ways of understanding how heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church, without considering a separate unity with the Soul of the Church. According to this explanation, the sin of heresy, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally. The formal separation from the Body of the Church occurs when the juridical bond is severed by the public act (crime) of notorious heresy (notorious by fact), or when the crime has been judged and declared by the Church (notorious by law). »
     According to the bizzare doctrine of Salza & Siscoe, the sin of heresy is an internal sin only, and the external act of heresy is in its nature a crime. Such a usage of the terms is contrary to the common and perpetual usage of theologians, who distinguish between internal sins and external sins. To willfully profess heresy or to commit murder are equally external sins. The external profession of heresy is not an internal sin externalized by an external act (as Salza & Siscoe repeatedly claim), but is an external sin in the same manner that murder is an external sin. Both the internal and the external sin of heresy are intrinsically mortally sinful acts, which, by definition, are of identical specific nature, to wit, an obstinate denial or doubt of a revealed truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. In their Formal Reply, Salza & Siscoe obfuscate on this point by quoting Cajetan who pointed out the generic difference between the nature of an internal act and of an external act ; and on that basis they draw the absurd conclusion that the internal sin of heresy is of a different specific nature than the external act of heresy, which which they even more absurdly claim is a crime in its very nature! Since heresy as a sin specifically, whether internal or external, is specified in its essence by the selfsame definition, which thereby expresses its nature, both the internal sin and the external sin of heresy are of the same specific nature. Thus heresy as such, whether internal or external, separates one from the union with God, which exists by means of the virtue faith, and therefore heresy, committed internally or externally is the same species of sin, and is a mortal sin ex toto genere suo. No sin is in its nature a crime, because the criminality of a sin is not intrinsic to its nature, but exists solely in virtue of penal legislation which makes it a crime, and therefore is extrinsic to the nature of the sin.
     Earlier I wrote, “Salza & Siscoe now claim: ‘The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime.’ This is patently false: The nature of a crime in ecclesiastical law is of an external and morally imputable violation of a law or precept. It does not pertain to the nature of heresy that it is ‘an external and morally imputable violation of a law [an ecclesiastical law] or precept’; and therefore, the proposition is false. The external act of heresy is a sin, and not a crime.” The context of my words make it u
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Don Paolo on April 24, 2018, 07:22:12 AM
unequivocally clear that my meaning is that the external act of heresy is in its nature a sin, but being a crime is not intrinsic to its nature. Since I knew very well that the congenital con-artists, Salza & Siscoe, would twist my words to give them quite another meaning, I repeated the same paragraph in my next communication, but with the more explicit wording with the qualifying words in brackets: “The external act of heresy is [in its nature] a sin, and not a crime.” Nevertheless, in spite of my explicit qualification, they twisted my words and falsified my meaning in order to make it appear that I had changed my previous position and was now claiming that external heresy is not a crime! Here is what they wrote:
«Here is the argument in Fr. Kramer’s own words. He sent the following out via e-mail, after the publication of Part I of this series of articles, and then posted it online, as his official “refutation” of our statement that “external heresy is, by its nature, a crime.” […]“Salza & Siscoe now claim: ‘The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime.’ This is patently false: The nature of a crime in ecclesiastical law is of an external and morally imputable violation of a law or precept. It does not pertain to the nature of heresy that it is ‘an external and morally imputable violation of a law or precept’; and therefore, the proposition is false. The external act of heresy is a sin, and not a crime.” Now, it should be obvious that there is a problem somewhere in Fr. Kramer’s reasoning, since external heresy is a crime punishable by Canon Law (Canon 2314, 1917 Code; Canon 1364.1, 1983 Code), which would not be the case if it did not meet the canonical definition for the nature of a crime. » Nowhere have I ever stated or implied, that the gravely imputable external act of heresy is not a crime according to Canon Law, yet that is exactly what Salza & Siscoe deliberately attempt to deceive their readers into thinking in order to distort my arguments and obfuscate my meaning.
     The fallacious Salza/Siscoe argument that external heresy is in its nature a canonical crime, is that since according to Canon Law the external act of heresy conforms to the definition of a crime, external heresy is therefore in its nature a crime. The nonsensical fallacy of their thinking lies in the fact that what pertains to the definition of a crime, does not intrinsically pertain to the nature of exernal heresy (whether considered in its specific nature as heresy or in its generic nature as an external act); and therefore, the external act of heresy is not in its nature a crime. To be a crime, the external act must be morally imputable; and therefore, the inculpable external act is not a crime. To be a crime, it must also violate an ecclesiastical law or precept; and therefore, without the ecclesiastical penalty, the external act is not a crime. Thus, it is patent, that the external act off heresy per se, is not ini its nature a crime.The fallacy is patent in their own words:
«We respond, firstly, by noting that the definition of heresy, as such, may be defined the same for the sin of heresy in Moral Theology and for the crime of heresy in Canon Law, but the definition of the nature of the act that qualifies as a sin, and the nature of the act that qualifies as a crime, are not the same, since, as we have seen, an internal act alone suffices for the sin, whereas “an external and morally imputable” act is required to meet the definition of the nature of a crime (Canon 2195.1, 1917 Code). This is why Fr. Kramer’s reference to the definition of heresy from Moral Theology and Canon Law does not support his position. » The definition of the nature of the act that qualifies it as a crime pertains properly to the generic nature of the act as an external act, which pertains essentially to the definition of a crime; but not to the specific nature of the act, which pertains to that particular species of sin. Thus it is clear that just because the generic nature of an internal act difers from that of an external act, it does not follow that the specific nature of an internal sin difers from the specific nature of an external sin of the same species in such a manner that the external act is in the specific nature of a crime – yet this is the canard that Salza & Siscoe have cooked up for their readers. 
     Then they try to support their errant opinion with a quote from St. Thomas: “The principle of the interior act is the interior apprehensive or appetitive power of the soul; whereas the principle of the external action is the power that accomplishes the movement. Now where the principles of action are different, the actions themselves are different.” In the quoted passage, St. Thomas explained the generic difference between every kind of internal and external act – which has nothing to do with the specific nature of a sin. Then they again quote St. Thomas and go on to say, «To illustrate this point, the interior act of faith is to believe; [St. Thomas I-II, q. 2, a. 1.] the external act is to confess the faith.[ St. Thomas I-II, q. 3, a. 1.] The interior act of heresy is to disbelieve (or refuse to assent); the external act is to deny (or to express a doubt about) the faith. » What they fail to grasp is that only the generic nature of the acts are different, one being internal, and the other being external; but the interior act of faith expresses one’s assent to divine revelation with the internal word of the mind; and the external confession of faith expresses the same identical belief in the revealed truths by externally expressing it in a manner perceptible to the senses. The internal act of faith and the external act of faith, ae not two different virtues, but are in th same specific nature of the one theologicsl virtue of faith. The specific nature of both are the same. Their conclusion, [The interior act of heresy is to disbelieve (or refuse to assent); the external act is to deny (or to express a doubt about) the faith.]; in either case, the act is specifically a heretical act of unbelief – specifically heresy, one of the five species of the sin of infidelity, whether one denies the faith internally or externally. St. Thomas says in II-II 11.1, “[H]eresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas.” Thus, heresy is of one species, and therefore internal and external heresy are of one and the same specific nature.
     Salza  Siscoe then quote Van Noort, who explains exactly what I have explained: « “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the body of the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.) » I quoted Van Noort: «Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. » Van Noort, whom I quoted above, rightly understood that Pius XII was referring specifically to the external sin of heresy, when he commented: «The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. 'For not every sin [admissum], however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy'. (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 241 - 242.) » Now to say that public heretics are not members of the Church, because Pius XII teaches that not every sin however grave and enormous it be is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy, most patently does not refer to a merely dispositive act that only disposes one, but does not actually separate one from membership in the Church; but manifestly refers to an external sin which actually separates one from the body of the Church. This is clearly the unequivocal meaning of Pope Pacelli’s teaching in that passage, because the context and verbal tense of those words refer specifically to those who have actually separated themselves from the Church in such a manner that they re no longer members: «In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt. » And who, according to the text of the encyclical, are those who are no longer members of the Church? They are those who have miserably separated themselves (semet ipsos misere separarunt), and those who have been cut off for most grave sins by legitimate authority: (ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt). The use of the perfect tense logically and grammatically excludes the possibility that Pius XII was saying that those who have separated themselves in such a manner that they are no longer members of the Church, had only disposed themselves to be separated, but were not yet actually separated – yet this is exactly how Salza & Siscoe interpret the text, and claim is its authentic meaning! Now, who are those, who unlike all others who are cut off from the Church by legitimate authority (i.e. those who have been excommunicated by the Church), have separated themselves in such a manner that they are no longer members of the Church? They are the schismatics, heretics, and apostates, because, “not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man by its very nature from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy'” – «Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet. »
     Since Pius XII in the quoted passage distinguishes between the nature of schism, heresy, apostasy as opposed to all other sins, he is clearly referring to heresy in its specific nature of heresy qua heresy, (and not to the generic nature of the exernal act, since according to that generic nature of the external act, heresy, schism and apostasy are indistinguishable from other external sins), which suapte natura separates one from the body of the Church; as opposed to the specific nature of all other sins which do not accomplish that separation suapte natura. It is therefore under the formal aspect of the specific nature of schism, heresy, and apostasy which differs from the nature of all other species of sins, that Pope Pius distinguishes between these three species of infidelity and all other sins; and not under the formal aspect of the generic nature of the externality of the act, which is common to all species of external sins. Thus, the plain sense of the quoted passage of Mystici Corporis is that external sin of heresy separates one from the body of the Church suapte natura not because it is a crime (which does not pertain to its nature), but because of what is specific to the nature of the sin of heresy.
     It is of extreme importance to bear in mind that Salza & Siscoe insist that it is only the crime and not the sin of heresy that severs one from membership in the Church, because (according to them) sin is internal and therefore cannot be judged by the Church; but crime is external, and therefore can be judged by the Church – and hence, even the manifest heretic, according to their reasoning, remains a member of the Church and remains in office until the Church renders a public judgment in the competent forum. The dilemma that this theory creates is that the Church teaches that manifest heresy by its very specific nature as heresy separates one from the body of the Church and from ecclesiastical office; and therefore, if only the crime of heresy suapte natura causes one to be severed from membership in the Church, and effects the loss of office ex natura haeresis, then the exernal act of manifest heresy would have to be in its very nature a crime. Hence, Salza & Siscoe assert the absurd proposition that the external act of heresy is in its nature a crime. However, it is self-evident from the very definition of heresy that it does not pertain to the nature of the external act of heresy thst it is a morally imputable external violation of a law or precept (i.e. an ecclesiastical law or pecept), and for that reason extenal heresy is not in its nature a crime.
     Faced with this impossible dilemma, Salza & Siscoe have resorted to the desperate tactic of obfuscation: «We should also note that a crime (delictum) is not limited to an offense against “merely ecclesiastical laws” (human positive law), but also includes offenses against divine law.[22]  External heresy is a violation of both ecclesiastical law and divine law. » [“Delictum is taken from the word delinquere (de and linquere, to forsake, to leave, to omit) and means an offence in the general sense. However, by common usage the term is restricted to a public offence or crime against the juridical order or law. Therefore it is called a transgression of the law, whether divine or human, i.e., merely ecclesiastical. … the transgression which the ecclesiastical law considers is not merely the guilty mind (mens rea) … it is essential to the notion of a delictum that it be an external act…” ~ Fr. Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, (London: Herder Book Co., 1918) p. 11.]
     Judging by the cherry-picked trunated segments of text joined together by elipses, one would easily get the impression that the eminent commentator on Canon Law quoted in the footnote teaches that absolutely anything that violates divine law and is committed with an external act is classified as a crime against ecclesiastical law. That would destroy the distinction between merely external sins and crimes; with the result that all grave external sins without exception would be crimes, since all sins violate the divine law. What Salza & Siscoe fail to mention is that for a violation of divine law to be a crime, the law must be of an ecclesiastical character; and in order for a precept of natural or divine law to be of ecclesiastical character, it would suffice that the Church sanction its violation with a canonical penalty (as is explained below). [See footnote 71.] It is is thus, patently clear that by leaving out the important material in the cited section of Fr. Augustine’s work, Salza & Siscoe deliberately intend to deceive their readers. When one reads the text of Fr. Augustine’s commentary on canon 2195  in its proper context, the fraudulent verbal sleight off hand becomes obvious:
On page 10 – 11: «A crime, in ecclesiastical law, is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction, at least in general. Delictum is taken from the word delinquere (de and linquere, to forsake, to leave, to omit) and means an offense in the general sense. However, by common usage the term is restricted to a public offense or crime against the juridical order or law. Therefore it is called a transgression of the law, whether divine or human, i.e., merely ecclesiastical. It is the law, either eternal or positive, that governs order, the relation of man to God and of man to man, and any defection from that order constitutes a frustration of the designs of Providence. 
2. But the transgression which the ecclesiastical law considers is not merely the guilty mind (mens rea), but the act, – i.e., an outward manifestation of a vicious intention, or a breach of the law as externally apprehensible . . . It is essential to the notion of delictum that it be an external act, either of speech or deed, although it is not necessary to be provable. » After the paragraph on externality, Fr. Augustine then elaborates on the legal element on page 12, 13 and 14: «4. But what does the addition “cui addita sit sanctio canonica saltem indeterminate” mean? The transgression is accompanied by penal sanction, at least in general terms. This means that there is neither crime nor punishment without a penal law.4 [“Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege poenali,” was the adage of the School; Eichmann, l. c., p. 27.] It is therefore, as stated above, the law which is infringed and which punishes. […] Take, for instance, the reading of forbidden books, which is not punished generally (can. 1395) but only in particular cases (can. 2318); hunting by clergymen (can.138), etc. Yet these forbidden actions cannot be called crimes in the sense of ecclesiastical law.” […] The sanctio canonica indeterminate signifies a penalty to be meted out according to the good pleasureof the judge or superior (can. 2217, § I, n. I). It follows that, although no special penalty is provided for the transgression of a law, yet if that law embodies the provision that the punishment of the transgressor is left to the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, this is sufficient to mark the transgression as a crime, provided that the other necessary marks are not wanting. »  Thus, one of the great authorities on Canon Law explains those marks and elements necessary for a sin to be considered a cime in ecclesiastical law; and all of those marks and elements together do not pertain to the intrinsic nature of any external sin.
     The commentary of the Salamanca Canon Law Faculty explains on page 783, the definition of a crime in essentially the same sense as Fr. Augustine, but expounding on the necessary elements that constitute a delict in ecclesiastical law more fully and with greater precision: «2195 Tres son los elementos constitutivos del delito por derecho ecelesiástico: a) violación externa de una ley; b) que la violación sea moralmente imputable, y c) que la ley lleve aneja una sanción canonica, por lo menos indeterminada. A estos tres elementos suelen los autores llamarles, respectivamente, elemento objetivo, elemento subjetivo y elemento legal. A dicha terminoligía nos atendremos, por ser la más común. » Those three elements necessary for a sin to be constituted as a crime in ecclesiastical law are 1) the external violation of a law (the objective element), 2) moral imputability of the violation (the subjective element), 3) a penal sanction connected to the law (legal element). The objective element is comprised of a) an external violation, b) of a law, c) that damages the juridico-social order of the Church . The canon uses the word ‘law’ in the broad sense of an obligatory norm of objective law, which includes in its scope a law properly so-called, or a simple jurisdictional precept or admonition. The law must be ecclesiastical, it does not suffice for a crime that a law merely natural or divine be transgressed, however grave it might be. In order for a natural or divine law to be of ecclesiastical character, it would suffice that the Church sanction it with a canonical penalty. 
     Also pertaining essentially to the nature of a crime, is the legal element, as Fr. Augustine explained (in the portion of the text that Salza & Siscoe left out when quoting it), and summed up with the words, “This means that there is neither crime nor punishment without a penal law.” The catedráticos of the Canon Law faculty of Salamanca elaborate even more fully on this point, and what is most essential is that, «[P]or derecho eclesiástico, lo mismo que ocurre en la legislación de los Estados, la violación no constituye delito, aunque pueda ser pecado externo, si no hay una norma legal objetiva – en sentido lato, según hemos expuesto – que amenace previamente con una pena. De no ser asi, se daría lugar a inumerables arbitrariedades, lo que cedería en ultimo lugar en detrimento mayor y trastorno del orden social. »  In this passage, the Salamanca canonists explain why it is that the legal element necessarily pertains essentially to the nature of a crime – and that is because it is necessary for a penalty to be connected to the violation of a law, for the violation to constitute a crime; because it is essential to the preservation of the social order which necessarily requires it. Hence, the mere omission of any mention of the legal element in the characterization  of a crime in the 1983 Code (which falls short of a proper definition), cannot imply that the absence of inclusion of the legal element in the canons of the 1983 Code alters the essential definition of a crime; because the legal element pertains intrinsically to the nature of a crime, which lies outside of the power of a legislator to eliminate.
     Salza & Siscoe fail to make the most elementary distinctions when they say in Part II of their Formal Reply:
The only distinction that can be made when considering the nature of heresy is between: (1) the sin of heresy that is completely concealed in the heart and has never been externalized at all, and (2) the crime of heresy that has been externalized, even if no one was around to hear it (i.e., external, occult heresy). Cajetan explains that the reason the two are distinct, according to their nature, is because the sin of heresy that remains entirely hidden in the heart can only be judged by God, according to 1 Kings 16:7 - “man seeth the things that appear, but God beholdeth the heart,” whereas the crime of heresy that has been externalized (the external act renders it a crime by its nature) is subject to the judgment of men - even if, due to the circuмstances (e.g., no one around to hear it) it cannot be judged. In other words, the former is not divulged at all (hidden by its nature); the latter is divulged (external by its nature), even if no one heard it. The former is judgeable only by God; the latter can be judged by men. Heresy that has not been externalized at all is a sin, but not a crime; heresy that has been externalized (even if no one was around to hear it), is both a sin and a crime. Hence, the crime of heresy is more restrictive in its meaning than is the sin of heresy; and the external act is what makes it a crime, by its nature.
     
     The first distinction they fail to make is between the internal sin and the external sin; and the second is the distinction between the external sin and the crime. The second I have already sufficiently explained above; so it suffices here to point out that, every crime is an external sin, but every exernal sin is not a crime. The Salza/Siscoe self-contradictory notion of an “externalized internal sin”, is a failed oxymoron, based on the non sequitur that since the formal component of sin is internal; therefore sin is internal, even if it is committed with an external act. This grave error against Catholic moral doctrine fails to recognize that sin is in its essential nature a composite act consisting of two constituent components: matter  and form. The form alone is not the sin, but the composite of the form and the matter together constitute the essence of sin, which specifies its nature. All sins are actions – thoughts, words or deeds; actions which are either internal or external. The matter of the sin is the action itself which transgresses the law of God, as St. Alphonsus (quoted below) explains; and if that action is external, then the sin is an external sin. The classic definition of sin is that of St. Augustine (Contra Faustum XXII 27): «Dictum, factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam». The form, consists in the intention of the will to knowingly commit an act of transgression against the divine law, and is the principle from which the sinful action is brought into being. Internal sin is an action which terminates within the mind in such a manner that there does not proceed from the act of the will an action which is perceptible to the senses. External sin is a transgression of the law of God which begins in the will, as do all sins, and terminates in the external commission of words or deeds that are perceptible to the senses. The form of a sin is only a constitutive component principle of the sin, but not the sin itself; because the sinful action itself is the matter of the transgression which specifies the nature of the sin. Form without matter is a mere abstraction – a principle without any specific determination of any transgression of divine law; and therefore, there is no sin without both matter and form. Hence, if the action is internal, the sin is internal; but if the action is external, then the sin is an external sin. 
     On the basis of their doctrine that the sin of heresy is internal, and of a different specific nature than the crime of heresy; and that only the crime of heresy, but not the act of public heresy considered formally as a sin, separates one from the body of the Church; Salza & Siscoe, heretically interpret the words of Mystici Corporis to mean that only the canonical ecclesiastical crime of notorious heresy separates one from membership in the Church by its own nature by severing the juridical bond of membership in the Church, without a declaration. From this point of departure, they eventually arrive at the conclusion that for anything less than canonically notorious heresy (such as heresy that is public and manifestly formal), the juridical bond that unites one to the Church is not actually severed until there is pronounced a declarative sentence of the crime. In their Formal Reply, they begin by quoting their own book: True or False Pope?, explaining that it is, «the public offense (the crime) of heresy, which, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church with no further censure attached to the offense. (…) Jerome is referring to the nature of the crime [of heresy], which severs one from the body of the Church with no additional censure attached to it.  In this sense, the crime of heresy differs in its nature from other crimes, such as physically striking the Pope or procuring an abortion, which are crimes that only sever a person from the Church by virtue of the additional censure attached to the act. »
     They continue by arguing that only the crime of notorious heresy separates one from the body of the Church:
«The Crime of Notorious Heresy: What separates a Catholic from external union with the Body of the Church is not the nature of the sin of heresy (again, as Kramer argues above), but rather the nature of the external act (crime[4]) [[4]The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime.] of notorious heresy. » [Comment – It pertains to the nature of the external act of notorious heresy that it is a peccatum mortale ex toto genere suo; but it is not in its nature an ecclesiastical crime; but is only accidentally a canonical crime in virtue of the legislation that penalizes it with a canonical censure.] «This is confirmed by Cardinal Billot, who said “only notorious heretics are excluded from the body of the Church.” (De Ecclesia, Thesis II). The reason notorious heresy, of its nature, separates a Catholic from the Body of the Church is because it severs the juridical bond[5] [[5] See Mystici Corporis Christi, No. 70.] The legal separation from the Church has nothing to do with the nature of the sin of heresy, and everything to do with the nature of the public act (crime) of notorious heresy. This is confirmed from the fact that Bellarmine, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas unanimously teach that a notoriously heretical Pope can be deposed, or declared deposed, even if, per accidens, he is not subjectively guilty of the sin. » 
     In the quoted paragraph, Salza & Siscoe have just provided the premises for their own refutation. First, according to the definition of ‘crime’ in canon 2195 § 1, and what is prescribed concerning imputability and dolus of crime in cann. 2199 and 2200; heresy cannot be considered a crime notorious by fact, nor is it even a crime at all if there is no moral imputability, which only exits when there is subjective guilt: If one is not subjectively guilty of the sin, then there is no crime; because, there is lacking in the act the grave moral imputability, which depends directly on the dolus, (i.e. «deliberata voluntas violandi legem») or culpability that are intrinsic to the nature of a crime, as defined in the canons; and without which the material act would not fulfil the conditions necessary for the act to be qualified as, and actually be constituted as a crime. Nevertheless, one who formally defects from the Catholic faith or communion with the Church, expressly rejecting the authority of the Church even inculpably, separates himself from visible union with the Church without committing the crime of heresy, schism, or apostasy. Furthermore, mere material heresy on one or several points of doctrine, no matter how publicly or notoriously known, does not separate a Catholic from the Church, nor effect the loss of office; because an officeholder who is only materially in heresy has not defected from the faith by rejecting its formal cause; nevertheless, given that the external violation of the law has occurred, the dolus of crime, which is defined as the deliberate intention to violate the law (Can. 2200. §1),  is presumed until the contrary is proven (2200. §2): « Posita externa legis violatione, dolus in foro externo praesumitur, donec contrarium probetur. » Yet, heresy qualified as a public act of defection from the Church (as opposed to simple heresy), committed by one who per accidens is not subjectively guilty of sin, although not having not committed an actual crime, is nevertheless visibly separated from the body of the Church, by the very nature of the defection; and therefore loses office ipso jure (can. 194; 188 n. 4 in the 1917 Code), apart from any consideration of penal legislation, and the dolus or culpa which would make the act a gravely morally imputable crime. Thus, it can be seen that Salza & Siscoe contradict themselves again when they assert, «heresy includes everything from the internal sin alone, to the public crime of notorious heresy - and only the latter [i.e. the crime] automatically severs a person from external union with the Church “without a declaration.” » So, “the fact that Bellarmine, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas unanimously teach that a notoriously heretical Pope can be deposed, or declared deposed, even if, per accidens, he is not subjectively guilty of the sin,” does not prove or confirm that “the legal separation from the Church has nothing to do with the nature of the sin of heresy, and everything to do with the nature of the public act (crime) of notorious heresy;” – but what it does prove, is that the juridical bond that unites one to the Church as a legal member is sundered ipso jure as a direct result of the fact of the severing of the visible external bond, which is accomplished per se by the act of public defection; regardless of whether or not that act be also a sin or a crime. The public sin of manifest formal heresy, by its very nature as a visible rejection of the formal cause of faith, and not because it is a crime in ecclesiastical law, per se severs the visible external bond of faith that formerly united the heretic to the Church as a visible member, and thereby suapte natura dissolves the juridical bond, and separates the heretic from the body of the Church in such a manner that heretics (as Mystici Corporis teaches) “miserably separate themselves” from the body of the Church by that very sin; and not “by legitimate authority” for having committeed a crime. This is precisely what Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis, and not that the “offense”, (considered under its formal aspect as a crime in ecclesiastical law), separates one suapte natura from the body of the Church; as Salza & Siscoe heretically assert against the clear and perpetual teaching of the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church.
      The latter quoted statement of Salza & Siscoe is also plainly false, because not only an act of notorious heresy, but even public heresy separates one from the Church, and as a direct consequence, results in an ipso jure loss of office: In its Prot. N. 10279/2006 (Actus Formalis Defecionis ab Ecclesia Catholica) approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. on 13 March 2006, clarified the Church’s position on formal defection from the Church, explaining, «The concept therein presented is new to canonical legislation and is distinct from the other – rather “virtual” (that is, deduced from behaviors) – forms of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith (cfr. can. 171, § 1, 4°; 194, § 1, 2°; 316, § 1; 694, § 1, 1°; 1071, § 1, 4° and § 2).   In the latter circuмstances, those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church continue to be bound by merely ecclesiastical laws (cfr. can. 11). » The docuмent distinguishes between « forms of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith», both of which constitute a defection from the Church, and effect the ipso jure loss of office. This proves that it is not only notorious heretics who are outside the Church, as Salza & Siscoe claim, (quoting Billot, “only notorious heretics are excluded from the body of the Church.”); but also public heretics. Furthermore, whoever publicly defects from the Catholic faith, apart from any consideration of penal law, crime, or the imputability of the act, loses office ipso jure according to the prescription of Canon 194, § 1, 2°. The ipso jure loss of office takes place “by the action of the law itself”, and as Canon 188 n.4 prescribed, “automatically” (ipso facto) and “without any declaration” (sine ulla declaration), and from “whatsoever office” (quaelibet officia), because the loss of office ultimately does not result from any human law, but from the nature of heresy; as Bellarmine explains in the earlier cited passage: “Nam Patres illi cuм dicunt haereticos amittere jurisdictionem, non allegant ulla jura humana, quae etiam forte tunc nulla extabant de hac re: sed argumentantur ex natura haeresis.”
        Salza & Siscoe continue: «It should be further noted – and this is also a critical point - that notorious heresy does not sever a person from the Church because it is listed as a crime (delict) in canon law, or because of the censure of excommunication that the Church attaches to the crime . . . Rather, notorious heresy separates a person from the Church due to the nature of the public act itself, which severs a juridical bond (i.e., “profession of the faith”). Notorious heresy would sever a person from the Church even if it were not listed as a crime in canon law.” » As I explained above, it is in the nature of notorious heresy as an act of defection, and not as a crime, that it severs the juridical bond apart from any penal laws. Since Salza & Siscoe profess that the external act of heresy is in its nature a crime, according to them, the crime of notorious heresy severs the juridical bond and thus separates heretic from the body of the Church without a declaration – but if the crime is not public and notorious, then, according to Salza & Siscoe, the juridical bond is not severed automatically, but only by Church authority:     
«Now, in the case of a Catholic who is guilty of the sin of heresy and has even externalized his heresy, yet who is not deemed to be a notorious heretic by fact, he would still incur the censure of excommunication ipso facto (since the censure is even incurred by external occult heretics) but, in such a case, it would require a “pronounced judgment of the Church” (rendering him notorious by law), before he would be legally severed from the Body of the Church. The ipso facto excommunication he incurred (in the internal forum) would not, per se, have the juridical effect (in the external forum) of legally separating him from the visible society of the Church since, as Pope Benedict IV said, “a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty.” »
     Thus it is that Salza and Siscoe have fallen into heresy for their clearly heretical opinion that holds that a manifest formal heretic who is guilty of the public sin of heresy, but is not guilty of the crime of heresy canonically  notorious by fact (according to their own definition), remains a member of the Church until he is juridically judged to be a heretic, unless 1) he has left the Church by an explicit act of formal defection, or 2) has explicitly rejected the magisterium as the rule of faith, 3) has expressly admitted that his opinion is heretical. Those guilty of heresy, as they are defined in Canon 1325 § 2, if the sin is public, have publicly defected from the Catholic faith, and are therefore by the very nature of that act of defection, separated from the body of the Church, apart from the latae sentntiae censure prescribed in the canon. Such a defection provokes the ipso jure removal from ecclesiastical office (Canon 194, § 1, 2°). The proposition, «The ipso facto excommunication he incurred (in the internal forum) would not, per se, have the juridical effect (in the external forum) of legally separating him from the visible society of the Church since, as Pope Benedict IV said, “a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty,» is fallacious in so far as it presumes 1) on the basis of the previous sentence, that the “externalized” public sin of heresy, incurs an ipso facto excommunication “in the internal forum”, because “sin is internal” – and “the Church does not judge internals”. In fact, the public sin of heresy is an external sin, and its excommunication pertains to the external forum. However, notwithstanding the fact of the crime of external heresy and the penalty incurred by it, 2) the public sin of heresy, as an act of public defection from the Catholic faith, severs the juridical bond of union with the Church apart from any penal censure or any human law, as has been amply demonstrated above, and therefore, as Bellarmine explained in the above quoted passage, “heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.” For this reason, the public sin of manifest formal heresy of itself severs the juridical bond, and thus suapte natura produces the effect of legally separating the heretic from the visible society of the Church ipso jure, notwithstanding the merely penal requirement mentioned by Benedict IV, (“a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty”), which is merely necessary to confirm the penalty of excommunication, but not to effect the severing of the juridical bond – because heresy already separates one from the Church without any excommunication, i.e. by its very nature; and not “by legitimate authority”, i.e. by excommunication, as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 24, 2018, 07:52:52 AM
What Sean Johnson hasn't figured out is that the Salza/Siscoe critique of Fr. Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine is based on the totally gratuitous and false assumptions that, 1) Fr. Kramer does not understand Cajetan's argument, which Bellarmine refutes. (Although Salza & Siscoe speak only of Bellarmine's "attempted refutation" of Cajetan.) Cajetan's argument is presented in my book. I know perfectly well what Bellarmine was refuting; and I present a much more in depth critical examination of Bellarmine's doctrine on this point than anyone else who is writing on the topic at the present time; and 2) that Fr. Kramer fails to take into account Bellarmine's refutation of the Second Opinion; according to which a pope who is put into the papacy by men is not removed from the papacy without the judgment of men. I have fully explained this point in Part III of my soon to be published book; which is that a secret heretic cannot simply fall from office in the manner of a manifest heretic who publlicly defects from the faith and ceases by himself to be pope. Only when the formal heresy becomes publicly manifest can an officeholder in the Church fall from office automatically (ipso facto); without any declaration (sine ulla declaratione), and without any judgment by authority, but by operation of the law itself (ipso jure); as is explicitly set forth in canon 188 n. 4 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and is so explained in the 1952 Commentary the Pontifical Faculty of the University of Salamanca, (and remains the same in the 1983 Code, as Ecclesiastical Faculty Canon Law of the University of Navarre explain in their 2005 Commentary). Salza & Siscoe have exhumed a defunct opinion that was totally abandoned after Vatican I (Pastor Æternus) solemnly defined that the pope is the supreme judge in ALL CASES THAT REFER TO ECCLESIASTICAL EXAMINATION , and condemns the proposition that anyone can reject his judgment or judge against his judgment; or appeal to an ecuмenical council against his judgment:

Constitutio Dogmatica «Pastor Aeternus» Concilii Vaticani I: Et quoniam divino Apostolici primatus iure Romanus Pontifex universae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus etiam et declaramus, eum esse iudicem supremum fidelium (Pii PP. VI Breve, Super soliditate d. 28 Nov. 1786), et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus ad ipsius posse iudicium recurri (Concil. Oecuм. Lugdun. II); Sedis vero Apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maior non est, iudicium a nemine fore retractandum, neque cuiquam de eius licere iudicare iudicio (Ep. Nicolai 1 ad Michaelem Imporatorem). Quare a recto veritatis tramite aberrant, qui affirmant, licere ab iudiciis Romanorum Pontificuм ad oecuмenicuм Concilium tamquam ad auctoritatem Romano Pontifice superiorem appellare.

   The definition makes no allowance for any exception; and its wording positively excludes such an interpretation; ERGO: The Salza/Siscoe doctrine which professes against the above quoted dogmatic definition, to wit, that papal heresy is an exception to the doctrine of papal injudicability defined in the quoted text of that Dogmatic Constitution, is HERESY.


Don Paolo,

Why do you speak of Fr. Kramer in the third person? You ARE, Fr. Kramer. You were exposed a few years ago when you came coming back under different names to support your own position. If you believe what you post, sign your name to it. 

I have not read your posts yet but you should speak for yourself. You have used your name before on CathInfo. Use it and take full responsibility  for your statements.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Don Paolo on April 24, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
It is not uncommon for a writer to refer to himself in the 3rd person. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 24, 2018, 11:23:29 AM
You really need to stop posting, Drew.  You do nothing but embarrass yourself more with each post.

So St. Thomas was a heretic for not believing in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?  After all, it has always been dogma.  So if dogma is the rule of faith, then he was a heretic, right?

I assume that you would respond that it's because the dogma was not yet proximate to him, right?  At the time, that particular dogma was not the proximate rule of faith for him.
You have turned into a complete moron. Yuk.
 
Yes, it has always been a dogma.

As Pope Pius IX puts it:

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts........


And indeed, illustrious docuмents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner — this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient docuмents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning. -  Pope BI. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 24, 2018, 11:32:01 AM
Do you know the difference between "doctrine" and "dogma"?

It was a doctrine before (as Pius IX is teaching here).

It becomes a DOGMA once the INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH DEFINES IT SO.
  
:facepalm:
What has happened to you?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 11:34:45 AM
You have turned into a complete moron. Yuk.
 
Yes, it has always been a dogma.

As Pope Pius IX puts it:

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts........


And indeed, illustrious docuмents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner — this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient docuмents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning. -  Pope BI. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus
He said it's always been a dogma you blithering idiot. That was exactly his point. It has always been a dogma and yet St. Thomas was not a heretic for not believing it. Because it had not yet been defined in the infallible Magisterium. But now that it has been, any Catholic who denies it would be a heretic. 

Ergo, Magisterium is the rule of faith, as it is your adherence to the Magisterium that decides whether you are a heretic or not, as proven by Ladislaus' example of St. Thomas.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 24, 2018, 11:51:38 AM
From the CE under the entry "dogma":

What is the condition of a "dogma" before it is proposed and defined solemnly by the Church as such?

Dogmas are "revealed truths" but until they are not defined by the Infallible Magisterium as such, they are not DOGMAS.

That is why St. Thomas was not a heretic for not believing in the Immaculate Conception because at the time the dogma had not been defined yet by the Church.
A Dogma is nothing other than a doctrine, solemnly defined by the pope. It is not whatever the pope or the pope in union with the bishops teach.

St. Thomas was not a heretic for not believing it, but had he preached against that doctrine, he could have been a heretic if the Church judged him as one.  Now the Church could judge you and the poor Lad and the forlorn fool as heretics for preaching the NO "totality doctrine" as if it is a "Dogmatic truth", as you call it.

The reason your "totality doctrine" is heresy is because in order to adhere to that NO doctrine, you MUST reject defined dogma, which is exactly what you have been doing.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 24, 2018, 01:04:44 PM
Subborn, just admit it.  You have no idea what we're even arguing about and what it's implications are.
Nope, you've turned into a complete moron alright. You are so screwed up that you don't even realize half the crap your pushing is pure Novus Ordo lies and the other half is a mixture of truth with lies - hence, your firm belief in sededoubtism. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 01:21:48 PM
A Dogma is nothing other than a doctrine, solemnly defined by the pope. It is not whatever the pope or the pope in union with the bishops teach.

St. Thomas was not a heretic for not believing it, but had he preached against that doctrine, he could have been a heretic if the Church judged him as one.  Now the Church could judge you and the poor Lad and the forlorn fool as heretics for preaching the NO "totality doctrine" as if it is a "Dogmatic truth", as you call it.

The reason your "totality doctrine" is heresy is because in order to adhere to that NO doctrine, you MUST reject defined dogma, which is exactly what you have been doing.
Again you completely dodge the point. If one today did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, they would be a heretic. They do not have to preach against it, holding heretical beliefs is sufficient to be a heretic. But as you yourself said, St. Thomas was not a heretic despite not believing in the Immaculate Conception.
So what changed? The Immaculate Conception was dogmatically defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium. That proves that it is adherence to the Magisterium or lack thereof that decide whether one is a heretic or not. One can have beliefs that are contrary to the truth, such as St. Thomas had, but if said truths(such as the Immaculate Conception) have not yet been defined by the infallible Magisterium, then one is not a heretic for said beliefs. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 24, 2018, 01:34:27 PM
Again you completely dodge the point. If one today did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, they would be a heretic. They do not have to preach against it, holding heretical beliefs is sufficient to be a heretic. But as you yourself said, St. Thomas was not a heretic despite not believing in the Immaculate Conception.
So what changed? The Immaculate Conception was dogmatically defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium. That proves that it is adherence to the Magisterium or lack thereof that decide whether one is a heretic or not. One can have beliefs that are contrary to the truth, such as St. Thomas had, but if said truths(such as the Immaculate Conception) have not yet been defined by the infallible Magisterium, then one is not a heretic for said beliefs.
You have a Novus Ordo understanding of the whole issue. This means that you can discus this issue at length and on the same merry-go-round as poor Lad and get just as far as he's gotten - right into sededoubtism.

As for what dogma is and when to believe it - all you need to do is confirm that all the bishops in the world are in union with the pope when whatever he / they teaches suits you - because that is what you say is dogma, everyone else is a heretic. Remember now?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 01:46:36 PM
You have a Novus Ordo understanding of the whole issue. This means that you can discus this issue at length and on the same merry-go-round as poor Lad and get just as far as he's gotten - right into sededoubtism.

As for what dogma is and when to believe it - all you need to do is confirm that all the bishops in the world are in union with the pope when whatever he / they teaches suits you - because that is what you say is dogma, everyone else is a heretic. Remember now?
Nice try, but the Immaculate Conception was defined ex cathedra. 

Now please address the issue instead of dodging it. What was it, if not the defining of the dogma ex cathedra(i.e by the Extraordinary Magisterium), that made St. Thomas not a heretic but someone who denies the same truth today a heretic?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 24, 2018, 01:49:49 PM
The Immaculate Conception has been a feast of the Church on December 8th for Centuries, since WAY before it was defined in the 1800s.  It has been an IMPLICIT part of the Faith since Apostolic times.  St Thomas Aquinas never denied this truth; he never denied that Our Lady had a special grace, or that She was sinless from birth.  What was being debated was when conception occurred and when the soul was infused, which St Thomas thought was AFTER the physical cells had formed.  The Church, by defining this dogma, clarified in a sense, (and in advance of the age of abortion) that life began at conception.  Before that time, scientists debated when life actually happened. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 01:52:21 PM
The Immaculate Conception has been a feast of the Church on December 8th for Centuries, since WAY before it was defined in the 1800s.  It has been an IMPLICIT part of the Faith since Apostolic times.  St Thomas Aquinas never denied this truth; he never denied that Our Lady had a special grace, or that She was sinless from birth.  What was being debated was when conception occurred and when the soul was infused, which St Thomas thought was AFTER the physical cells had formed.  The Church, by defining this dogma, clarified in a sense, (and in advance of the age of abortion) that life began at conception.  Before that time, scientists debated when life actually happened.
Indeed it has. But since it had not been defined by the infallible Magisterium, St. Thomas was not a heretic for his false beliefs. And yet someone with the same beliefs today would be. Showing that Magisterium is the rule of faith. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 24, 2018, 02:25:40 PM
The distinction you are not making is that the Church issues dogmas to CLARIFY the truths that have been around since the beginning.  It's not accurate to say that these truths could be denied in the past; it is only accurate to say they were not believed IN THE SAME LEVEL OF DETAIL that they are required to be now.

The protestants like to accuse the pope of issuing "new" dogmas.  Of course, the pope does not have the power to do so, nor does he actually do so, because the Church has TRADITION, which the Protestants reject.  ALL TRUTHS of the Faith have been around since Apostolic times.  It is only after the Apostles that the Church CLARIFIES and adds DETAILS to such Truths, as necessary, (usually when they come under attack from heretics).  But ALL TRUTHS have been around, and must be believed implicitly as part of our Faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 02:56:46 PM
The distinction you are not making is that the Church issues dogmas to CLARIFY the truths that have been around since the beginning.  It's not accurate to say that these truths could be denied in the past; it is only accurate to say they were not believed IN THE SAME LEVEL OF DETAIL that they are required to be now.

The protestants like to accuse the pope of issuing "new" dogmas.  Of course, the pope does not have the power to do so, nor does he actually do so, because the Church has TRADITION, which the Protestants reject.  ALL TRUTHS of the Faith have been around since Apostolic times.  It is only after the Apostles that the Church CLARIFIES and adds DETAILS to such Truths, as necessary, (usually when they come under attack from heretics).  But ALL TRUTHS have been around, and must be believed implicitly as part of our Faith.
Exactly. The truths have always been around. And yet St. Thomas was not a heretic for believing contrary to certain truths of the faith, as said truths had not been dogmatically defined by the Magisterium. But if one were to deny the Immaculate Conception now, they would be a heretic. The Immaculate Conception was just as true in St. Thomas' time as it is now, but if the Magisterium does not teach something then we are not heretics for not believing in that thing. Ergo the Magisterium is the rule of faith. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 24, 2018, 02:58:32 PM
Nice try, but the Immaculate Conception was defined ex cathedra.

Now please address the issue instead of dodging it. What was it, if not the defining of the dogma ex cathedra(i.e by the Extraordinary Magisterium), that made St. Thomas not a heretic but someone who denies the same truth today a heretic?
The dogma was defined, not invented. The Immaculate Conception of Our Lady always was one of the doctrines of the Church, it was never some new idea, some new concoction or pious innovation that the pope in union with all the bishops of the world decided to make a dogma. But that is how you and Cantarella and Lad preach the whole process works. Ridiculous!

Yes, all the bishops and cardinals petitioned the pope that it was finally time to actually solemnly define it, but it was already something the Church always and everywhere taught since the time of the Apostles. This is what it says in Ineffabilis Deus.

This doctrine was always taught and believed because this doctrine was and will always remain in the ordinary and universal magisterium - were it otherwise, it could not have been solemnly defined. Do you understand this?

This means that the certainty we have of the Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Mother, whether defined ex cathedra or not, was, is and will forever be, among those teachings included in "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world," i.e. the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The Immaculate Conception was always one of those "points of doctrine" that Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter when he said we must submit ourselves 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: Pax Vobis on April 24, 2018, 03:27:49 PM
Can someone deny that Adam and Eve were our first parents?  Can we deny that St Joseph was Our Lord's foster father?  Of course not.  These are CONSTANT teachings, which means they are part of Tradition, which means they are part of the INFALLIBLE (non-solemn) universal magisterium.  (It is universal, because it's been believed 'everywhere, always and by all').  The immaculate conception has always been part of Tradition; the details of the denial would determine the scope of the error.  I don't know how the Church handled such cases in the past.  Would someone who denied the immaculate conception outright have been a heretic?  Yes, objectively speaking.  Because he would've denied an article of the faith, which had been part of the Church's law of prayer and part of the liturgy.

The law of prayer determines the law of belief.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 24, 2018, 03:59:57 PM
So if someone in 1250 had denied the Immaculate Conception he would have been a heretic and outside the Church?
I am 100% with Pope Pius IX's teaching when it comes to this, he says we are obliged in conscience to submit to this and other teachings not solemnly defined which are contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium. According to the pope, we will be guilty of serious error, perhaps even heresy if we deny teachings contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium, even though they are not solemnly defined.

As for the fate of someone who denied the Immaculate Conception in 1250, I will repeat what the pope said regarding points of doctrine not infallibly defined, but "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."

One of the many reasons the pope solemnly defines a doctrine, is to erase all opposing opinions - for all time. None of the conciliar popes have ever attempted any such thing - except for JP2's decree prohibiting the ordination of women. 



Quote
PS -- nobody is saying that the Church's definition invented the dogma, just that it made it obligatory for faith and endowed it with the requisite absolute certainty required of supernatural faith.  In other words, it's the Magisterium which acts as the proximate rule of faith.
When you have a NO doctrine that Cantarella calls a "dogma of faith" and you say you believe the same as her (I'm speaking of this NO doctrine of whatever all the bishops in the world in union with the pope teach is infallible), that is exactly what you are saying.

You are saying that whatever they all unanimously teach, is infallible because a)they are the magisterium and/or b) whatever they teach becomes the magisterium. This is all entirely NO - but IF IT WERE IN FACT A DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, then IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for them to EVER teach heresy because WHATEVER they teach is protected from error and is just as infallible of a teaching as the Immaculate Conception is - ergo, V2 and the NO is infallible and YOU are in heresy - that's IF this "totality doctrine" is indeed a dogma of faith, which it isn't.




 

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 24, 2018, 07:34:32 PM

Quote
Let's concede that someone who denied the Immaculate Conception before its definition was an objective/material heretic...You wouldn't say that he was a formal heretic, however, would you?
Agree, probably not a formal heretic.  If some dude was just running around saying all matter of things against the Blessed Virgin, then he would've been told to stop, I'm sure.  Had he kept going, I'm sure he would've been set straight or else.  But this is hypothetical; I have no idea.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 24, 2018, 09:04:36 PM
You really need to stop posting, Drew.  You do nothing but embarrass yourself more with each post.

So St. Thomas was a heretic for not believing in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?  After all, it has always been dogma.  So if dogma is the rule of faith, then he was a heretic, right?

I assume that you would respond that it's because the dogma was not yet proximate to him, right?  At the time, that particular dogma was not the proximate rule of faith for him.

But, hmmmm, WHAT made it proximate to Catholics so that now denying it is in fact heresy whereas it wasn't proximate for St. Thomas and was not heresy for him?  Hmmmm.  Oh, yeah, right, the Church DEFINED it at some point.  Yes, the Church, indeed, the Pope.

So that, the Church's teaching and definition, is what turns dogma from the state of being non-heretical to reject to the state of being heretical to reject.  It's the Church's definition that is the PROXIMATE RULE that makes it heretical to deny it.

You at one point claimed that what "Proximate" meant for a dogma was that it was "close in time" to Revelation?   :laugh1:  And you were dead serious.  No, proximate doesn't mean close in time to Revelation, but close to our intellects for belief ... the complete opposite of being close to the revealed truth.  Remote/Proximate are in relation to our acceptance of it and not in relation to God's revealing of it.  

So you have the basic TERMS under discussion here completely BACKWARDS and you have the hubris to lecture us about what they mean.

:jester:

Ladislaus,
 
Time and again you make fundamental errors in essentials.  You do not even know the definition of heresy and yet you freely make it an accusation against others. Your entire post is nothing more than an effort to justify your repeated claim that the “Magisterium is the rule of faith.”  You did the same thing before when you claimed that the “Magisterium was not part of divine revelation.”  That colossal error had the same motivation.  Once again you are willing to sacrifice truth on the altar of your vanity.
 
Dogma is revealed doctrine defined by the Magisterium that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  It is the denial of Dogma that makes a baptized person a heretic.  This is the definition of heresy.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  Those that do not keep Dogma as the rule of faith are heretics. Since the definition can be transposed, it is an identity.  Heretics do not keep Dogma as the rule of faith. 
 
But you have perfectly corrupted this definition just as you corrupted the definition of supernatural faith.  You claimed that those who do keep Dogma as the rule of faith are heretics because as you said, in post #291:

Quote
"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." (sic)
Ladisalus

Dogma is the Magisterium giving definitive judgment on the definition of divine revelation.  Once given, it is immutable in both its form and matter.  Those who claim that Dogma must be 'reinterpreted by the Magisterium' are denying its immutability and thus its infallibility.  Accusing those who accept the Dogma as received from the Magisterium of entering into "private judgment" have no idea what Dogma is.  Your claim that the faithful who accept the literal meaning of Dogma are engaging in “private interpretation” of Dogma and therefore are “Protestants” which makes them “heretics,” is just another of your stupid Ladislausisms.

For St. Thomas the Immaculate Conception was a divinely revealed doctrine that had not been formally defined by the Church. It was for him a misunderstanding of the remote rule of faith, a formal object of divine faith. St. Thomas therefore was guilty only of material heresy because he misunderstood the remote rule of faith on this truth.  If St. Thomas were alive today and persisted in his denial of this Dogma, he would today be a formal heretic.
  
Ladislaus said:

Quote
“No, proximate doesn't mean close in time to Revelation, but close to our intellects for belief ... the complete opposite of being close to the revealed truth.  Remote/Proximate are in relation to our acceptance of it and not in relation to God's revealing of it.”
Ladislaus

Your explanation of the word “proximate” is, well, mindless.  “Proximate” is a relative term meaning closer in time or space to some comparative object.  It is only understood contextually contrasted with what is “remote.”  To use the term “proximate” to mean “close to our intellects for belief” is meaningless.  The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition because they are the primary sources of divine revelation historically revealed in time.  Dogma is divine revelation that has been formally defined by the Church therefore its objective matter is the divine revelation that came before the definition in time.  Not only does proximate not mean, “close to our intellects for belief,” it does not mean, “close in time to Revelation” without a comparative term of what then is “remote in time to Revelation.”  Scripture, Tradition and Dogma are all parts of divine revelation and constitute the rule of faith. Dogma is revelation formally defined that occurs later in time.  The fact that Dogma offers greater clarity has nothing to do with "proximity."
 
As I said in the last post:
Should anyone be surprised that you do not know the definition of heresy?  After all, you are the one who did not know the definition of "supernatural faith."  Remember? I had to correct you on that one.  And, after all, you are the one who thought that the “Magisterium was not part of (the content) of divine revelation." And after that big mistake, you thought that the “Magisterium was not part of (the act) of divine revelation," an even bigger mistake.  You are the guy who did not even know what hylomorphism means and that if you split the form and matter of a material being you cause a substantial change.  From that big blunder you split the definition of faith dividing its two necessary attributes that make supernatural faith what it is.  And then you split the office of the pope dividing its form and matter and thought no one would notice that you destroyed it.

Since heresy is failure to keep the faith, and you do not even know what supernatural faith is or that Dogma is the proximate rule of faith, how could you possible know what heresy is?

You know what Ladislaus? All the S&Sers can get together and elect you as their pope and then everything you say will become necessarily true.
 
Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 24, 2018, 09:26:10 PM

Quote
 St. Thomas therefore was guilty only of material heresy because he misunderstood the remote rule of faith on this truth.
I think he was not guilty of ANY heresy at all.  He was debating a specific area of the doctrine which had yet to be defined, ie when is the soul infused into the body of a child? 

Just like nowadays when we debate the intricacies of BOD/justification, we are allowed to do so because certain, specific facts are not yet understood.  As long as we hold the Traditions/dogmas related to Baptism, heresy is not part of the discussion.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on April 24, 2018, 10:37:51 PM

Don Paolo,

Why do you speak of Fr. Kramer in the third person? You ARE, Fr. Kramer. 
I don't really think he is trying to mask his identity at all. He already had posted this publicly on his Facebook page before he commented publicly about having posted it here. No need to get all aggressive about it. Especially when you consider that "Don" and the first name is the normal way of naming a priest in Italian. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 25, 2018, 05:21:09 AM


He has an account on CathInfo on his own name, why not use it? I have witnessed Fr. Kramer using different names (2 or 3) to support his own position and being exposed as Fr. Kramer only 2-3 years ago.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 25, 2018, 06:33:01 AM
No, the Immaculate Conception was not held as divinely revealed by the OUM.  Otherwise, there need not even have been a solemn definition.
I told you one of the reasons for solemn definition - "One of the many reasons the pope solemnly defines a doctrine, is to erase all opposing opinions - for all time."

Go back and actually read my post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg605531/#msg605531) quoting Pope Pius IX from Ineffabilis Deus and you will find he explains it most beautifully, I quoted a part of it below for you. He literally says that the Catholic Church has ever held the Immaculate Conception as divinely revealed. Where he says "and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation", he is saying the doctrine has always been contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium - that's what he is saying.

Why are you saying it was not held as divinely revealed by the OUM? I assume by that, you mean it was never held as divinely revealed by the Church, so what you are saying as if it is truth, is a word for word contradiction of the below infallible teaching.

"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.." - Ineffabilis Deus

What you cannot accept is what the Church, in this instance through Pope Pius IX, teaches, namely, whether or not the teaching is contained in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium or the Extraordinary Magisterium, they are both infallible. There is no difference because the Church's Magisterium is only always infallible.

Contrary to the NO ideas you keep promoting as Church teachings and all theologians' teachings and the magisterium's teachings and dogma of faith teachings, dogmas are defined, not not made up, not by popes and not by the totality of bishops in union with the pope. Dogmas are truths or doctrines, that have always been contained in the Church's Magisterium, just exactly as pope Pius IX teaches.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 25, 2018, 07:11:04 AM
I don't really think he is trying to mask his identity at all. He already had posted this publicly on his Facebook page before he commented publicly about having posted it here. No need to get all aggressive about it. Especially when you consider that "Don" and the first name is the normal way of naming a priest in Italian.
I wonder if he realizes that he posted his comments in the wrong thread though.  Wouldn't his response make more sense if it was included in the other SJ thread?
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/are-sedevacantists-clueless-about-st-bellarmine's-true-position/
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Don Paolo on April 25, 2018, 11:32:04 AM
Whoever says I have another account under a different name than the name on this account is stating a falsehood.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 25, 2018, 12:07:44 PM
Quote
You reduce the non-infallible Magisterium to nothing more than a man or a group of men opining about various doctrinal matters.
The magisterium can be infallible outside of solemn pronouncements.  One of the ways is the determination that something has been taught 'everywhere, always and by all'.  This means that such teaching is CONSTANT (i.e. taught everywhere) and UNIVERSAL (taught always) and TRADITIONAL (i.e. taught by all the Apostles or all the Church Fathers).

The non-infallible magisterium, IF IT CANNOT SHOW THAT ITS TEACHING IS CONSTANT, UNIVERSAL AND TRADITIONAL, can be questioned or ignored, as the situation deems necessary.

You cannot elevate the non-fallible magisterium to more than religious assent (i.e. a respected opinion) unless it agrees with the above 3 conditions.  And it is the DUTY of the magisterium to MAKE IT CLEAR that their teaching fulfills the above 3 conditions, otherwise they have not shown it is a 'matter of faith' but just thier opinion.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 25, 2018, 12:08:18 PM
What an utterly dishonest liar you are, Drew.  It was apparent that you misunderstood my use of the term REVELATION and that you were using in the sense of "truths revealed" whereas I was using it to mean "God's act or process of revealing".  You then denied that it could have the second sense, claiming that I was ignorant of English ... all to promote your ridiculous ad hominem narrative that I had committed some kind of "colossal error".  Then I shut you up (but I guess only temporarily) with a post from Dictionary.com which lists MY use of the term revelation as definition #1 while yours was definition #2.  So much for my ignorance of English.

You are a liar and a calumniator.  You started out with the lie that we hold the Pope to be the rule of faith whereas we clearly said it was the Magisterium.  Then you backed down for a while, but then kept reasserting this lie.

You are really a disgrace.  You are the one who's absolutely consumed with vanity ... to the point of promoting Protestant heresy rather than admitting a mistake you made editorializing on some public blog.

Let's revisit this briefly, since you continue with your calumny.  Dictionary.com:
So the meaning that I was using for the term "revelation" is listed as #1 above ... which I cited to you after you claimed that it could no be used that way and that I was ignorant of English.

And, despite the above, you continue to falsely accuse me of heresy, asserting that I claimed that the Magisterium is not #2, a revealed truth.  And I explicitly rejected the heretical proposition of which you accused me as being false and indeed heretical.

You so commit a grave sin now by falsely accusing me of Protestant heresy yet again ... AFTER this has been brought to your attention.

I demand a public retraction and apology.  And you need to go to Confession, buddy.

Matthew-

In the last few days, I’ve watched this Ladislaus guy call several people liars, idiots, disgraced, and calumniators:

Me, Samuel, Drew, Pax Vobis (and presumably anyone else who might come forward to oppose him in the future).

And while your stated purpose for letting  
sedes post is because you want high traffic, ironically, their bitter spirit is chasing the more intelligent traffic away, while attracting all manner of fringe craziness (sede, flat earth, etc).

The result is a qualitative decline in the quality of post, and as already mentioned, CI is known today more as a sedevacantist forum than a Resistance forum.

Sorry to see it being run into the ground, but who wants to attack the sede errors if he will be machine gunned with insults?

You just banned some lady for liking Fox News, etc., but the sede clout here apparently exempts them from threat of same, despite the most persistent and outrageous behavior?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 25, 2018, 12:14:13 PM
Quote
The result is a qualitative decline in the quality of post,
Ladislaus has great posts and I have learned very much from his views, even those I occassionally disagree with.  He just has an annoyingly bad habit of calling people names.  He shouldn't be banned for this but I wish he would act more mature and stick to the facts.  

Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys aren't allowed to call each other names but must control their temper and act civilly, else nothing would ever be decided in a court room.  In the same way, I wish we could all just stick to evidence and have adult conversations, but that's a pipe dream I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 25, 2018, 12:52:38 PM
Wow.

I guess Matthew has found the “loud and
proud” sedes he was looking for.

Enjoy your sedes Matthew: They are now your primary contributors.

Hasta luego.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 25, 2018, 01:08:49 PM


And while your stated purpose for letting  
sedes post is because you want high traffic, ironically, their bitter spirit is chasing the more intelligent traffic away, while attracting all manner of fringe craziness (sede, flat earth, etc).

At least we flat-earthers support the Resistance, for the most part, and the good legacy left us by Archbishop Lefebvre. Whereas most sedes do not support the Resistance, nor +ABL. I think it's an important distinction. But support for the Resistance doesn't really seem to matter to many here. The Resistance is really just a side topic that doesn't seem to appeal to anyone anymore. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 25, 2018, 01:18:50 PM
Why don't you stop whining and better learn your position instead, so you can represent the Resistance with actual solid theological arguments?

You are a silly woman. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 25, 2018, 01:24:05 PM
There's no probably about it.  Someone who didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception before its definition would most certainly not on that account have been a formal heretic.

So the question is WHY?

You guys keep evading the question of what exactly the role of the Magisterium is if it's not the Proximate Rule of Faith.  You reduce the non-infallible Magisterium to nothing more than a man or a group of men opining about various doctrinal matters.  Stubborn here said that he would give "submission" to some anonymous poster here on CI as much as he would to the Magisterium ... because what he was submitting to was the truth and not to the teaching authority.  How absurd!  Some of you guys have completely lost any concept of what Catholic Magisterium actually is.
What is absurd is that you word for word contradict Pope Pius IX's teaching on the matter, ignore correction, site NO doctrines as if they are dogma, and call being bound to truth absurd. That's what is absurd.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Mr G on April 25, 2018, 01:45:26 PM
It is not uncommon for a writer to refer to himself in the 3rd person.
Hello Fr. Kramer,
What is your take on Father Ringrose's new position which (if I understand correctly) he seems to recognize Pope Francis as a Pope without valid jurisdiction, a Pope in name only.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hismajesty on April 25, 2018, 03:49:20 PM
I can't help but laugh at this one ^^^

Sean Johnson and Samuel have proven that they can't handle any type of discourse - so instead, like little children they pick up their toys and leave. 

What a bunch of babies... 

Amen to that.

They are wrong that Sedes are the primary contributers. Matthew has shown that in another post.

Hopefully reasonable people will see them (sean and Samuel) for what they are, and at the same time learn to reject Sedevacantism, which tends towards schism IMHO.

Now lets get back to talking about flat earth....
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Don Paolo on April 25, 2018, 04:38:03 PM
Hello Fr. Kramer,
What is your take on Father Ringrose's new position which (if I understand correctly) he seems to recognize Pope Francis as a Pope without valid jurisdiction, a Pope in name only.
I have not read his article, but if a man is a valid pope, it is impossible for him not to have jurisdiction. In virtue of his holding the office, the pope possesses the "fullness of power" (plenitudo potestatis). If it is doubtful whether a man is pope or not, he would morally not be able to demand obedience to his laws or precepts. A true and valid pope who manifests material heresy would by that fact be suspect of formal heresy, and therefore would become a doubtful pope (papa dubius). Since his jurisdiction would be doubtful, no one could be morally obligated to obey his laws or precepts; but if he were in fact only materially in heresy, he would still objectively possess papal jurisdiction; but no one would be morally obligated to obey him. Francis is certainly not a valid pope: First, because Benedict XVI did not unequivocally renounce the papal munus as is required as a condition for a valid renunciation of office (can. 332). Benedict has maintained his claim on the munus in the manner he stated he would in Feb. 2013. Secondly, if Francis had ever validly held office, he would have already lost office for having publicly lapsed into manifest formal heresy. No other papal claimant in history has ever manifested such inexcusable pertinacity in explicit heresy as Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio; who not only professes heretical doctrines like the conciliar popes have done, but explicitly, unequivocally, and adamantly, not merely contradicts, but outright rejects dogma. This point will be explained at length in vol. 2 of my book. As Bellarmine, Ballerini, and Cappellari (Gregory XVI), explain, such a one would fall from office, and manifest by his obstinate heresy, that he had (in Ballerini's words) "in some manner abdicated" the supreme pontificate. This doctrine of tacit abdication was incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and remains essentially unchanged in the 1983 Code. Such loss of office takes place ipso facto, i.e. automatically; ipso jure, i.e. by operation of the law itself; and therefore, sine ulla declaratione, without any judgment pronounced by competent authority -- as set forth in canon 188 n. 4 (and explained by the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca in their 1952 commentary); and similarly explained in the 2005 commentary of Canon Law of the Ecclesiastical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Navarra.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Mr G on April 25, 2018, 04:51:10 PM
I have not read his article, but if a man is a valid pope, it is impossible for him not to have jurisdiction. In virtue of his holding the office, the pope possesses the "fullness of power" (plenitudo potestatis). If it is doubtful whether a man is pope or not, he would morally not be able to demand obedience to his laws or precepts. A true and valid pope who manifests material heresy would by that fact be suspect of formal heresy, and therefore would become a doubtful pope (papa dubius). Since his jurisdiction would be doubtful, no one could be morally obligated to obey his laws or precepts; but if he were in fact only materially in heresy, he would still objectively possess papal jurisdiction; but no one would be morally obligated to obey him. Francis is certainly not a valid pope: First, because Benedict XVI did not unequivocally renounce the papal munus as is required as a condition for a valid renunciation of office (can. 332). Benedict has maintained his claim on the munus in the manner he stated he would in Feb. 2013. Secondly, if Francis had ever validly held office, he would have already lost office for having publicly lapsed into manifest formal heresy. No other papal claimant in history has ever manifested such inexcusable pertinacity in explicit heresy as Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio; who not only professes heretical doctrines like the conciliar popes have done, but explicitly, unequivocally, and adamantly, not merely contradicts, but outright rejects dogma. This point will be explained at length in vol. 2 of my book. As Bellarmine, Ballerini, and Cappellari (Gregory XVI), explain, such a one would fall from office, and manifest by his obstinate heresy, that he had (in Ballerini's words) "in some manner abdicated" the supreme pontificate. This doctrine of tacit abdication was incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and remains essentially unchanged in the 1983 Code. Such loss of office takes place ipso facto, i.e. automatically; ipso jure, i.e. by operation of the law itself; and therefore, sine ulla declaratione, without any judgment pronounced by competent authority -- as set forth in canon 188 n. 4 (and explained by the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca in their 1952 commentary); and similarly explained in the 2005 commentary of Canon Law of the Ecclesiastical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Navarra.
Thank you for your reply and explanation.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 25, 2018, 05:05:34 PM
I can't help but laugh at this one ^^^

Sean Johnson and Samuel have proven that they can't handle any type of discourse - so instead, like little children they pick up their toys and leave.  

What a bunch of babies...  
:baby:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 25, 2018, 05:09:56 PM
Wow.

I guess Matthew has found the “loud and
proud” sedes he was looking for.

Enjoy your sedes Matthew: They are now your primary contributors.

Hasta luego.
Bummer.  I was hoping Matthew might consider banning you for your dogmatic sedeplenism.  You know implying fellow Catholics (sedes) are non-Catholic and referring to them as a sect?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: JPaul on April 25, 2018, 06:08:48 PM
I hope you folks bear all of this in mind when the next "catchetical refutation" enters the discourse.    :facepalm:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 25, 2018, 07:00:51 PM
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).

 
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.  Ecuмenical councils historically begin with the common recitation of the Credo and then affirm the dogmatic declarations of previous councils. What these ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical councils individually said:
 
 
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

This is a reply to Lasislaus reply 1431.
Ladislaus statement and Drew's reply on page 20.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 25, 2018, 07:45:10 PM
Accept correction from the likes of you ... who has stated that he would give the same submission to a poster on CI as he would to the Magisterium?
Accept correction when you are wrong - wherever it comes from. The reason you accept it is because you are wrong, that's how it's supposed to work for Catholics. Since you've grown away from the faith and into a Moron, you reject it because of where it comes from, in this case, the pope - your rule of faith.

You need to read it again so it can work on whatever Catholic conscience you might still have left. Read you own defiant word contradicting of the most beautiful and infallible teachings of the pope, your rule of faith.

Lad said: "No, the Immaculate Conception was not held as divinely revealed by the OUM.  Otherwise, there need not even have been a solemn definition."

Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus said: "The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin


Hopefully you will actually spend a few seconds reading the above comparison of your Ladism with the teaching of the pope, see how terribly misguided you are in your thinking and at least consider swallowing your stupid pride and submitting wholly to the judgement of the Church.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 25, 2018, 08:07:46 PM
Pathetic, SeanJohnnson.

Drew is objectively guilty of calumny.  He has accused me of embracing the Protestant heresy that the Magisterium is not revealed truth, and then has persisted in this calumny after I demonstrated to him that I did no such thing.  His accusation was based on his ignorance of the English language.  I corrected him with with a citation from dictionary.com which showed my use of the term as definition #1, and his definition #2.  Yet even after that he persists in making this accusation, that I have embraced and promoted this heresy.


Ladislaus posted:

Quote
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »

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.

You made the claim that "the Magisterium is not part of God's revelation. Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation" after you read in the Catholic encyclopedia that the Magisterium was "extrinsic" to divine revelation.  You said it not once but several times.  After this unthinking blunder was corrected you pretended to be making an esoteric distinction between the "content of revelation" and the "act of revelation."  Unfortunately for your argument, the Magisterium is just as much a part of the "act of revelation" as it is a part of the "content of revelation."

The whole matter would have been dropped but for your arrogant attempt to lie your way out of a huge error.  Call it "calumny" if you like and I will keep re-posting your own words for the benefit of anyone thinking you know what you are talking about.


Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 25, 2018, 08:25:50 PM
Bellarmine clearly specifies the two most important elements involved in a Pontiff and he himself mentions an existing distinction between the "matter" (person) and the "form" (Divine Assistance) of the pontificate:

Cantarella,

Sedeprivationism concerns the office itself, not the person.  It postulates that the a person (the pope) can materially possess the office but not possess the jurisdiction (which is conferred upon the pope directly by God) of the office. It separates the form and the matter of the office itself which would cause a substantial change in the office which God has revealed will exist and be perpetually occupied until the consummation of the world. This divine revelation has been formally defined by the Magisterium and is therefore a Dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hismajesty on April 26, 2018, 02:29:32 AM
Thank you for your reply and explanation.
The resistance position is clear. It has always been clear.
The last thing we need is Fr. Kramer couching his sedevacantism in legalistic arguments that no one cares about.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Regina on April 26, 2018, 03:37:03 AM
I welcome Fr. Paul's (Don Paolo's) view, and I hope he continues to post here at CathInfo.

We need to make informed decisions. Note, he is not saying that the Seat is empty as it is still occupied by Pope Benedict.
Thus, he is not a sedevacantist.

May God grant him many years.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 26, 2018, 12:41:30 PM


Ladislaus, are you dumb or just maliciously twisting what your opponents say?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: RomanTheo on April 26, 2018, 02:50:22 PM
Deleted (already addressed in this thread).
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: RomanTheo on April 26, 2018, 06:10:36 PM
No other papal claimant in history has ever manifested such inexcusable pertinacity in explicit heresy as Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio; who not only professes heretical doctrines like the conciliar popes have done, but explicitly, unequivocally, and adamantly, not merely contradicts, but outright rejects dogma. This point will be explained at length in vol. 2 of my book. As Bellarmine, Ballerini, and Cappellari (Gregory XVI), explain, such a one would fall from office, and manifest by his obstinate heresy, that he had (in Ballerini's words) "in some manner abdicated" the supreme pontificate. This doctrine of tacit abdication was incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and remains essentially unchanged in the 1983 Code. Such loss of office takes place ipso facto, i.e. automatically; ipso jure, i.e. by operation of the law itself; and therefore, sine ulla declaratione, without any judgment pronounced by competent authority -- as set forth in canon 188 n. 4.

Canon 188.4 can only be applied analogically to the case of a heretic pope.  For a more authoritative explanation of the loss of papal office for heresy, I recommend an article by Fr. Girlanda, the former rector of the Gregorian University, who holds a Ph.D in canon law, which he taught for at various faculties of the Gregorian for four decades.  

The article titled, which is title "The Vacancy of the Roman See", appeared in Civilta Cattolica in 2013, and was discussed by Roberto de Mattie at this years' Catholic Family News conference.  Professor de Mattie noted that Fr. Ghirlanda is neither a traditionalist nor a progressive, but is simply a scholar who had gathered and studied the past thousand years of canonical tradition concerning the loss of papal office. In the article, Fr. Ghirlanda explains that there are four ways the papal see can become vacant. He writes: 
 
Fr. Ghirlanda: “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation.  In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; in the second and in the third from the moment of the declaration on the part of the cardinals; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation."
 
Concerning numbers 2 and 3, he goes on to explain that because 'the first see is judged by no one', the Cardinals would not depose the Pope, but would only declare the fact of his heresy or insanity, at which time the see would become vacant.
 
Fr. Ghirlanda: “There is the case, admitted by doctrine, of notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, into which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but only when teaching as a “private doctor,” who does not demand the assent of the faithful ... However, in such cases, because ‘the first see is judged by no one’ (Canon 1404) no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but only a declaration of the fact would be had, which would have to be done by the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome. Such an eventuality, however, although foreseen in doctrine, is held to be totally unlikely (…) The certainty and the perpetuity of madness, like the totality of insanity, must be ascertained through accurate medical reports. The cessation from the primatial office would only be declared by the Cardinals, at least those present in Rome; therefore also in this case there would be no deposition.”
 
What Fr. Ghirlanda is saying is that if a pope falls into heresy or insanity, the Church does not remove him from office by deposing him.  Instead, the Cardinals ascertain and declare the fact of heresy or insanity, at which time the office becomes vacant ipso facto.  The loss of office does not occur until the Cardinals investigate and declare the fact.
 
It is also worth noting that an ipso facto deprivation differs from an ipso facto excommunication, since the latter does not require human judgment or a declaration, whereas the former does.  Cardinal Tommaso de Vio explains this distinction, and ovserves that it is the canonists.
 
“The power of jurisdiction is by man’s appointment: both giving it and taking it away belong to human judgment. I said ‘much less’ because more is required to incur deprivation ipso facto than to incur excommunication, since incurring the censure does not require a declaration, whereas incurring deprivation does, according to the canonists.”
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: MarylandTrad on April 26, 2018, 07:35:21 PM
The Tridentine Catechism makes mention of the existence of "many solemn rites and ceremonies" used in the Sacrifice of the Mass, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.

If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.
Cantarella, by holding that everything concerning the government of the liturgy is wholly a matter of mere Church discipline and by holding that the pope has the authority to create new rites for use in the solemn administration of the sacraments, you yourself are making the many "solemn rites and ceremonies" that Trent is referring to superfluous. If you think that the traditional rites can be omitted by pastors without sin and replaced by new ones then you obviously do not think that they are of great value. Drew, by expressing his belief that the received (traditional) and approved rites are necessary attributes of the Catholic faith without which the faith cannot be known or communicated to others, is showing that he understands the solemn rites to be the exact opposite of superfluous. By claiming that the pope has the authority to create a new rite of Mass you are essentially saying that if Pius XII (or whoever you consider the last true pope to have been) had created the Novus Ordo, then you would have been bound in consistency with your belief to accept the new rite as containing nothing that is not holy. You have left yourself no standard by which to judge otherwise. It is no surprise that many sedevacantists end up becoming practitioners of the Novus Ordo religion. You share the same error as the "conservatives."

To say that Trent's canons on the holiness of the ceremonies of the Mass apply to new rites is like saying that Trent's decree on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture applies to the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition of the Bible. Trent's decree on the inerrancy of Scripture applies no more to Bibles which are not the Latin Vulgate than does Trent's canons on the holiness of the ceremonies of the Mass apply to rites which have not been "received and approved" by the Church.

Vatican I infallibly teaches:

Quote
If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him: let him be anathema.

God has revealed that the "received and approved" rites are what should be used in the worship that should be shown him. You can try and attempt to make the word "received" meaningless but just know that doing so would be as grave a sin as making the word "outside" meaningless when explaining the sacred dogma of faith "Outside the Church there is no salvation." John Salza puts it well in his excellent article "The Novus Ordo Mass and Divine Law":


Quote
For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you…” (1Cor 11:23). St. Paul says again: “For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received” (1Cor 15:3). In these and other verses, St. Paul emphasizes that we must believe and practice only what we have “received” from Christ and the apostles which has been “delivered” unto us, and which includes the liturgical rites of the Church. This is a divinely revealed truth and a matter of Faith.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/divinelaw.htm

To hold that the received and approved rites can be replaced by other new ones is ultimately to deny that Catholicism is an incarnational religion. Fr. Michael Muller, CSSR wrote in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

Quote
Man being constituted of a body and a soul, it is just that the body, with its various capabilities, which are so many gifts of God, should come forward on the side of religion, especially as it is the nature of man to need external assistance to enable him to rise to the meditation of divine things.

Internal piety, therefore, requires to be excited and nourished by ceremonies, or certain sensible signs.

Moreover, every man ought to be religious and pious, not only so as to be conscious within himself that he worships God, but also to the extent of promoting the piety and instruction of his fellow-men, especially of those who are entrusted to his care; and this cannot be done, unless we profess by some external sign the intimate sense of religion with which we are animated.

In the ceremonial and discipline of the Church there is no part without its use. That which might seem the most trifling has its proper object, and serves in some way or other to promote habits of humility, order, patience, recollection, and religion, so as to build up the Catholic character. Hence the Fathers of the Council of Trent pronounce an anathema against all who should say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church may be despised or omitted ac libitum by the priests, or that they may be changed [to new ones] by any pastor of the churches [whomsoever]. A most important and incalculably beneficial sentence, which saves Catholic piety from being at the mercy of weak, ignorant, though perhaps well-meaning men, who, in proportion to their weakness and ignorance, are generally vain of being reformers or modifiers of ancient things.
https://archive.org/stream/holymasssacrific00ml#page/510/mode/2up/search/received+and+approved

You have always been one of my favorite posters on this forum, Cantarella, and I hope that you do not attribute a tone to my post which I do not intend to convey. I have prayed for you before I read that you became a sedevacantist and I will continue to pray for you now. Please keep me in your prayers.



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 03:31:04 AM
Why is it that you folks keep resorting to circular arguments?  It's not POSSIBLE for a Pope to promulgate a Rite of Mass to the Universal Church (or just to the Latin Rite Church) that is not holy and pleasing to God.

You guys are constantly guilty of begging the question.

You often formulate your argument as ...

"If the Pope were to teach grave/substantial error to the Church ..." then draw conclusions.

We do NOT GRANT YOUR PREMISE.  Get it?
More ladisms. Here Lad declares the pope is incapable of doing what the pope actually did, he then falsely accuses those of us who accept this reality for what it is, namely, reality, of being guilty of resorting to circular arguments.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 03:37:59 AM
Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain (aka not optional and gravely sinful to reject) by all theologians.  And yet you openly question it here.

Demonstrate please that it's possible for a Pope to promulgate a harmful Rite of Mass by citing one example of this prior to Vatican II.

If you reject this infallibility of the Church, then it is you indeed who are in serious need of prayers.
This NO ladism has already been exposed and you've already been corrected on this (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg605455/#msg605455). For convenience.....


I had to look this ladism up -  just as I thought, not only is such a thing ["Disciplinary Infallibility"]*not* "held by all theologians" at all, it was never even discussed by any of them. This means Disciplinary infallibility is a new term and like all things NO, has multiple, novel meanings.  It did not even exist prior to 19th/20th century. "Disciplinary infallibility" is another NO innovation, a product of the unanimous vote of NO authors that poor Lad is promoting again as if it is something traditionally Catholic.


From the CE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm):
"What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility?

It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent [NO] treatises on the Church.

The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favor of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility blah blah blah..."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 27, 2018, 06:37:21 AM
This NO ladism has already been exposed and you've already been corrected on this (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg605455/#msg605455). For convenience.....


I had to look this ladism up -  just as I thought, not only is such a thing ["Disciplinary Infallibility"]*not* "held by all theologians" at all, it was never even discussed by any of them. This means Disciplinary infallibility is a new term and like all things NO, has multiple, novel meanings.  It did not even exist prior to 19th/20th century. "Disciplinary infallibility" is another NO innovation, a product of the unanimous vote of NO authors that poor Lad is promoting again as if it is something traditionally Catholic.


From the CE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm):
"What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility?

It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent [NO] treatises on the Church.

The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favor of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility blah blah blah..."
Given the Catholic Encyclopedia was written/compiled in 1909 "recent treatises" can not mean "NO" (Novus Ordo).  

The Catholic Encyclopedia also states:

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an in indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine Law.

The Council of Trent also states (liturgy = discipline):

"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 07:18:56 AM
Given the Catholic Encyclopedia was written/compiled in 1909 "recent treatises" can not mean "NO" (Novus Ordo).  
Ladism: "Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain by all theologians."

CE: It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians...

CE: It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church.

Recent treaties = not of tradition =  began with 19th / 20th century theologians speculations, which is the only place such an idea is found - per the CE. Likely it is also found among V2 docuмents or other false teachings of the NO.

The Church's Disciplines, depending on one's opinion of what that even is, the Church changes with cultures and over time - that is just a fact. Anything that is subject to change, is subject to corruption, not infallibility, therefore, there is no divine guarantee of safety regarding the Church's disciplines.

This particular Ladism attempts to extend the Church's infallibility to the general discipline of the Church as if that false idea actually is teaching of the Church. But this is wrong. There is no teaching of the Church agreeing with him on this.

As the CE states, prior to  V1 there was no such thing even discussed at all. Per the CE, this idea is a recent, aka not traditional idea that ladism raises to the level of "theologically certain" because he wrongfully states that "all theologians" held it, but by default, being a recent idea it is not traditional.

All this ladism is, is a false idea that NOers wrongly believe to be a teaching of the Church - which if it actually is a Church teaching, then we are all wrong for not being NO and all trads are at least stupid for being trads in the first place.



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 27, 2018, 07:23:10 AM
Ladism: "Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain by all theologians."

CE: It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians...

CE: It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church.

Recent treaties = not of tradition =  began with 19th / 20th century theologians speculations, which is the only place such an idea is found - per the CE. Likely it is also found among V2 docuмents or other false teachings of the NO.

The Church's Disciplines, depending on one's opinion of what that even is, the Church changes with cultures and over time - that is just a fact. Anything that is subject to change, is subject to corruption, not infallibility, therefore, there is no divine guarantee of safety regarding the Church's disciplines.

This particular Ladism attempts to extend the Church's infallibility to the general discipline of the Church as if that false idea actually is teaching of the Church. But this is wrong. There is no teaching of the Church agreeing with him on this.

As the CE states, prior to  V1 there was no such thing even discussed at all. Per the CE, this idea is a recent, aka not traditional idea that ladism raises to the level of "theologically certain" because he wrongfully states that "all theologians" held it, but by default, being a recent idea it is not traditional.

All this ladism is, is a false idea that NOers wrongly believe to be a teaching of the Church - which if it actually is a Church teaching, then we are all wrong for not being NO and all trads are at least stupid for being trads in the first place.
Meanwhile, the Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who speaks negatively of the Church's liturgy (aka discipline).  This is what all trads do regarding the Novus Ordo.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 07:38:26 AM
Meanwhile, the Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who speaks negatively of the Church's liturgy (aka discipline).  This is what all trads do regarding the Novus Ordo.
The NO liturgy is not the Church's liturgy and Trent itself would have condemned it had it been perpetrated before Trent.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 07:43:00 AM
Disciplinary infallibility is no "Ladism", idiot.

Here are the parts of CE that you left out (since you cite CE as an authority):

All this article was saying is that disciplinary infallibility is a negative and indirect infallibility ... to the extent that discipline has doctrinal implications.
It is ladism. We see that now, your promoting negative infallibility - a Nadoism.

You be the guy who just sticks with your own isms from now on and I'll be the guy who keeps calling you out.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 07:44:52 AM
Hey, baboon, you keep assuming that Paul VI was the pope to prove that he's the pope.  "the pope is incapable of doing what the pope actually did".  Again, this is the very argument of sedevacantism that he was NOT in fact the pope.  You assume that he's the pope to prove that he's the pope.  Yes, that's a circular argument where you assume the conclusion in your premise.
No, I do not have to prove the pope was the pope - it is you who have to prove he was not the pope - until then, the pope is the pope.

That's just the way that works in the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 27, 2018, 07:45:17 AM
The NO liturgy is not the Church's liturgy and Trent itself would have condemned it had it been perpetrated before Trent.
The NO liturgy was promulgated by the man you call the Pope of the Catholic Church. Therefore, according to you (regardless of what you say), it was promulgated by the Catholic Church.  As such you have no right to condemn it.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 27, 2018, 07:46:05 AM
If Paul VI was the legitimate Pope, then indeed the NO is the Church's Liturgy.
Bingo.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 27, 2018, 07:48:17 AM
No, I do not have to prove the pope was the pope - it is yo0u who have to prove he was not the pope - until then, the pope is the pope.
That's just the way that works in the Catholic Church.
Then the NO is the pope's and the Church's liturgy.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 07:49:34 AM
If Paul VI was the legitimate Pope, then indeed the NO is the Church's Liturgy. 
^^^^Confused.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 07:51:13 AM
The NO liturgy was promulgated by the man you call the Pope of the Catholic Church. Therefore, according to you (regardless of what you say), it was promulgated by the Catholic Church.  As such you have no right to condemn it.  
You are confused.
Catholics condemn evil no matter where it comes from.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 27, 2018, 07:52:38 AM
You are confused.
Catholics condemn evil no matter where it comes from.
No, you (and the rest of the sedeplenists) are confused.  Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 07:55:37 AM
No, you (and the rest of the sedeplenists) are confused.  Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church.
That's why it is not the liturgy of the Catholic Church. Understand or are you still confused?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 27, 2018, 07:57:21 AM
That's why it is not the liturgy of the Catholic Church. Understand or are you still confused?
If THE POPE promulgated the NO liturgy then it IS the liturgy of the Catholic Church.
Understand or are you still confused?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 08:03:04 AM
If THE POPE promulgated the NO liturgy then it IS the liturgy of the Catholic Church.
Understand or are you still confused?
You were correct the first time when you said: "Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church."

The pope might be many different things to many different people, but what he is not, is the Church.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 08:43:59 AM
You were correct the first time when you said: "Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church."

The pope might be many different things to many different people, but what he is not, is the Church.
So you mean to say that the main liturgy used by the clergy of Catholic Church, and the only one allowed in the Latin Rite for lengthy periods of time(Latin mass was barred except under very specific circuмstances for YEARS), is not the Church's liturgy? The liturgy celebrated by the Pope and the only liturgy which may be performed by every priest without restrictions and special circuмstances, is not the Church's liturgy?
What exactly is the definition of the Church's liturgy then? How is the Novus Ordo rite NOT the Church's liturgy? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 27, 2018, 09:17:59 AM
You were correct the first time when you said: "Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church."

The pope might be many different things to many different people, but what he is not, is the Church.
The pope is the Visible Head of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ to ALL Catholics.  And whatever liturgy he promulgates is the liturgy of the Catholic Church.

If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 27, 2018, 10:44:42 AM
The only licit, 100% certainly valid and 100% pure liturgy is the 1962 rite/missal, which is the descendant from Pope St Pius V's Quo Primum.  It is the only rite which is REQUIRED under pain of sin, and which is legally certain to be approved by the papacy.

The novus ordo liturgy is illicit, most probably invalid, and immoral (to varying degrees, both in form and circuмstances).  It is also not required for salvation, hence it is not the rite of the latin church.  Quo Primum's rite is still the rite.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 10:54:24 AM
The only licit, 100% certainly valid and 100% pure liturgy is the 1962 rite/missal, which is the descendant from Pope St Pius V's Quo Primum.  It is the only rite which is REQUIRED under pain of sin, and which is legally certain to be approved by the papacy.

The novus ordo liturgy is illicit, most probably invalid, and immoral (to varying degrees, both in form and circuмstances).  It is also not required for salvation, hence it is not the rite of the latin church.  Quo Primum's rite is still the rite.
Are you suggesting that Pope Paul VI didn't approve his own mass?

The Novus Ordo liturgy cannot be illict or invalid. It was brought in properly by the Pope. And Quo Primum's is not the rite at all. The Church clearly states that the Novus Ordo Mass is the main form of mass, and the celebration of the Tridentine Mass is subject to a number of limitations(and indeed for many years the vast majority of clergy were barred from celebrating it entirely). 

Also which one is the main rite is irrelevant. First of all, we already know from Trent that the Church is allowed to have more than one rite, as it allowed the continuation of rites over 200 years old. We also know from Trent that "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema."

It does not say if anyone says that ceremonies, etc. used in the MAIN RITE of mass. It just says which the Catholic Church uses in celebration of masses. So that applies to every rite, just as it applied to the rites over 200 years old at the time of Trent. Therefore it applies to Novus Ordo as well. 

I'd also like to see on what basis you call a mass invalid and illict that was promulgated by a valid Pope.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 11:10:08 AM
The pope is the Visible Head of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ to ALL Catholics.  And whatever liturgy he promulgates is the liturgy of the Catholic Church.

If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent
You are still confused 2V. Trent's teaching is certainly true, so why do you believe that the conciliar church's liturgy is the Catholic Church's liturgy? Trent is most assuredly not referring to the conciliar liturgy, a liturgy it surely would have condemned. Not sure how that is not obvious to you.

Because the pope promulgated the conciliar church's liturgy, you wrongfully declare that liturgy to be Catholic - but you making that claim, thankfully does not make it so. Seems like the fact that the pope promulgated a liturgy for the conciliar church should be obvious by now, I mean, you left the NO what, 8 or 10 years ago now?

The reason this crisis has gotten to this point is because people believed the lies they were taught, the lie that whatever the pope said/taught/wanted was infallible and infallibly safe, that whatever the pope in union with all the bishops of the world teach, is infallible, that all councils are by default, infallible, and each of these lies require our absolute obedience, submission of faith and allegiance or we'd go to hell.

Even sede's adhere to these lies with veracious claws for the sake of denouncing the pope - quite iniquitous really.

Now the crazy thing is, if they would just use the reason that God gave them, then they would realize that if those were not lies, if those lies were in fact "dogmas of faith" as Cantarella and lad and the rest of the sedes say that they believe but really don't, then we would ALL be bound to the conciliar church and it's liturgy. The reason we are not bound is because they are evil - not because a pope cannot promulgate an evil liturgy or there is no pope.

But rather than see through the lies, they fall right into them and instead of realizing they were fooled into believing lies, they cling to the lies as if they are dogma in order to come up with wild conspiracy theories and ideas about the pope not being the pope, there are no cardinals or bishops - save the one or two hiding in the jungle somewhere, and they imagine that the "magisterium" which cannot defect has in fact defected but they know that is impossible.

As I said, the whole sede scene is really quite iniquitous.





Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 27, 2018, 11:24:41 AM
(http://cdn.slowrobot.com/62920142008105.jpg)
:jester:
 
The best part of Stubborn's post was when he said I claim that the Novus Ordo is Catholic.  I know he isn't that stupid.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on April 27, 2018, 11:26:46 AM
Except that evil cannot come from the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.  Period.

Could the Pope stand up there and solemnly promulgated a bad/evil dogma?  That's why your statement above is entirely moot from a logical standpoint.

Lots of "Catholics" believed that the definition of infallibility was evil, and they condemned it.  Why were they wrong to do so?
This is clear.  That's why I believe that a large percentage of dogmatic sedeplenists/anti-sedevacantists are of bad will.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:39:20 AM
You are still confused 2V. Trent's teaching is certainly true, so why do you believe that the conciliar church's liturgy is the Catholic Church's liturgy? Trent is most assuredly not referring to the conciliar liturgy, a liturgy it surely would have condemned. Not sure how that is not obvious to you.

Because the pope promulgated the conciliar church's liturgy, you wrongfully declare that liturgy to be Catholic - but you making that claim, thankfully does not make it so. Seems like the fact that the pope promulgated a liturgy for the conciliar church should be obvious by now, I mean, you left the NO what, 8 or 10 years ago now?
Liturgy promulgated by the leader of the Catholic Church = the Catholic Church's liturgy. 
If Pope Paul VI was a valid Pope, then Novus Ordo is valid. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 11:39:54 AM
(http://cdn.slowrobot.com/62920142008105.jpg)
^^^^To all of his ladisms.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 11:42:20 AM
Except that evil cannot come from the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.  Period.

Could the Pope stand up there and solemnly promulgated a bad/evil dogma?  That's why your statement above is entirely moot from a logical standpoint.

Lots of "Catholics" believed that the definition of infallibility was evil, and they condemned it.  Why were they wrong to do so?
Come back when you figure out what the magisterium is and explain what the ladism idea of Universal Discipline even is - you know, that's discipline that all theologians agreed is a part of the Church's infallibility. Should be easy for you to explain by quoting a dozen or so pre-V1 theologians. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 11:43:41 AM
From Vatican I Pastor Aeternus:
I explained this to you already, can you remember what "True Obedience" is?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 11:45:32 AM
Liturgy promulgated by the leader of the Catholic Church = the Catholic Church's liturgy.
If Pope Paul VI was a valid Pope, then Novus Ordo is valid.
And if Pope Paul was a valid pope, what stopped him from promulgating a conciliar liturgy?
Sedes are crazy.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 27, 2018, 12:05:27 PM
Ah, OK, Drew, so when the Pope defines a dogma, he's actually revealing that dogma, right?

No, the rule of faith (by definition) is "extrinsic" to the dogma itself.  That's what it means for something to be a rule of faith.  And "formally distinct from" is not the same thing as "extrinsic to".  You blurred those two things together.

This distinction between "content of revelation" and "act/process of revelation" is not "esoteric".  It's two different usages of the word "revelation" (look it up again on dictionary.com).  It's only esoteric if you have a poor grasp of the English language.

Not for your benefit Ladislaus, for he is immune to correction, but for others that they may not be corrupted by his errors which lead to sedeprivationism and sedevacantism.
 
Ladislaus said repeatedly that "the Magisterium is not part of divine Revelation."  He said that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to divine revelation and formally not part of it.
 
When confronted with this error with the evidence of dogma, he claimed that he was referring to the "act of revelation" and not the "content of revelation."  He said that the Magisterium was indeed a part of the content of revelation but not part of the act of revelation.
 
So is the Magisterium part of the "act of revelation"? This has already been addressed in an earlier post but it is worth repeating because the consequence are the difference between heaven and hell.  Yes, the Magisterium is just as much a part of the "act of revelation" as it is a part of the "content of revelation." Now the "content of revelation" ended with the death of the last Apostle but the "act of revelation" continues. 
 
Revelation as an act continues always, and will continue always until the last person receives this revelation.  For the act of revelation itself refers to the action verb, the infinitive, to reveal, and its verb forms, revealing, revealed, (have) revealed.  The verb is transitive meaning that it always requires a receiver of the action.  There can be no "act of revelation" without a receiver of the revelation.   
 
"When the Pope defines a dogma," he is engaging the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the "teaching authority" of the Church, that through the pope, engages the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to teach in His name without the possibility of error.  The Magisterium is a "part of the content of divine Revelation" in that it was revealed directly  and explicitly by Jesus Christ. The Magisterium is "part of the "act of revelation" whenever it makes the "content of revelation" known to anyone.  "He that heareth you, heareth me" and whenever anyone "heareth," the "act of revelation" is taking place.
 
So Ladislaus is pretending to be making an esoteric distinction that they less intelligent readers could not appreciate.  The reason for this is that he is trying to cover up his error and in so doing, he is making a bigger error.  When the Magisterium, engaged by the pope, defines a doctrine of divine revelation it is a "part (of the act) of divine revelation" without adding to the "content of revelation."
 
The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient material cause and instrumental cause of dogma.  God is the formal cause and the final cause of dogma.  Dogma is divine revelation defined by the Church directly by the work of the Holy Ghost.  It is as St. Pius X said, "a truth fallen from heaven." It is immutable in both its form (the truth defined) and its matter (the words by which it is defined).  Revealed doctrine is the formal object of divine faith found in Scripture and Tradition and constitutes the remote rule of faith.  Revealed doctrine that is defined by the Magisterium is called Dogma and is called the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and constitutes the proximate rule of faith.  The "rule of faith," both remote and proximate, is always divine revelation.
 
Proof that Ladislaus is lying is really easy to see.  He claimed that "the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation" because it is "extrincic" to and "formally distinct from divine revelation" so that it can judge the content of revelation.  The context of this claim requires that the Magisterium be "not part (of the content) of divine revelation" because it is the "content of revelation" that it is judging when it defines revealed doctrine. The appeal to the "act of revelation" was only done to cover up his blunder, and it is a huge blunder. But to claim that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to the "act of revelation" is just as big a blunder.
 
It is the Protestants who claim that the Magisterium is "not part of the content of divine revelation."  It is in fact the one unifying doctrine of all Protestant sects.  It is the schismatics who claim that the Magisterium is "not part of the act of revelation" when they deny the jurisdiction of the pope, and thus deny his teaching authority which is derived from his jurisdiction, to make God's revelation known.
 
This is where Ladislaus' sedeprivationism leads, that is, to both heresy and schism.  It destroys the papal office by dividing its form and its matter.  Sedeprivationists claim that the jurisdiction conferred by God on the Pope directly in his office, that we know as a dogma of faith, has been removed.  By whom we may ask?  What God confers on anyone, only God can remove.  But Ladislaus wants to be "lord of the harvest" so he has no problem telling God what to do.  Unfortunately for Ladislaus, this leads only to heresy and schism.  Those who follow him in this error will find themselves in a church of their own making that is not the Catholic Church for it does have the necessary attributes which make the Church founded by Jesus Christ the Church that it is.  Their church has no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, and no material or instrumental means to ever correct these permanent deficiencies.  It is a church that is hopeless and can only lead to despair which is why it is not uncommon to find them returning to the Novus Ordo religion.  
 
Drew    
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:11:35 PM
And if Pope Paul was a valid pope, what stopped him from promulgating a conciliar liturgy?
Sedes are crazy.
I'd assume the fact that he commanded the Catholic Church to teach it, and that he never created or mentioned any entity called the Conciliar Church. The Conciliar Church is just a term R&Rs invented for people who actually obey the Pope they see as valid. Unlike R&Rs who bafflingly believe that Pope Paul VI was valid but that his liturgy is false and impious. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 12:11:42 PM
The Popes have spoken ex-cathedra only a handful of times. 6 or 7 times in the entire history of the Church.

Does that mean that I am allowed to question and disregard the rest of the Papal teachings of 260 legitimate successors of St. Peter?
Did I or did I not already explain that we are bound to the truth whether it be from ex cathedra pronouncements or those teachings contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium as Pope Pius IX teaches? That truth is truth no matter where it comes from, that heresy is heresy no matter where it comes from?

If an angel from heaven were to come down and preach lies, we are to let him be anathema - are we not? If the pope preaches lies, we are to let him be anathema - are we not? Sede's say they believe but really don't, that popes cannot preach lies - that is a lie they were taught and believe is a dogma, which only serves to prove they do not know what dogma even is.

I asked you a very clear question: "Do you remember what True Obedience is?"

I asked lad to explain his ladism of "the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church".

2Vermont has nothing but questions, then when answered, she can only post her ad hominems. Never challenging the actual answer with any rebuttal, all she cares about is calumniating the poster in her efforts to make herself somehow look better as apparently, that's all she has.




Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 12:14:33 PM
Quote
I asked: And if Pope Paul was a valid pope, what stopped him from promulgating a conciliar liturgy?
I'd assume the fact that he commanded the Catholic Church to teach it, and that he never created or mentioned any entity called the Conciliar Church. The Conciliar Church is just a term R&Rs invented for people who actually obey the Pope they see as valid. Unlike R&Rs who bafflingly believe that Pope Paul VI was valid but that his liturgy is false and impious.
What command? See how brainwashed you are? He never commanded anything, not in the whole of his papacy. How long have you been in the NO anyway?

Also, I believe it was Pope Paul VI who originally coined the term Conciliar church - and what was it that stopped him from promulgating a conciliar liturgy again?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:21:29 PM
I'd assume the fact that he commanded the Catholic Church to teach it, and that he never created or mentioned any entity called the Conciliar Church. The Conciliar Church is just a term R&Rs invented for people who actually obey the Pope they see as valid. Unlike R&Rs who bafflingly believe that Pope Paul VI was valid but that his liturgy is false and impious.

What command? See how brainwashed you are? He never commanded anything, not in the whole of his papacy. How long have you been in the NO anyway?
The command that the clergy use the Novus Ordo rite. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 12:24:57 PM
Vatican I is telling you explicitly that you are bound to true obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff not only in matters of Faith and morals; but also in discipline and government.

Regardless of what you think a liturgical rite falls under: being a matter or Faith, of morals, of discipline, or government, you are required to obey the Pope, as per dogmatic teaching.
If an angel from heaven were to come down and preach lies, we are to let him be anathema - are we not? If the pope preaches lies, we are to let him be anathema - are we not? Sede's say they believe but really don't, that popes cannot preach lies - that is a lie they were taught and believe is a dogma, which only serves to prove they do not know what dogma even is.

God gave us the use of reason for a reason. We are expected to know what evil is no matter where it comes from so no, not "regardless of what you think", that is the point, we are expected to think, to know right from wrong - or we will NEVER make it to heaven.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 12:25:28 PM
The command that the clergy use the Novus Ordo rite.
Wrong. Try again.
He never commanded that the clergy use the NO rite.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:28:33 PM
Wrong. Try again.
He never commanded that the clergy use the NO rite.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html

Quote
We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 12:32:14 PM
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html
No, no, it needs to say something along the lines of:

"We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal."

Now THAT'S a command. Understand?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:36:25 PM
No, no, it needs to say something along the lines of:

"We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal."

Now THAT'S a command. Understand?
It doesn't matter how it's worded. What matters is that the Pope commanded it in both cases and both Missals became law. 
Quote
In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 12:43:46 PM
It doesn't matter how it's worded. What matters is that the Pope commanded it in both cases and both Missals became law.
"We wish" to give force of law = command? Again, how long have you been in the NO now? And yes, it does matter how it is worded.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 12:50:59 PM
Uhm, the Holy Spirit, through the gift of infallibility.
Uhm, The holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. - First Vatican Council

Try again.

As I said, "The reason this crisis has gotten to this point is because people believed the lies they were taught, the lie that whatever the pope said/taught/wanted was infallible and infallibly safe, that whatever the pope in union with all the bishops of the world teach, is infallible, that all councils are by default, infallible, and each of these lies require our absolute obedience, submission of faith and allegiance or we'd go to hell."

Ergo, you do not know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:59:15 PM
"We wish" to give force of law = command? Again, how long have you been in the NO now? And yes, it does matter how it is worded.
The Pope decides Canon Law. Whatever he wishes to be Canon Law becomes Canon Law. And as I already quoted, he ordered that the Missal be brought into effect. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 27, 2018, 01:01:52 PM
Quote
It doesn't matter how it's worded. What matters is that the Pope commanded it in both cases and both Missals became law. 
It does matter how it's worded, since it's a matter of law.  Yes, both missals are law, but Quo Primum has a command/penalty associated with its law; Paul VI's law has no penalty for non-use.  Pope Benedict confirmed this in his "motu" which is a legal docuмent.  The novus ordo is not required to be attended, both as a matter of law and in practice.  No one who avoids the novus ordo has ever been excommunicated or declared a heretic or a schismatic.  This fact alone corroborates the lack of penalties in Paul VI's law. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 27, 2018, 01:02:46 PM
Cantarella, by holding that everything concerning the government of the liturgy is wholly a matter of mere Church discipline and by holding that the pope has the authority to create new rites for use in the solemn administration of the sacraments, you yourself are making the many "solemn rites and ceremonies" that Trent is referring to superfluous. If you think that the traditional rites can be omitted by pastors without sin and replaced by new ones then you obviously do not think that they are of great value. Drew, by expressing his belief that the received (traditional) and approved rites are necessary attributes of the Catholic faith without which the faith cannot be known or communicated to others, is showing that he understands the solemn rites to be the exact opposite of superfluous. By claiming that the pope has the authority to create a new rite of Mass you are essentially saying that if Pius XII (or whoever you consider the last true pope to have been) had created the Novus Ordo, then you would have been bound in consistency with your belief to accept the new rite as containing nothing that is not holy. You have left yourself no standard by which to judge otherwise. It is no surprise that many sedevacantists end up becoming practitioners of the Novus Ordo religion. You share the same error as the "conservatives."

To say that Trent's canons on the holiness of the ceremonies of the Mass apply to new rites is like saying that Trent's decree on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture applies to the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition of the Bible. Trent's decree on the inerrancy of Scripture applies no more to Bibles which are not the Latin Vulgate than does Trent's canons on the holiness of the ceremonies of the Mass apply to rites which have not been "received and approved" by the Church.

Vatican I infallibly teaches:

God has revealed that the "received and approved" rites are what should be used in the worship that should be shown him. You can try and attempt to make the word "received" meaningless but just know that doing so would be as grave a sin as making the word "outside" meaningless when explaining the sacred dogma of faith "Outside the Church there is no salvation." John Salza puts it well in his excellent article "The Novus Ordo Mass and Divine Law":

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/divinelaw.htm

To hold that the received and approved rites can be replaced by other new ones is ultimately to deny that Catholicism is an incarnational religion. Fr. Michael Muller, CSSR wrote in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
https://archive.org/stream/holymasssacrific00ml#page/510/mode/2up/search/received+and+approved

You have always been one of my favorite posters on this forum, Cantarella, and I hope that you do not attribute a tone to my post which I do not intend to convey. I have prayed for you before I read that you became a sedevacantist and I will continue to pray for you now. Please keep me in your prayers.

Maryland Trad,

I am grateful for your post. Very well written. And the quote provided by Fr. Michael Muller, CSSR from his book, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is worth remembering.
 
It is worth remembering because the virtue of Religion, which is to "render to God the things that are God's,"  is directly proximate to the virtue of Obedience.  Any act of obedience that is not governed by the virtue of Religion is not a virtue at all.  The interesting thing about the virtue of Religion is that its acts are typically external quantifiable actions that are objects of our perceptions.  Supernatural faith, where we believe internally what God has revealed on the authority of God the Revealer, must necessarily be also external in its profession for as Jesus said, "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven." And St. Paul, "For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation." Without the external acts of the virtue of Religion there is no salvation because without the acts of Religion the faith cannot be externally expressed, and therefore, be know or communicated to others.  This necessarily means that these external acts cannot be simple matters of discipline but are essential attributes of the faith.  We are saved body and soul, and the body is that through which we enter into salvation just as the Body of Christ is the instrumental cause of our salvation.  At the last judgment, Jesus says, "For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me......"  Because  these acts are regarded by Jesus as having been done to Himself, that is directed to God, they all are part of the virtue of Religion but the most important act will be to have worshiped God through the "received and approved" rites of the Church where in union with Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, appropriate worship is offered to God.

When conservative Catholics and S&S Catholics make every act of Religion a matter of simple discipline that can be cast aside, they destroy Obedience as a virtue because it is no longer directed to God but to man as man.  In the end, it overturns all Catholic morality.  Even proper acts of obedience are vitiated because they are done for the wrong reasons.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 01:14:14 PM
It does matter how it's worded, since it's a matter of law.  Yes, both missals are law, but Quo Primum has a command/penalty associated with its law; Paul VI's law has no penalty for non-use.  Pope Benedict confirmed this in his "motu" which is a legal docuмent.  The novus ordo is not required to be attended, both as a matter of law and in practice.  No one who avoids the novus ordo has ever been excommunicated or declared a heretic or a schismatic.  This fact alone corroborates the lack of penalties in Paul VI's law.
The lack of specifically mentioned penalties does not mean it is not a valid form of mass. And as Trent teaches, anyone who says the Church encourages impiety in its masses is anathema. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 27, 2018, 01:25:21 PM
You can't even get this part right.  What I wrote was:

RULE OF FAITH is "extrinsic" to that which is believed.
and
MAGISTERIUM is "formally distinct from" Revelation.

For proposition one, I simply cited CE in defining what a rule of faith is.

And the second one is obvious.  Otherwise Revelation and Magisterium are the same thing.

You continue to lie in blurring these together to calumniate me as saying that the existence and nature of the Magisterium have not been revealed.

Ladislaus,

Let me tell you what you said because your version changes.

Ladislaus posted:

Quote
Quote
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »

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.

Cling to your idiot belief that the "Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation.  Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation."  This is a grave error against the faith and it does not matter one whit if you mean it is not part of the "content of revelation" or not part of the "act of revelation."  Either way, it is a grave error.  Just another grave error that the S&S folks find useful.

No one ever said that the Magisterium was all of divine revelation so I have no idea who you are talking to. But then again, I do not suppose you know either.  I have no interest in reading how your story evolves over time to excuse what is inexcusable.  The Magisterium is part of the "content of revelation" and it is part of the "act of revelation."  Those that deny these truths are heretics and schismatics which is necessarily where S&S leads.

Drew

 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 01:29:04 PM
Ladislaus,

Let me tell you what you said because your version changes.

Ladislaus posted:

Quote
Cling to your idiot belief that the "Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation.  Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation."  This is a grave error against the faith and it does not matter one whit if you mean it is not part of the "content of revelation" or not part of the "act of revelation."  Either way, it is a grave error.  Just another grave error that the S&S folks find useful.

No one ever said that the Magisterium was all of divine revelation so I have no idea who you are talking to. But then again, I do not suppose you know either.  I have no interest in reading how your story evolves over time to excuse what is inexcusable.  The Magisterium is part of the "content of revelation" and it is part of the "act of revelation."  Those that deny these truths are heretics and schismatics which is necessarily where S&S leads.

Drew
Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. The Magisterium neither reveals dogma nor was the Magisterium revealed by God. The Magisterium just defines articles of faith based off Scripture and Tradition and commands we believe them. It does NOT reveal anything new. The Church teaches that divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 27, 2018, 01:54:17 PM
Stop pretending that this is about simple "obedience".  We're talking about submission to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.

Ladislaus,

S&S necessarily corrupt the Magisterium as you have repeatedly done, and they corrupt the meaning of the word "universal" to exclude the attribute of time without which the definition is destroyed.  But you like destroying definitions wherever they get in your way just like you destroyed the definition of supernatural faith and the definition of the papal office by dividing essential attributes that make a thing what it is.

Ultimately, this is about "simple 'obedience'" but you have corrupted this as a virtue, destroying its necessary relationship and dependency upon the virtue of Religion.  This in the end destroys all Catholic morality because the virtue of Justice is overthrown.  It is not surprising that the gift of Piety is associated with the virtue of Justice and necessary to proper acts of Obedience as a virtue.

You have no Magisterium, no pope, no rule of faith, and no salvation is offered in the church you have created.

Why don't you campaign among the S&S folks to make you their pope and then all your problems can find a good reason.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 27, 2018, 02:15:37 PM
Indeed, MANY R&R have anathematized themselves with this.  Now, some, like +Williamson, acknowledge the disciplinary infallibility of the Church in principle but argue from the non-promulgation angle.  It's not credible at all, but at least it's not a heretical denial of Trent.

Ladisalus,

The canons of Trent and the Tridentine Profession of Faith refer to the "received and approved" rites of which the Novus Ordo is not. It is not so by definition.  You keep corrupting definitions which is your stock-in-trade.  It also happens to be a sign of Modernism.  The corruption of definitions is the Modernists principle weapon used to destroy Dogma.  

And how can anyone who claims that Dogma is NOT the rule of faith appeal to Dogma as the rule of faith?  Since your magisterium is "dormant," and really with no signs of life whatsoever, where else are you going to go?  But aren't you just employing "private interpretation" of dogma making yourself a "Protestant"?  Or is that argument just another of your mindless Ladialausisms?  There seems to be an unlimited supply.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 02:54:25 PM
I'd tell you to try again, but I don't want to be responsible for you hurting yourself.

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

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

[Take notes here, Drew.]

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

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

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

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

Would you 1) just reject this teaching or 2) would change your mind and say that it must be right or 3) would you go sedevacantist?  [those are the three possible responses]
What a flippin Moron. :facepalm: You deserve to be pummeled.


If the pope came out tomorrow and solemnly defined a dogma, then it would be dogma whether you believe it or not. I swear, you get more ignorant with each post.

And no, I will NEVER go sedewhatever because according to the Catholic Church it is wrong, has always been wrong and always will be wrong. Wrong is wrong yesterday, today and forever.

Unlike you, I must be subject to the pope or I won't get to heaven.


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 02:58:02 PM
Ladislaus,

Let me tell you what you said because your version changes.

Ladislaus posted:

Quote
Cling to your idiot belief that the "Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation.  Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation."  This is a grave error against the faith and it does not matter one whit if you mean it is not part of the "content of revelation" or not part of the "act of revelation."  Either way, it is a grave error.  Just another grave error that the S&S folks find useful.

No one ever said that the Magisterium was all of divine revelation so I have no idea who you are talking to. But then again, I do not suppose you know either.  I have no interest in reading how your story evolves over time to excuse what is inexcusable.  The Magisterium is part of the "content of revelation" and it is part of the "act of revelation."  Those that deny these truths are heretics and schismatics which is necessarily where S&S leads.

Drew


THANK YOU DREW!
Please, do not tire of posting here - you are excellent at refuting this NO / sedewhatever brainwashed nincompoop.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 02:58:10 PM
Ladisalus,

The canons of Trent and the Tridentine Profession of Faith refer to the "received and approved" rites of which the Novus Ordo is not. It is not so by definition.  You keep corrupting definitions which is your stock-in-trade.  It also happens to be a sign of Modernism.  The corruption of definitions is the Modernists principle weapon used to destroy Dogma.  

And how can anyone who claims that Dogma is NOT the rule of faith appeal to Dogma as the rule of faith?  Since your magisterium is "dormant," and really with no signs of life whatsoever, where else are you going to go?  But aren't you just employing "private interpretation" of dogma making yourself a "Protestant"?  Or is that argument just another of your mindless Ladialausisms?  There seems to be an unlimited supply.

Drew
How exactly is Novus Ordo not received and approved? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 27, 2018, 03:07:09 PM
I'd tell you to try again, but I don't want to be responsible for you hurting yourself.

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

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

[Take notes here, Drew.]

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

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

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

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

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

Ladislaus,

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

 
It has been nearly sixty years since the election of Pope John XXIII who is held to have not been a pope by "reliable sources" waving the S&S manifesto.  Since that time, Neo-modernists have held complete control of the Vatican bureaucracy and there is not a single example of a modernist pope making a "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility." Why? Why not?  And since it has not happened in the last sixty years, why do you suppose it will happen in the next sixty or the next six hundred years?  As a matter of fact, it has not happened in the last two thousand years.
 
There exists a possibility, as Fr. Kramer said, that Pope Benedict never resigned because he has no more authority than Sedeprivationists do to divide the papal office.  Since the office cannot be divided, if Pope Benedict did not abdicate entirely, he did not abdicate at all.  What would be certain sign of this, would be Pope Francis/Bergoglio actually making a  "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility" without the substance to bind doctrinal and/or moral error on the faithful.  But that is a bridge to which we have not arrived and may never arrive. 
 
But this speculation is nothing more than speculation.  Jesus Christ promised to protect and preserve His Church from the pope ever using the papal office to bind an error of faith and morals on the Church. This is a Dogma of faith.  A formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Catholics who hold Dogma as their rule of faith begin with this truth which forms a boundary limiting all speculation.  The fact that it has not happened in sixty years is evidence that the concilar popes have been and are valid popes.  If they were not, there would be nothing preventing them from doing so.
 
S&S through their speculations, have arrived at conclusions that overturn Dogma. They have no pope, no magisterum, no rule of faith and no way to ever get them.  They have speculated themselves outside the Catholic Church because they will not hold Dogma as their rule of faith.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 03:14:38 PM
Ladislaus,

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

 
It has been nearly sixty years since the election of Pope John XXIII who is held to have not been a pope by "reliable sources" waving the S&S manifesto.  Since that time, Neo-modernists have held complete control of the Vatican bureaucracy and there is not a single example of a modernist pope making a "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility." Why? Why not?  And since it has not happened in the last sixty years, why do you suppose it will happen in the next sixty or the next six hundred years?  As a matter of fact, it has not happened in the last two thousand years.
 
There exists a possibility, as Fr. Kramer said, that Pope Benedict never resigned because he has no more authority than Sedeprivationists do to divide the papal office.  Since the office cannot be divided, if Pope Benedict did not abdicate entirely, he did not abdicate at all.  What would be certain sign of this, would be Pope Francis/Bergoglio actually making a  "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility" without the substance to bind doctrinal and/or moral error on the faithful.  But that is a bridge to which we have not arrived and may never arrive.  
 
But this speculation is nothing more than speculation.  Jesus Christ promised to protect and preserve His Church from the pope ever using the papal office to bind an error of faith and morals on the Church. This is a Dogma of faith.  A formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Catholics who hold Dogma as their rule of faith begin with this truth which forms a boundary limiting all speculation.  The fact that it has not happened in sixty years is evidence that the concilar popes have been and are valid popes.  If they were not, there would be nothing preventing them from doing so.
 
S&S through their speculations, have arrived at conclusions that overturn Dogma. They have no pope, no magisterum, no rule of faith and no way to ever get them.  They have speculated themselves outside the Catholic Church because they will not hold Dogma as their rule of faith.
 
Drew
how isn't NO a received and approved rite?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 27, 2018, 04:03:48 PM
:laugh1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since you falsely claim ALL theologians agree it is infallibly certain, you should be able to pop out a few dozen quotes, so lets see some quotes from pre-V1 theologians you lying Moron.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 27, 2018, 05:03:50 PM

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

Cantarella,

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

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

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 27, 2018, 05:19:02 PM
See my previous post about why I put that question to Stubborn.  I grow weary of the stupid R&R axioms such as that distortion of Vatican I.  Hey, if the Pope teaches "new doctrine", say R&R, then has not right to do it and so we can reject it.  This is NOT what Vatican I meant.  If something has the notes of infallibility (the extent of which we disagree on), then it's GUARANTEED NOT TO BE "NEW DOCTRINE" a priori.  So stop it with the stupid misapplied axioms already.

Ladislaus,

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

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

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 27, 2018, 06:28:00 PM
Not for your benefit Ladislaus, for he is immune to correction, but for others that they may not be corrupted by his errors which lead to sedeprivationism and sedevacantism.
 
Ladislaus said repeatedly that "the Magisterium is not part of divine Revelation."  He said that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to divine revelation and formally not part of it.
 
When confronted with this error with the evidence of dogma, he claimed that he was referring to the "act of revelation" and not the "content of revelation."  He said that the Magisterium was indeed a part of the content of revelation but not part of the act of revelation.
 
So is the Magisterium part of the "act of revelation"? This has already been addressed in an earlier post but it is worth repeating because the consequence are the difference between heaven and hell.  Yes, the Magisterium is just as much a part of the "act of revelation" as it is a part of the "content of revelation." Now the "content of revelation" ended with the death of the last Apostle but the "act of revelation" continues.  
 
Revelation as an act continues always, and will continue always until the last person receives this revelation.  For the act of revelation itself refers to the action verb, the infinitive, to reveal, and its verb forms, revealing, revealed, (have) revealed.  The verb is transitive meaning that it always requires a receiver of the action.  There can be no "act of revelation" without a receiver of the revelation.  
 
"When the Pope defines a dogma," he is engaging the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the "teaching authority" of the Church, that through the pope, engages the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to teach in His name without the possibility of error.  The Magisterium is a "part of the content of divine Revelation" in that it was revealed directly  and explicitly by Jesus Christ. The Magisterium is "part of the "act of revelation" whenever it makes the "content of revelation" known to anyone.  "He that heareth you, heareth me" and whenever anyone "heareth," the "act of revelation" is taking place.
 
So Ladislaus is pretending to be making an esoteric distinction that they less intelligent readers could not appreciate.  The reason for this is that he is trying to cover up his error and in so doing, he is making a bigger error.  When the Magisterium, engaged by the pope, defines a doctrine of divine revelation it is a "part (of the act) of divine revelation" without adding to the "content of revelation."
 
The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient material cause and instrumental cause of dogma.  God is the formal cause and the final cause of dogma.  Dogma is divine revelation defined by the Church directly by the work of the Holy Ghost.  It is as St. Pius X said, "a truth fallen from heaven." It is immutable in both its form (the truth defined) and its matter (the words by which it is defined).  Revealed doctrine is the formal object of divine faith found in Scripture and Tradition and constitutes the remote rule of faith.  Revealed doctrine that is defined by the Magisterium is called Dogma and is called the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and constitutes the proximate rule of faith.  The "rule of faith," both remote and proximate, is always divine revelation.
 
Proof that Ladislaus is lying is really easy to see.  He claimed that "the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation" because it is "extrincic" to and "formally distinct from divine revelation" so that it can judge the content of revelation.  The context of this claim requires that the Magisterium be "not part (of the content) of divine revelation" because it is the "content of revelation" that it is judging when it defines revealed doctrine. The appeal to the "act of revelation" was only done to cover up his blunder, and it is a huge blunder. But to claim that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to the "act of revelation" is just as big a blunder.
 
It is the Protestants who claim that the Magisterium is "not part of the content of divine revelation."  It is in fact the one unifying doctrine of all Protestant sects.  It is the schismatics who claim that the Magisterium is "not part of the act of revelation" when they deny the jurisdiction of the pope, and thus deny his teaching authority which is derived from his jurisdiction, to make God's revelation known.
 
This is where Ladislaus' sedeprivationism leads, that is, to both heresy and schism.  It destroys the papal office by dividing its form and its matter.  Sedeprivationists claim that the jurisdiction conferred by God on the Pope directly in his office, that we know as a dogma of faith, has been removed.  By whom we may ask?  What God confers on anyone, only God can remove.  But Ladislaus wants to be "lord of the harvest" so he has no problem telling God what to do.  Unfortunately for Ladislaus, this leads only to heresy and schism.  Those who follow him in this error will find themselves in a church of their own making that is not the Catholic Church for it does have the necessary attributes which make the Church founded by Jesus Christ the Church that it is.  Their church has no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, and no material or instrumental means to ever correct these permanent deficiencies.  It is a church that is hopeless and can only lead to despair which is why it is not uncommon to find them returning to the Novus Ordo religion.  
 
Drew    


^^^THIS^^^
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 27, 2018, 07:47:29 PM
Drew, do you have an IQ that's even in the double-digit range?

I was not referring to Dogmas as axioms, but various R&R principles (which are wrong and misapplied).  Please read the post I was responding to before inserting your foot in your mouth.

And you add another calumny that I do not believe in Dogma at all.

Ladislaus,

I refer to Dogmas as my rule of faith upon which my R&R is grounded.  You have referred to these as "axioms."  If you have evidence of "various R&R principles which are wrong and misapplied" then be specific in your allegations.  But understand this, the evidence of "misapplications" is when the end is the overthrowing of Dogma.

You are currently in a church without a pope, without magisterium, without dogma, without a moral sense of true obedience, and without any means to ever correct these permanent defects.  This is proof that your church is not the Catholic Church.  This is where you are right now.  But one thing you do  not lack is axioms.  You have a bucket full of axioms that have less substance than a politicians promise.  Maybe the pope is not your rule of faith.  It might be better to say, "Axioms are Ladislaus' rule of faith" because that's all you have left. 
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 28, 2018, 04:34:00 AM
This is both tragic and laughable.  You hold your own private judgment as your proximate rule of faith and then have the nerve to call me faithless.  You don't believe that the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline cannot become thoroughly corrupted and harmful to faith, and you call me a faithless fool?

Ladism: "Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain by all theologians."

I asked you to post some quotes from any of the above "all theologians" pre-V1, but you will not. The reason you will not is because you you are well aware that there are no theologians at all who ever held to such a ridiculous proposition - ergo, you are lying and by now, you surely *know* you are lying. Yet, you keep the lie alive in an effort to recruit other unknowing souls into error.

You then ask a question which no Catholic would even ask because to do so would demonstrate a definitive unbelief in the divine law of papal succession and the dogma of the pope's infallibility, no different than most sedes.

You falsely claim that you are not a sedevacantist, yet you doubt the validity of the popes, even referring to yourself as a "sededoubtist", meanwhile you've repeated the maxim; "a doubtful pope is no pope" many times - ergo, you are in fact a sedevacantist. Aside from yourself, who do you think you are fooling? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 28, 2018, 04:44:05 AM
And you add another calumny that I do not believe in Dogma at all.
Let's adopt one of your own ladisms to help you understand better:

You are a dogmadoubtist, yet a doubtful dogma is no dogma at all - ergo, you are a dogmavacantist, this relieves you from believing in dogma at all.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 28, 2018, 09:31:23 AM
Ladism: "Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain by all theologians."

I asked you to post some quotes from any of the above "all theologians" pre-V1, but you will not. The reason you will not is because you you are well aware that there are no theologians at all who ever held to such a ridiculous proposition - ergo, you are lying and by now, you surely *know* you are lying. Yet, you keep the lie alive in an effort to recruit other unknowing souls into error.
Your belief that everything after V1 is somehow invalid is not "Old Catholic" heresy.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 28, 2018, 03:04:45 PM
For crying out loud, please stop wasting my time and read the actual posts.  I was referring quite specifically to the axiom articulated several times on this thread by Stubborn that if a pope teaches something new, then Catholics can never be forced to accept it.  I explained that this is a meaningless axiom because if the notes of infallibility are there, the Pope is PREVENTED by the Holy Spirit from teaching something new.  So if the notes of infallibility are present, even if prior to that time I considered the idea contrary to Tradition, I must reject my former belief and accept it as in fact NOT new and NOT contrary to Tradition.  Now, if we want to argue about the limits of infallibility, that's a different matter.  But the axiom itself is meaningless and constantly being misapplied by R&R.

Ladislaus,


"For crying out loud" about what?
 
Your post has nothing to do with "axioms."  This is a matter of Dogma.  It is a Dogma that the (the content of) revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.  It is a Dogma that the subject matter of any infallible teaching is divine revelation, therefore, Dogma itself is divine revelation.  It is a Dogma "if a pope teaches something new," that is, some new doctrine that is not part of divine revelation, it cannot be accepted with divine faith and if it in any contradicts Dogma, it must be rejected.  For example, Pope John Paul II's opening encyclical, Redemptor hominis, addressed to the "church of the New Advent" in which he directly says:

Quote
"This inheritance (from recent pontificates) has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council, which John XXIII convened and opened and which was later successfully concluded and perseveringly put into effect by Paul VI, whose activity I was myself able to watch from close at hand."
John Paul II, Redemtor Hominis

Any teaching that is "utterly new" and "unknown previously" does not have to accepted by any of the faithful because no such teaching can ever bind that Catholic conscience because it cannot be part of divine revelation and the subject matter of Dogma, which itself is a Dogma.  It is not an axiom because it is a Dogma that, as you say, "
the Pope is PREVENTED by the Holy Spirit from teaching something new."  Because "something new" cannot be the subject of infallible teaching, "something new" meaning anything that cannot be directly related to divine revelation or indirectly following from it as a necessary corollary. 

Blessed Pius IX in his prologue to the declaration of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception says:
 
Quote
"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts."
Bl. Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus

The greater part of the decree, I would guess at least 80%, is just offering evidentiary proof that the doctrine was from divine revelation and therefore the proper subject matter for an infallible definition of the doctrine that would forever end any erroneous speculations on the question.  The same thing applies to Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, on the Assumption.  The greater part of the decree is again providing proof the the doctrine in question is a part of divine revelation.  These popes accepted it as their responsibility to establish that the doctrine in question was part of divine revelation.

St. Thomas must have considered the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception "contrary to Tradition" but once the doctrine is dogmatized, if here were alive at the time, would have accepted it as "something NOT new and NOT contrary to Tradition."  Everything here is a matter of dogma and not theoretical axioms.   
 
There is no "axiom" involved in what you have posted.  I am not disagreeing with anything said other than this is a matter of Dogma and not "axioms" which are just human postulates that serve as presuppositions.  The R&R position is consistent with Dogma and offers no conclusions that contradict Dogma.  The same cannot be said for S&S.  In fact S&S is now, in the present tense, in a position that is incompatible with Dogma and their criticism of R&R is grounded entirely in axiomatic presuppositions that are not true, such as, the pope possessing a personal never-failing-faith and a non-infallible infallibility in his ordinary magisterium, or the axiom that a corruption of custom that is generalized is therefore "universal" and must be accepted.  The sure sign that these human presuppositions are false is that they lead to the overturning of Dogma.
 


Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 29, 2018, 07:55:02 AM

Ladislaus,


"For crying out loud" about what?
 
Your post has nothing to do with "axioms."  This is a matter of Dogma.  It is a Dogma that the (the content of) revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.  It is a Dogma that the subject matter of any infallible teaching is divine revelation, therefore, Dogma itself is divine revelation.  It is a Dogma "if a pope teaches something new," that is, some new doctrine that is not part of divine revelation, it cannot be accepted with divine faith and if it in any contradicts Dogma, it must be rejected.  For example, Pope John Paul II's opening encyclical, Redemptor hominis, addressed to the "church of the New Advent" in which he directly says
Wrong. The Church defining dogma is not divine revelation. All dogma is divinely revealed in that it all comes from what was divinely revealed to the Apostles, but divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Basic Church teaching that you previously denied and attacked Ladislaus over due to your poor grasp on the English language, only to turn around now and contradict yourself. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: cathman7 on April 29, 2018, 10:17:51 AM
All this time spent on abstruse theological topics, what are we doing personally and collectively to rebuild the Catholic social order? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 29, 2018, 03:55:03 PM
Yes, it's almost physically painful to just read the tortured logic and contradiction in Drew's posts.  And yet he dismisses a theologian of +Guerard des Lauriers' qualifications and learning with the waive of his hand as a simpleton who doesn't know the basics regarding matter and form (Philosophy 101).  I'm not sure how much more I can take of this guy.  I'm done responding directly to him.

Ladislaus,
 
How appropriate Ladislaus that you should end your posting endorsing Forlorn's claim that "dogma is not divine revelation," and at the same time repeating your belief that no matter what des Lauriers may say, he is your rule of faith even when he builds a theological speculation upon a philosophical impossibility that overturns Dogma.  Since for you, "dogma is not divine revelation," you have no problem disregarding it as a limitation to theological misadventures.
 
You are phony and Forlorn is appropriately monikered.  But, never forget ever, that you are in a church of your own making, without pope, without magisterium, without dogma, without moral compass, without the possibility of salvation.  And you have no material or instrumental means to ever correct any of these deficiencies and more.  You have no excuse because the signs are manifestly self-evident.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 29, 2018, 04:12:38 PM
All this time spent on abstruse theological topics, what are we doing personally and collectively to rebuild the Catholic social order?

Obscurus,

These are not "abstruse theological topics."  The consequences are eternal salvation.  Those that keep dogma as there rule of faith have the possibility of salvation.  Those who do not, are by definition, heretics.
 
The rebuilding of Catholic social order can only happen by those working together who keep the faith.  S&S do not.  They have reached conclusions that are incompatible with membership in the Catholic Church.  The church they have created is manifestly lacking essential necessary attributes of the Catholic Church that make the her visible and knowable; that make her what she is.  What is worse is that not only are the missing these necessary attributes, they have no possible material or instrumental means to ever recover them.  The implications of this are grave because it implies a complacency in sin which makes repentance impossible.

The only weapon a faithful Catholic possess against the abuse of authority is truth.  That is, Dogma.  Those that keep Dogma as their rule of faith are the only ones who can ever contribute in the rebuilding of the Church and, from the Church, to the rebuilding of Catholic social order.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: cathman7 on April 29, 2018, 04:28:43 PM
Obscurus,

These are not "abstruse theological topics."  The consequences are eternal salvation.  Those that keep dogma as there rule of faith have the possibility of salvation.  Those who do not, are by definition, heretics.
 
The rebuilding of Catholic social order can only happen by those working together who keep the faith.  S&S do not.  They have reached conclusions that are incompatible with membership in the Catholic Church.  The church they have created is manifestly lacking essential necessary attributes of the Catholic Church that make the her visible and knowable; that make her what she is.  What is worse is that not only are the missing these necessary attributes, they have no possible material or instrumental means to ever recover them.  The implications of this are grave because it implies a complacency in sin which makes repentance impossible.

The only weapon a faithful Catholic possess against the abuse of authority is truth.  That is, Dogma.  Those that keep Dogma as their rule of faith are the only ones who can ever contribute in the rebuilding of the Church and, from the Church, to the rebuilding of Catholic social order.

Drew
How many have the aptitude and time committed to study what the Magisterium, the manuals and the theological conclusions of the best theologians have to say? It reminds me a bit of the question of the existence of God. It can absolutely be demonstrated that God exists using reason but the reality is people have reasoned so falsely on this question and are liable to commit so many errors that God in His infinite wisdom has deemed it necessary to give us His Revelation. That is not exactly the best comparison but until the Magisterium speaks clearly on the question of the Post-Conciliar period do we need to hurl anathemas at each other? (I will agree that the S&S seem too strident)

It is also an interesting phenomenon that all the "champions" of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are not known to do anything for really building a Catholic Social Order. I think that is somewhat of the point Fr Chazal made in one of his conferences in 2015. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 29, 2018, 05:38:57 PM


Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 29, 2018, 07:36:34 PM

Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI


Fr. Gregory Hesse, S.T.D., J.C.D. of Vienna held doctorates in both Thomistic theology and Canon Law. You S&S can detract and calumniate all you want. People can judge for themselves.Yes, like most Europeans he drunk wine. He also had serious and very painful medical conditions.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 29, 2018, 09:23:24 PM
How many have the aptitude and time committed to study what the Magisterium, the manuals and the theological conclusions of the best theologians have to say? It reminds me a bit of the question of the existence of God. It can absolutely be demonstrated that God exists using reason but the reality is people have reasoned so falsely on this question and are liable to commit so many errors that God in His infinite wisdom has deemed it necessary to give us His Revelation. That is not exactly the best comparison but until the Magisterium speaks clearly on the question of the Post-Conciliar period do we need to hurl anathemas at each other? (I will agree that the S&S seem too strident)

It is also an interesting phenomenon that all the "champions" of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are not known to do anything for really building a Catholic Social Order. I think that is somewhat of the point Fr Chazal made in one of his conferences in 2015.

Obscurus,

That is the first question proposed by St. Thomas in the Summa, with philosophy why do we need theological studies?  One answer is that there are certain doctrines of divine revelation that can be known with certainty by philosophy but still form part of God’s revelation. The reason is that most people do not have the time, inclination, or competency to study philosophy and even if they do may still end in error, so God in His mercy has provided certainty of these philosophical truths through divine revelation.

The precious gift of Dogma is exactly analogous to this very point made by St. Thomas that you mention. We know by divine revelation certain truths but often through lack of time, inclination or competency these remain poorly known. But what is worse, heretics corrupt this divine revelation leading many into error. God in His mercy again provides Dogma as a sure guide to His faithful.  Dogma is divine revelation formally defined, typically as a categorical proposition, that requires only good grammar and proper definition to understand, and good will to embrace.

This is why Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Dogma, like Scripture and Tradition, the remote rule of faith, is divine revelation but possessing such additional clarity that it is within the competency of every Catholic. Supernatural faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God the revealer.  No one has to understand any particular Dogma, they just have to believe it as a literal truth revealed by God.  St. Teresa of Jesus said she rejoiced more in the truths she did not understand than the ones she did because they required a greater act of faith and were therefore more virtuous.

The arguments that I have made in this thread are typically very simple and generally are the clarification of definitions, the importance of not corrupting first principles, and the necessity of being faithful to Dogma. But these have made no impression on committed S&Sers.  I have posted many times that they are in a church that cannot be the Catholic Church. They are in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, and no intention or means to ever get one and therefore, no hope.  Their church is defective of necessary attributes of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  Not once has any S&Ser addressed this manifest truth.  It does not matter to them.

They are impervious to any arguments.  Take one example.  Sedeprivationism begins with severing the matter and form of the papal office.  Hylomorphism, the philosophical truth that material beings are composed of form and matter, is philosophical truth that can be proven by natural reason.  It not only is a known philosophical truth, it is a truth of Catholic Dogma in that this philosophical truth has been used in Catholic Dogma on the sacraments. We know, not just by human reason, but by divine and Catholic faith that hylomorphism is true. From this we know with certainty that the separation of form and matter necessarily causes a substantial change in any material being. This is just one big cold hard fact.  How has it been answered over the last hundred pages?  The only answer is that this theory of sedeprivationism was formulated by the Rev. Guerard des Lauriers and it is unthinkable to suggest that he could have made such a stupid mistake.  That is it. That is the only answer provided over hundreds of posts.  The appeal to authority is the weakest of all arguments unless the authority is God then it is the strongest of all arguments.  Dogma is the authority of God and Dogma has been pitted against the authority of Guerard des Lauriers.  Ladislaus, Cantarella, et al. prefer the authority of Guerard des Lauriers over the authority of God.

The consequences are grave and yet S&Sers march on with a mindless self absorption that is frightening.  But the consequences go beyond the wreckage of their personal spiritual lives. They must necessarily become an enemy of Dogma because they are manifestly corrupting Dogma in their personal lives.  The greatest opposition to traditional Catholicism since Vatican II has not been from liberal Catholics.  It has been conservative Catholics that have constantly undermined the efforts to defend Tradition.  The interesting thing is that the arguments offered by S&Sers regarding the pope, the magisterium, councils, Catholic morality, etc., etc., are almost identical with those offered by conservative Catholics over the last fifty years.  One thing is certain, traditional Catholics working in defense of the faith for Catholic restoration will get the same knife in the back from S&Sers that they have suffered from conservative Catholics.  In the end both will have a lot to answer for.

Drew    
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 29, 2018, 09:36:43 PM
Did you even ever addressed the fact that your position has already been dogmatically condemned by the Council of Trent, under the errors of Luther:

This means that if Vatican II is actually a valid Ecunemical Council, you are not allowed to "weaken" its authority, contradict its actions, nor judge its decrees.

Catholics cannot reject Ecunemical Councils, "in the name of Dogma".

Cantarella,

What you have posted is true if the pope is your rule of faith.  I have known this for a long time. 

You are in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no moral compass, no intention or material and instrumental means to ever correct these manifest defects.  You are right here and now in a church that cannot be Catholic.  Whatever problems I have to address, they are nothing compared to yours.  There must have been an insufferable stench aboard the Ark but you prefer treading water.  Good luck.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 29, 2018, 10:38:38 PM
Did you even ever addressed the fact that your position has already been dogmatically condemned by the Council of Trent, under the errors of Luther:

This means that if Vatican II is actually a valid Ecunemical Council, you are not allowed to "weaken" its authority, contradict its actions, nor judge its decrees.

Catholics cannot reject Ecunemical Councils, "in the name of Dogma".
.
Cantarella, you seem to be in a tizzy about Vat.II being questioned as if it were invalid, when a pope (Paul VI) approved it.
.
He approved the New Mass too, you know, and punished anyone who opposed it.
Does that make the Newmass okay somehow? I hope you don't think so!
.
The problem is, as Fr. Hesse so well explained, there is NOTHING DOGMATIC about Vat.II.
.
It has misleading titles of parts, saying "Dogmatic" this or that, but there was no dogma defined anywhere at Vat.II.
.
The Liberals have long attempted to hijack the titles claiming that they render the material below them infallible.
.
Don't believe it.
.
The last infallible definition was the Assumption of Our Lady in 1950 by Pius XII.
.
And when the Liberals say we are obliged to give ascent of mind and will to things doctrinally proposed by ecuмenical councils even when not infallibly defined, keep in mind they're liberals and they want you to believe in liberalism.
.
But Liberalism is a Sin.
.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 30, 2018, 07:23:50 AM
I posted a textual dogmatic definition from the Council of Trent.

Dogmatic definitions such as those promulgated in the Council of Trent are simply true, regardless of the Pope, Magisterium, Dogma, etc. being "our" Rule of Faith.

Are you really telling me now that I have to check the infallible Tridentine pronouncements against "Dogma" (as interpreted by Mr. Drew)?. That these pronouncements may not really mean what they literally say, and that they are true ONLY IF....something?

That is Modernism.  

The extent you are going here to defend the R&R rhetoric is simply unbelievable.

You are contradicting yourself in your attachment to "Dogma" in order to defend the novelty of R&R. I hope one day you can see it for what it truly is.

Cantarella,

If the pope were not your rule of faith you would not be repeating such vacuous bromides that imply Vatican II is infallible in all its decrees.

If dogma is your rule of faith as you imply from your appeal to Trent, then what are you doing in a church of your own making that is permanently defective of necessary attributes of the Catholic Church?

You want it one way when it seems to help you arguments and when it does not, it is conveniently set aside.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 30, 2018, 07:25:03 AM
#1 ... the first part is absolutely true.  If a dogma is doubtful, it's not a dogma.  By the very definition of dogma, dogma must be know with the certainty of faith, which precludes all doubt.  So, if there's doubt about a dogma, it's not a dogma.

#2 ... the second is a false non-sequitur conclusion.  I know of no dogmas at the present time which are "doubtful", and no one is relieved from believing in "dogma at all" simply because one or another dogma happens to have a doubtful status.

This why it's so incredibly frustrating to engage with you guys on the forum.  It's almost painful to read your ridiculous attempts at "logic".
Yes, it is incredibly frustrating.

It is an oxymoron to say a dogma is doubtful, so there is no doubt that we must be subject to the pope, because there is no doubt that that is dogma. The power of doubting does not relieve anyone from this requirement for heaven, by design there is no way around it or out of it.   
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Mr G on April 30, 2018, 07:47:08 AM
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/breaking-st-anthanasius-church-in.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/breaking-st-anthanasius-church-in.html)

Breaking: St. Anthanasius Church in Vienna, VA Officially Renounces the Recognize and Resist Position: Straight from the Bulletin
 
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PuqRtgintnI/WuY-ZN1hggI/AAAAAAAAAzo/uoJCPpoMPzsJpbtmBkS6DPq-HXFdefPzgCLcBGAs/s1600/Fr%2BRonald%2BRingrose%2BVienna%2BVA%2BSaint%2BAthanasius%2BLatin%2BMass.PNG)

 (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251)Dr. Chojnowski: Here is an announcement placed in Fr. Ringrose's St. Athanasius Church. This was just sent me by a parishioner. I don't see how you can say anything else but they are rejecting what has come to be called the "recognize and resist" position. What will Fr. Ortiz do since I know he is a "recognize and resist" Resistance priest? Things are a changin'.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CFrXpE-h39w/WuZARYEfHaI/AAAAAAAAAz0/rKAAUF9SC_cLixEYvTMQORhqxy7OH2M3ACLcBGAs/s320/Image-1.jpg) (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CFrXpE-h39w/WuZARYEfHaI/AAAAAAAAAz0/rKAAUF9SC_cLixEYvTMQORhqxy7OH2M3ACLcBGAs/s1600/Image-1.jpg)


Here is the video the bulletin speaks of:


 (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251) (https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4015574537941757251)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 30, 2018, 11:19:26 AM
I might take the time to post if you can justify your demand that it be a pre-VI theologian.  What happened at Vatican I that magically invalidates all theology after that time?  Even then, it's a waste of my time because you simply dismiss as wrong and invalid anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
It is actually not all that complicated.

You keep siting teachings of 19th/20th century theologians as if they represent teachings of the Church, or at least, as you wrongfully said: "all theologians", but they don't, the teachings you keep siting only represent post-V1 era theologians (aka "19th/20th century theologians") whose teachings became instrumental within novus ordo, used for malicious purposes and accepted by the masses as if they are actually doctrines of the Church.

The reality is that pre-V1, the theologians never taught the things many of the post V1 theologians taught because infallibility was always understood exactly as V1 defined it. The confusion enters into the minds of the people when you introduce the musings of the post V1 theologians as if their musings are in fact what the Church has always taught, but this is wrong.  

It is exactly as +ABL, (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Interview_With_Archbishop_Lefebvre.htm) said in the linked interview:

Q. But isn't the fact that Pope Paul VI occupies the seat of St. Peter enough for you to heed whatever the pontiff as the vicar of Christ on earth asks you to do, just as other Catholics do?

A. "Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.....


Since sometime after V1, as +ABL said, infallibility has gotten misunderstood. Infallibility is no longer limited to the pope when he speaks ex cathedra, rather, SOMEONE (some theologians after V1) has wrongfully convinced the masses that *infallibility has been extended* to disciplines, to whatever the pope wants, says or teaches, to whatever the unanimity of bishops teach, to councils, canon laws, catechisms and even to theologians themselves.
 

Who was it that was instrumental in "widely promoting" this gross misunderstanding of infallibility if not the post V1 theologians? You keep referencing them as an infallible authority and the masses believe as you do, yet as +ABL says and V1 dictates, they are wrong.

This is why I ask for you to post quotes from pre-V1 theologians. When you find there are no pre-V1 theologian or Church teachings whatsoever on a Disciplinary infallibility of the Church, you will be faced with the reality to conclude for yourself that the whole idea is new and only taught by post V1 theologians and consequently, the NO church.



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 30, 2018, 11:24:08 AM
Produce the quote.
A. "Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.....
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 30, 2018, 01:06:14 PM
Great, but this doesn't mean that the post-Vatican I theological treatises can all be dismissed by clowns like you who can barely read English simply because it was "better" understood back then.  Nor is "misunderstood" the opposite of "better understood", rather it's "less understood".  Nor does it make his statement true.  +ABL also said that infidels could be saved.

In any case, see the video I just linked to above where +ABL says that it's not possible for the Pope, who has the protection of the Holy Spirit, to do the things that he has done ... and going on to speculate that the Holy See could be vacant.  It's well known that +Lefebvre went all over the place on the Pope question at various points in his life.
You either post the thing I asked you to post, i.e. quote from any of the pre-V1 "all theologians" who taught Universal Discipline that you falsely accused teaching this NO doctrine, or admit you lied. It's not complicated.

Do you have even the foggiest idea what a Universal Discipline even is? Neither did the pre-V1 theologians you clown.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on April 30, 2018, 02:34:03 PM
You either post the thing I asked you to post, i.e. quote from any of the pre-V1 "all theologians" who taught Universal Discipline that you falsely accused teaching this NO doctrine, or admit you lied. It's not complicated.

Do you have even the foggiest idea what a Universal Discipline even is? Neither did the pre-V1 theologians you clown.
V1 wasn't the beginning of NO you bumbling idiot. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 30, 2018, 02:57:20 PM
V1 wasn't the beginning of NO you bumbling idiot.
You need to read what I wrote you bumbling idiot.

Care to try again?


Quote
Since sometime after V1, as +ABL said, infallibility has gotten misunderstood. Infallibility is no longer limited to the pope when he speaks ex cathedra, rather, SOMEONE (some theologians after V1) has wrongfully convinced the masses that *infallibility has been extended* to disciplines, to whatever the pope wants, says or teaches, to whatever the unanimity of bishops teach, to councils, canon laws, catechisms and even to theologians themselves.

The thing to do when trying to make sense of this subject - according to the teachings of the Church, is to be sure to always start with the pope in the Chair as your foundation. If that is not your foundation, you will forever argue in circles and never be able to ever make any sense of this situation. You will need to invent novelties like "canonical submission" and "disciplinary infallibility" etc. - all terms that sound like something but in reality are only the tools used by workers of iniquity.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 30, 2018, 07:25:53 PM
If you want to argue that Vatican II Council is NOT an Ecunemical Council of the Church, that is fine. Explain your reasons. But what you cannot do is picking and choosing what to accept and what to reject from a General Council promulgated by the legitimate authority. You cannot "recognize" errors in an Ecunemical Council and "resist" them on your own accord.

The Council of Trent says as condemned:

Mr. Drew says:

Tridentine definitions such as the one above are simply TRUE, without the "ifs"

Cantarella,

Your quotation is not from the Council of Trent.  It is from the decree Exsurge Domine from Pope Leo X in 1520 condemning the errors of Luther.  It is a important decree, but alas, what you are quoting is not a Dogma.  How is it that you cannot recognize a Dogma when you read one? 

How have you become so stupid so as to take an article from the condemnation of Luther out of context to defend your absurd claim that Vatican II must therefore be "infallible" and accepted in every detail?

The pope is your rule of faith.  I have known this for a long time. You believe that he possess a personal "never-failing faith," an infallible infallibility, and fallible infallibility.  You have made him into a god but not a big enough god that you cannot get rid of him whenever it suits.  

The condemnations of Luther apply directly and explicitly to your church because you, like Luther, have no pope and no magisterium.  As I said before:


Quote
"You are in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no moral compass, no intention or material and instrumental means to ever correct these manifest defects.  You are right here and now in a church that cannot be Catholic.  Whatever problems I have to address, they are nothing compared to yours.  There must have been an insufferable stench aboard the Ark but you prefer treading water.  Good luck."

Drew


Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 30, 2018, 09:42:29 PM
Stupidity is to think that the only way the Holy Ghost communicates Himself to the Militant Church is by exclusive definitions enclosed in grammatical "Canons" and "Anathemas" of times past. That is even worse than Protestants claiming they know the Word of God through "Sola Scriptura" and that is it.

Ecunemical Councils have the assistance of the Holy Ghost, period.

"Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience).

^^^^^^

What Church are you in, that even though having a Pope, you cannot trust him, having a Magisterium you cannot trust it? Recognizing who the Vicar of Christ is on earth, yet you cannot follow him. You cannot even trust the Ecunemical Councils of the Church.

The Church Herself has turned against you and your moral compass is only yourself.

Cantarella,

Here you are again distorting what has been said which is just another way of lying.  You made a mistake attributing a condemnation of Luther from Leo X from Exsurge Domine as a "Dogmatic definition .... promulgated in the Council of Trent," and rather than acknowledge an error, you reply by claiming that I "think that the only way the Holy Ghost communicates Himself to the Militant Church is by exclusive definitions enclosed in grammatical 'Canons' and 'Anathemas' of times past." You are claiming that I hold that if it is not Dogma it does not bind the Catholic conscience.

Produce a single quotation from any post where I have made such a claim.  You will not be able to do so, but for the record, I can produce many posts where I have told you time and again that Dogma is part of divine revelation.  It is that part of divine revelation that has been formally defined by the Magisterium of the Church. When a doctrine of faith is defined, it moves from being a "formal object of divine faith" to a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith."  Either way, it is and always was a formal object of faith.  Dogma is distinguished from the rest of divine revelation in that it becomes the proximate rule of faith while the rest of divine revelation is the remote rule of faith.  Note again, the rule of faith is divine revelation.  

I am member of the Catholic Church and I have a pope.  It is true that he is a heretic and I do not trust him.  But Jesus Christ did not "trust" the heretic Caiaphas, the high priest, either.  He still told His disciples that they sit in Chair of Moses, and as St. John said, because Caiaphas was the high priest, although a heretic and deicide, he was used by God to accurately prophecy that Jesus should die for the nation.  Because who hold the pope as your rule of faith, you cannot tolerate a heretic pope. You have to make yourself the lord of the harvest.

I also have a Magisterium but this I can and do trust because I have the promise of Jesus Christ that He would preserve the Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority, from ever binding the Catholic conscience to doctrinal and/or moral error.  Therefore, even when someone like John Paul II engaged the Magisterium through its "ordinary and universal" mode of operation, I can rely upon it to teach the truth which in fact, it did.

Lastly, since I hold Dogma as the rule of faith, I can reliably reject all that is contrary to divinely revealed truth while you have nothing but your own wit to follow. That has led you into manifest heresy.  The church you belong to is NOT the Catholic Church.  It has no pope, no magisterium, no moral compass, no chance of salvation, nothing.  And most importantly, these defects are permanent because the church you belong to has no intention or means to ever correct these defects.

This is where you are right now.  You are already in a state of hopeless despair.  It may take awhile to sink in but you are already there.

Next time try to check our your cut and past quotes more carefully.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 01, 2018, 08:39:06 AM
No, you most certainly are not a member of the Catholic Church.  You have broken communion with the man you claim to be the legitimate Pope and have also pertinaciously embraced various heresies regarding the Magisterium and general ecclesiology.  Since you have your private judgment as your proximate rule of faith, you do not have the supernatural virtue of faith.
Well, he has no idea if the pope is the pope, but he is certain Drew is not a member of the Catholic Church. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 01, 2018, 09:24:44 AM
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/radtrad-thomist-mentioned-in-st.html?m=1
It is significant because it is predicated on a dogmatic rejection of the R&R principle heresy:  that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church.

So, when you are released from the ideological strangle-hold of the SSPX, and you study ACTUAL CATHOLIC ECCLESIOLOGY, the conclusion that R&R is not Catholic is simply inescapable.
Best to stick with Archbishop Lefebvre's and Pope Pius IX's explanations and reject another ladism. Sedes need to accept Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is, until then, they will remain completely confused and lost in their abstract, shapeless and novus ordo ever changing magisterium.


Magisterium:

"...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." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 01, 2018, 09:48:45 AM
Dumbass, I guess that Fathers Ringrose, Chazal, Pinaud, Ronoult, and Roy are just my lackey followers.  So we have 5 priests here against the heretic Stubborn.

What is it that upsets you so much about Pope Pius IX's clear explanation of what the magisterium is? Do you doubt he was a pope too?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 01, 2018, 10:04:25 AM
I was simply calling out your stupidity in referring to these priests as "Ladists".  Guess what, bonehead, we all came to the same conclusion independently by studying Catholic theology.
Well first, I never referred to those priests as "Ladists" you bone head, you sure hold yourself in high esteem.

If you all came to the same conclusions, you did so by learning your theology from the same post V1 theologians. It is no wonder you are so confused.

You have a magisteriam that defected but that can't happen, a pope and hierarchy who may not be the pope and hierarchy, you have something called an infallible universal discipline that no one even knows what that is, but whatever that is, like all things NO is also completely corrupted, you have all the bishops in the world in union with the pope whose teachings are supposed to be infallible yet they are all teaching heresy and other errors in unison with the pope.

Goodness! No wonder you are confused.

What is it that upsets you so much about Pope Pius IX's clear explanation of what the magisterium is? Do you doubt he was a pope too?
    
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 01, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
You referred to their position as "Ladism".  That would make them "Ladists", moron.
You seem to wholly agree that the R&R hold to a "principle heresy", namely: "that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church."  

You are confusing what the magisterium actually is, with what the confused sede / NO idea inspired by some post V1 theologians, of it is.

The reason that false claim and you are ridiculous, is because you are making the claim that the R&R actually believes that the magisterium, that is; "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world," has imposed evil practices on the universal Church. That whole idea is totally false and beyond utterly ridiculous.

You and the other sedes simply cannot be as confused as you seem to want the rest of us to think you are.

What have you got against Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is anyway? Do you doubt he was pope too?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 01, 2018, 10:56:06 AM
How did you figure that one out, Sherlock?
From your confused, NO inspired replies.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 01, 2018, 11:01:31 AM
You, on the other hand, are confusing heresy with actual Catholicism.
Really? Do I confuse Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is too? Why don't you let us know what he really meant you NO theologian wannabe.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 01, 2018, 11:14:36 AM
Absolutely.  You completely distort his meaning.
LOL
Now THAT'S funny.
BTW, don't hold it against me for not taking your word for it.


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 01, 2018, 08:57:58 PM
The condemned Errors of Heresiarch Martin Luther by Pope Leo X are not "dogmatic" enough for Mr. Drew. I guess we can all question them now even though this Papal Bull undoubtedly belongs to the Infallible Magisterium of the Church.

However, to Mr. Drew these errors are not really "DOGMA" and as such, they are fallible and I guess they may be doubted. Perhaps these errors were not that serious and Luther was not that bad, after all? On this, Mr. Drew would fit right in with Francis who is celebrating the Reformation, even though the Council of Trent condemned it with hundreds of anathemas.

I really hope those in the fence can see through this complete nonsense.

From Exsurge Domine:

What is next Mr. Drew, am I allowed to start questioning the veracity of Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctam?

Cantarella,

The docuмent Exsurge Domine states within itself the authority of the condemnations.

Quote
“Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be.”
Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine

It does not identify the authority of each individual article. You have referenced #29 which says:

Quote
“A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.”
Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine, article 29

You have called this a “Dogma from the Council of Trent.”  When it was pointed out to you that it is not from the Council of Trent you have replied by insisting that it is still a “dogma”.  The fact of the matter is that you do not know if it is “heretical” (having already been dogmatized) or simply “offensive to pious ears.” Many of the articles are formal heresies and came from previous dogmatic condemnations.  They are specifically referred to as having been condemned at the Council of Constance against “the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians.”  Many of the articles were not heresies at the time but became so after they were dogmatically treated at the Council of Trent, such as the specific dogmas from Trent on the sacraments of Baptism and Penance. But understand this, there is no Catholic dogma placing every council at every level above criticism by any of the faithful for any reason.

When Pope Leo X is referring to an ecuмenical council in Exsurge Domine he uses the term, “general council,” or uses the specific name of the council, such as, the Council of Constance.  Number 29 is referring to all councils without any differentiation or qualifications.  This covers any local, regional, or national council or synod. But regional councils have in the past been modified or in some cases entirely rejected by the Magisterium.

What you have learned from Ladislaus is not to retract an error but rather to compound it.  This is not to minimize the importance of Exsurge Domine but to understand its authority.  Catholics “must regard them (the articles) as condemned, reprobated, and rejected.”  But unlike dogmas that need never be contextualized, these condemnations do because, unlike dogmas that are universal truths, these are not necessarily so. Luther denied the pope, the papal office, the Magisterium, the authority of all councils and dogmatic definitions.

But what have you done?  Don’t you see the irony of your position?  You and Ladislaus when a real Dogma is presented to you have accuse me of being a “Protestant” for engaging in “private interpretation” of dogmas, while you, offer your own definitive interpretation of an article of condemnation against Luther raising it to the level of a dogma when it is not.  You hold article #29 is a dogma and have concluded that it means that every Catholic who recognizes the conciliar popes as valid popes must uncritically accept a pastoral council’s teaching without any qualification even when it contradicts Catholic dogma.  

To address this you have “mused” that the pope must not be the pope and taken these musing to be facts.  Even when these “facts” directly contradict Catholic dogma.  It is a Dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith that the papal office will exist until the consummation of the world having perpetual successors.  

If you read the condemnations from Leo X in Exsurge Domine you will find that they do anticipate the formal condemnations from the Council of Trent. Luther denied the Magisterium and the papacy.  Like Luther, you are in a church that has neither a pope nor a Magisterium.  Like Luther, your church does not have the intention or the means to ever correct these problems.  Like Luther, you have no moral compass.  

That is why Dogma is the rule of faith.  Those that keep Dogma are of the faithful, those who do not are heretics. You are accusing R&R of “heresy” without any dogma to support your
allegations.  You have to make one up.

This is where you are right now, outside the Catholic Church.  

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 01, 2018, 09:38:54 PM
Cantarella,

....................

That is why Dogma is the rule of faith.  Those that keep Dogma are of the faithful, those who do not are heretics. You are accusing R&R of “heresy” without any dogma to support your
allegations.  You have to make one up.

This is where you are right now, outside the Catholic Church.  

Drew

Cantarella is out, but Francis is in? ;D
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: sedevacantist3 on May 01, 2018, 10:05:01 PM
Can i get something written from the Church stating a non catholic can be pope?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 02, 2018, 05:36:20 AM


https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606716/#msg606716


Cantarella, On reply # 1604 above you quoted Article 29 of Exsurge Domine as a condemnation from the Council of Trent. :facepalm:

Here is the entire docuмent:


Quote
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm

Exsurge Domine
Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther
Pope Leo X - 1520
Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it.

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter’s. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.


Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics “whose last defense,” as Jerome says, “is to start spewing out a serpent’s venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished.” For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, “It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man’s, or what is worse, the devil’s.”

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed.

These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church’s advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance. Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord’s field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history.

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circuмstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present docuмent; their substance is as follows:


1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.”

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God’s mercy for pardon.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

26. The word of Christ to Peter: “Whatsoever you shall loose on earth,” etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.
28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.


30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

31. In every good work the just man sins.

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.

36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.

40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.

41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord’s field as harmful thornbushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): “I will be with you to the consummation of the world”; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication….

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.

But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal docuмents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.
{And even though the love of righteousness and virtue did not take him away from sin and the hope of forgiveness did not lead him to penance, perhaps the terror of the pain of punishment may move him. Thus we beseech and remind this Martin, his supporters and accomplices of his holy orders and the described punishment. We ask him earnestly that he and his supporters, adherents and accomplices desist within sixty days (which we wish to have divided into three times twenty days, counting from the publication of this bull at the places mentioned below) from preaching, both expounding their views and denouncing others, from publishing books and pamphlets concerning some or all of their errors. Furthermore, all writings which contain some or all of his errors are to be burned. Furthermore, this Martin is to recant perpetually such errors and views. He is to inform us of such recantation through an open docuмent, sealed by two prelates, which we should receive within another sixty days. Or he should personally, with safe conduct, inform us of his recantation by coming to Rome. We would prefer this latter way in order that no doubt remain of his sincere obedience.
If, however, this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices, much to our regret, should stubbornly not comply with the mentioned stipulations within the mentioned period, we shall, following the teaching of the holy Apostle Paul, who teaches us to avoid a heretic after having admonished him for a first and a second time, condemn this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices as barren vines which are not in Christ, preaching an offensive doctrine contrary to the Christian faith and offend the divine majesty, to the damage and shame of the entire Christian Church, and diminish the keys of the Church as stubborn and public heretics.}* . . .

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 02, 2018, 08:20:14 AM
Mr. Drew,

I think you have completely discredited yourself with this argument, with no possible amend. This is exactly what the liberals are saying today in order to reconcile Luther and praise the Reformation....along with Francis.

This statement  claims Exsurge Domine "contains no hierarchy of condemnation," and "never distinguishing which of the forty-one errors are heretical doctrinally and which are merely "offensive to pious ears.".

This is absolutely no different from what you say. This depravity is being promoted in Catholic Answers and other Modernist outlets to the satisfaction of all of these heretics thinking that Lutherans and Catholics are one and the same and that the condemned errors of Luther do not really mean what they say.  

This is yet another example of you taking sides with the enemies of the Papacy and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Ladislaus has made the correct assertion of you.


Cantarella,

Pope Leo X, himself, in the docuмent Exsurge Domine, itself, says twice, once at the beginning and again at the end, the level of authority of the various articles of condemnation against Luther.  They range from being heretical to offensive to pious ears.  The articles that are regarded as heretical reject Catholic dogma as previously defined at ecuмenical councils.  Subsequent to the publication of Exsurge Domine at the Council of Trent, several of the articles against Luther became formal heresy after being dogmatized at Trent.

This is a fact, not opinion, but a historical fact that cannot be excused by trying to attribute it to the fruit of a “liberal” ideology.

You said the same thing earlier about the fact that two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective pontiffs condemned Pope Honorius as a “heretic” and “anathematized” him by name.  You said that this was an argument used by the enemies of the Church!  It, like the authority of the condemnations in Exsurge Domine, is not an argument at all but a historical fact.  Facts have to be normative in your judgments.

You claimed that article #29 was a “dogma from the Council of Trent.”  It is not from the Council of Trent and it has never been dogmatized, not at the time of its publication or subsequently at Trent.  This is not to diminish the importance of the condemnations of Luther but rather to recognize the correct authority of particular articles.

Dogma does not lend itself to contextual interpretation because Dogma is divine revelation expressed in the form of a universal categorical judgment that is always and everywhere true or false.  Any other condemnation from the ordinary magisterium of the Church that is not necessarily infallible permits and often requires contextual considerations to properly understand. You are taking an article that you are ignorant of its authority and making it a dogma of faith and interpreting it to mean that everything in any council whatsoever must never be questioned.  The Church herself does not do this and has historically rejected individual judgments of councils and on occasion, entire councils.

Luther rejected the pope and the Magisterium and the authority of all councils.  Your church is similar in this regard.  You have no pope and no Magisterium and will never have a council.  The Catholic dogmas that you overthrow to arrive at this end present no greater obstacles to you than the condemnations of the Greeks and the Bohemians at the Council of Constance did to Luther.  You have no way out.  You are parked in a dead end and have not figured out how you got there.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Theosist on May 02, 2018, 11:24:01 AM
Quote
But unlike dogmas that need never be contextualized, these condemnations do because, unlike dogmas that are universal truths, these are not necessarily so.
Sophistry. This is an implicit statement of relativism. It’s at heart the same epistemological nonsense that the SSPX have used to deny John 3:6 and the Athanasian Creed to preach the possibility of salvation without faith and baptism.

A “universal truth”? As opposed to another kind?

Please provide an example of a true statement which is not true everywhere and for all time in the sense in which it is intended.


Quote
We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.
Sorry, but Exsurge Domine clearly states that the ideas it condemns are not Catholic but against doctrine and tradition. 

Heresy or not, can they be against the doctrine and tradition of the Church but not “universally” so? It’s a cognitively meaningless string of vacuous words on your part.

Quote
By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . .
Teaching on faith binding upon the whole Church ... oops.


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 02, 2018, 11:36:04 AM
Someone posted this on another thread, from John of St. Thomas (pre Vatican I theologian).

Paying attention, Drew?   :laugh1:

Pre-Vatican I theologian, Stubborn.   :laugh1:
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 02, 2018, 01:06:45 PM
Unbelievable.  Luther promoted dogma as the rule of faith.  Only difference between him and you is that he only held that there was one source of Revelation instead of the two you believe in.  You are also a heretic for asserting that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can corrupt the faith and endanger souls.  [see the video from Archbishop Lefebvre below]

So when there's no pope after one dies and before another one is elected (in the past this has sometimes gone on for years), there's no Church anymore?


Ladislaus,

You have at least one thing right in this post, “Unbelievable.” Another of your posts without offering any evidence or reasoned arguments. But one thing that it is not missing it your characteristic corruption of definitions.

Luther could not have held “dogma as the rule of faith” because Dogma is the fruit of the Magisterium.  The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon its divine Attributes of Infallibility and Authority.  Since it teaches by virtue of divine Attributes, the teaching is always infallibly true.  Luther rejected the pope, the papal office, the Magisterum, and the authority of all councils. Luther’s rule of faith was “sola scriptura” interpreted by each individual. Since Luther rejected the means by which Dogma is produced, he could not possibly have held dogma as his rule of faith.

Luther’s church shares many essential qualities of your own.  You hold the “magisterium as your rule of faith,” but believe that your magisterium is “dormant.”  Unfortunately, it is not “dormant,” but dead because the means to engage the Magisterium have been destroyed.  Sedeprivationism removes the pope from office by destroying the office.  You have no pope, no magisterium, to rule of faith so you, like Luther, are stuck with “Sola Ladislaus.”

It is only possible to believe that the “Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can corrupt the faith and endanger souls” if you do not know what the Magisterium is and you do not know what is meant by “universal discipline.”  The Magisterium is always and everywhere infallibly true and those who keep dogma, the fruit of the Magisterium, as their rule of faith will never be deceived.  As for “universal discipline,” you make two common mistakes. The first is that you typically eliminate the necessary attribute of time the definition of “universal” which totally corrupts its meaning.  The second mistake is your belief in the myth of “mere ecclesiastical faith” which regards immemorial customs as matters of mere discipline rather than necessary attributes of the faith by which it can be known and communicated to others. 

Lastly, it is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith that the papacy will endure with perpetual successors until the consummation of the world. Your claim that your magisterium is “dormant” because you have no pope.  I am telling you that it is dead because you have no material or instrumental means to ever get one. Your church, like Luther’s, is not the Catholic Church.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 02, 2018, 02:02:31 PM
Nothing new here. This was already addressed. I understand that you, just as Jimmy Akins from Catholic Answers, as well as the pro-Luther "Catholics" of today, believe that Exsurge Domine is only "partially" true. And the only reason you are willing to go this far is because one of the condemned errors of Martin Luther by Pope Leo X specifically applies to you, as anyone with honest integrity can see. Otherwise, you would not be questioning the veracity of this renowned Papal Bull which makes part of the Infallible Magisterium of the Church.

If you think that my belief that Ecunemical Councils represent the Universal Church (and therefore, have the assistance of the Holy Ghost which prevents them from teaching errors, and require absolute obedience), is solely based on Exsurge Domine, you are quite mistaken, though. I have already provided many other ecclesiastical sources throughout this thread supporting this dogmatic truth. I can defend it without Exsurge Domine.

Cantarella,

It is Pope Leo X, the author of Exsurge Domine, who says that the articles against Luther have variable levels of authority from rank heresy to offensive to pious ears.

What “dogmatic truth” are you defending?  Article #29 refers to all councils without distinction.  Are you claiming that it is a “dogma” that all councils at all levels are beyond criticism in all their decisions?

You should worry more about your own error rather than the problems of others.  You are in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no councils, no dogma and no means to ever correct these gross defects.  The church you are in cannot be the Catholic Church because it lacks necessary attributes that make the Catholic Church what she is.  These defects in your church are shared by Lutherans.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Theosist on May 02, 2018, 03:30:12 PM
Quote
Are you claiming that it is a “dogma” that all councils at all levels are beyond criticism in all their decisions?
Blah, blah, straw man.

Condemnations by popes or general councils of propositions pertaining to faith or morals are in principle themselves teachings on faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. They are therefore exercises in infallibility. So with all of Exsurge Domine’s condemned propositions.

Spare us the argument about Honorius you were about to parrot. Anathematisation of a particular person as a heretic is not the same thing as a condemnation of an idea itself or exercise in this kind of infallibility (though binding, my dear Jansenists) because the Church is not given the power to determine without fail what a person’s actual beliefs are. Of course such judgments can be overturned - not because of “context” or “non-universal truth” or an lifting of the condemnation of an idea, but because they are essentially fallible juridical decisions.

And I’ll say it again: any condemnation as false of an idea by Exsurge Domine, if true at that time and place, is true today and here and will forever be true everywhere. That’s not a matter of Catholic doctrine but an analytic a priori truth of immutable logic.

Next please.



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 02, 2018, 03:32:38 PM
OK, Drew, let's contrast my Church and yours.

My Church:  sometimes there's no actively reigning pope, such as when one dies and before another one is elected
Your Church:  there's always a pope, at every moment and instant of history, and this pope could teach all manner of heresies, endanger souls, and lead people to hell.

I'll take "My" Church over YOURS any day.

Ladislaus,
 
Good post.  Now everyone knows that you and I are not in the same church.  As you say, your church has “no actively reigning pope” but don’t think of this as an interregnum.  Your church has no intention of ever getting a pope because it does not have the material or instrumental means to ever correct the defect.  Sedeprivationism destroys the office.  You have no chair to sit on.
 
It is a dogma of the Catholic Church, that is, an article of divine and Catholic faith, that the Catholic Church will keep the papal office intact and occupied with perpetual successors until the consummation of the world.  God has promised that we would always have a pope.  He did not promise that these popes would be faithful. 

My Church is the Catholic Church where there is a heretical pope, but, God, true to His promise, has prevented over the last sixty years heretical popes from engaging the Magisterium of the Church to bind doctrinal and/or moral errors on the faithful.  These heretical popes will, as you say, “lead people to hell” but only those people who make the pope their rule of faith.  Those who keep dogma as their rule of faith will have no problem keeping on the right road to salvation. As Jesus said, “Take heed lest any man deceive you…..  Go ye therefore not after them.” 
 
Drew 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Theosist on May 02, 2018, 03:46:53 PM
Quote
He did not promise that these popes would be faithful.
Stop. Just stop.

 ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.’
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.
- Vatican I

The Church has therefore explicitly taught that the Pope has the gift of unfailing faith (identified by Innocent III with his personal faith through the very citation from Luke found in the preceding text of Vatican I, so spare me the nonsense about it referring to the faith of the Church). Nothing Jesus Christ prays for is refused.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 02, 2018, 03:57:51 PM
Clowns like Drew and Stubborn confuse indefectibility with mere material continuity.  But why did Our Lord found this Church and this Magisterium in the first place?  Precisely in order to keep people anchored in the truth and to help save their souls.  But if it does the OPPOSITE, lead them into error and endanger their souls, then it has FAILED IN ITS MISSION.  That is more defectibility than if some office or another remains vacant for a length of time.

Ladislaus,
 
It is impossible for a Catholic to confuse “indefectibility with mere material continuity.”  Why?  Because, Indefectibility is primarily an Attribute of God.  It is an Attribute of the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church is a divine institution.  Indefectibility as an Attribute is a spiritual power that cannot be confused with crass materialism.  God has promised that the papal office would be preserved with perpetual successors until the consummation of the world.  The spiritual authority cannot be lost without the destruction of the office.
 
Indefectibility relates primarily to the proper worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful as said before.  The proof of the Indefectibility of the Church is that the true worship of God and the means of sanctification of the faithful have never been absent from the Church even with the corruptions since Vatican II.  There has always been a faithful remnant that have not accepted any Novus Ordo prevarications in doctrine, worship or morals.
 
Furthermore, the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Authority and Infallibility has not at any time failed to teach the truth even on those rare occasions when engaged by heretical popes. 
 
Those who make the pope their rule of faith will fail.  Those who keep dogma as their rule of faith will not.  
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 02, 2018, 04:07:16 PM
I am defending this truth:

(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31743497_10155622508418691_6805740190091444224_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=35d0baade12392f8017c48fd9db7b273&oe=5B93DC44)


(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31768642_10155622509133691_6510509335074832384_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=f2f8d0070d038d541e7f04804134226c&oe=5B8D1D65)

Ecunemical Councils represent the Universal Church and cannot err, because the Holy Ghost cannot err.

Catarella,

So you are claiming that everything from an ecuмenical council is infallible?  Everything without exception even when there is no intent to define doctrine or morals definitively and impose those determinations upon all the faithful as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith?  And the above evidence is your proof of this claim?

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 02, 2018, 04:18:13 PM
Stop. Just stop.

‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.’
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.
- Vatican I

The Church has therefore explicitly taught that the Pope has the gift of unfailing faith (identified by Innocent III with his personal faith through the very citation from Luke found in the preceding text of Vatican I, so spare me the nonsense about it referring to the faith of the Church). Nothing Jesus Christ prays for is refused.

Theosist,

Go back to the beginning of the thread.  This has been covered multiple times.  You are not the first to make this claim.  It is made by everyone who holds the pope as their rule of faith.  If after reading the previous posts you have a problem then offer your objections.  There are those like Cantarella who would agree with you but not one Church Father held that a personal never-failing faith was promised to the successors of St. Peter.  The never-failing faith of the popes only means that they cannot engage the Magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrinal and/or moral error and this was dogmatically defined at Vatican I.
 
Rev. Cornelius a Lapide addresses this directly and explicitly in his Great Commentary.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 02, 2018, 04:44:25 PM
I am claiming that Ecunemical Councils do not err. The fallible part of the narrative simply concerns disciplinary issues that are temporary in nature; but there are still not errors. The Holy Ghost assists Ecunemical Councils.

What part of that don't you understand?

Cantarella,

This is just another claim that there is a non-infallible infallibility to go along with the infallible infallibility.  Or as Ladislaus likes to call it, the "Infallible Security."  This really means the pope is your rule of faith because it is the pope who engages the Magisterium and without the pope, there is no Magisterium.  The pope has to be the rule of faith because he personally can never err.

This historically is untenable. And if the pope is the personal rule of faith regarding doctrine, why not morals as well? When you include area of morals to which the infallibility of the Church also extends it is easier to why the pope cannot be the rule of faith.

Even the authority you just cited is not saying what you claim.  The quote you provided says:

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

I agree perfectly with this quote.  But what do we call the Councils “determination, clearing of doubts, or condemning of errors and heresies, etc., etc.,?  They are called Dogmas. And it is in these determinations where the help of the Holy Ghost is always and infallibly present because the Holy Ghost is the formal and final cause of Dogma.  When there is no intent to make a “determination” on these matters of faith and morals, there is no infallibility present.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 02, 2018, 04:55:07 PM
It is good that you bring up the "local, regional, or national Councils". Do you know what is it precisely which make these Councils passing from "fallible" to infallible, just as the General Councils?

It is the confirmation of the Holy See. Again, the Papal Approbation.


(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31913706_10155622579703691_7723714077230366720_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=e0e8a41d71d649ed34296e4aa2264b11&oe=5B633AEF)

Cantarella,

I agree but do not understand your point.

My point in the initial post is that #29 article against the errors of Luther is not a dogma.  It refers to councils indiscriminately and it refers to their acts indiscriminately.  Luther rejected the authority of all councils without exception.  I do not diminish the importance of local, regional or national councils but some have contained errors in the past.  Nothing proposed by these councils is approved until it is approved by the pope.  It was a regional council that was approved by the Pope that I referenced earlier in this thread that used the term dogma and "rule of faith" as synonyms.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 03, 2018, 04:21:09 AM
You have your wife, Pax Vobis, and Stubborn each following you around, up - thumbing every single one of your posts while carelessly down-thumbing mine, yet no one of you are actually reading anything that has been posted.

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

Furthermore, your allegation is not only that a General Council ratified by the Pope is NOT infallible merely; but that it has been actually harmful, teaching contra-verdades, leading souls to Hell. Even more absurd.
The dogma of the Assumption is infallible, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is infallible, the EENS dogma is infallible, the dogma that we must be subject to the pope in order to get to heaven is infallible, there is no dogma that general councils are infallible.  

General councils were not held nor were they foretold during the lives of the Apostles and are not found in Scripture, as such, General Councils are not in the Deposit of Faith, are not dogma and are not automatically infallible. Seems like it should be blatantly obvious that V2 itself should more than suffice to prove that all General Councils are most certainly not automatically infallible.  

If all councils are infallible as you keep insisting, and if you actually believed what you keep insisting, which you don't, but if you did, then regardless of your, mine or anyone's opinion in the matter, we would be bound under pain of sin to forsake the true faith for the new faith just the same as all the other NOers did who actually believe that which you keep insisting.



 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: JPaul on May 03, 2018, 09:18:04 AM
It all comes down to whether or not you believe that Vatican II was a valid council or some thing else, masquerading as a council.
Voluminous discussions and quoting thousands of texts and saints are only a means of nibbling around the issue. Was it a valid legitimate council?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 03, 2018, 09:42:51 AM
You have your wife, Pax Vobis, and Stubborn each following you around, up - thumbing every single one of your posts while carelessly down-thumbing mine, yet no one of you are actually reading anything that has been posted.

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

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

Do you then believe that the Vatican ll Council is infallible?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 03, 2018, 10:01:33 AM
If all councils are infallible as you keep insisting, and if you actually believed what you keep insisting, which you don't, but if you did, then regardless of your, mine or anyone's opinion in the matter, we would be bound under pain of sin to forsake the true faith for the new faith just the same as all the other NOers did who actually believe that which you keep insisting.

The above makes sense. If Vatican ll was an infallible Council, then why don't the sedes accept it as infallible and follow what it taught?

The sedes tend to focus on what non-sedes believe. Maybe the focus should be on what THEY actually believe for a change. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 03, 2018, 10:25:10 AM
The first Ecunemical Council is the Council of Jerusalem held in the year AD 50. It is recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15.

The pictures that I posted on General Councils are precisely the scriptural annotations from the Acts of the Apostles, where the belief that the Holy Ghost assists the General Councils and prevents them from error, is derived from.

Judging by your belief that the Holy Ghost always assisits at the General Councils, and that the Holy Ghost always guides a true pope in matters of faith, where then does that leave the Third Person of the Trinity? Has He completely left the Church? And if so, where is He? Do you believe that He now works (only) through the Sedes? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 03, 2018, 11:01:23 AM
The first Ecunemical Council is the Council of Jerusalem held in the year AD 50. It is recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15.

The pictures that I posted on General Councils are precisely the scriptural annotations from the Acts of the Apostles, where the belief that the Holy Ghost assists the General Councils and prevents them from error, is derived from.
And what doctrines did the Apostles define? What was taught?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 03, 2018, 12:45:33 PM
The only possible way that it is not, is IF a false pope approved it.

That's not really an answer. So you don't really know if the Council was ligit or not. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 03, 2018, 01:13:06 PM
I am in the current opinion that it is not a legitimate Council because a true marrano usurping the Seat of Peter promulgated it.

So You believe that Pope John XXlll was a false pope and as such he could not have promulgated a legitimate council. Is it because he was a Jєω, or because of something else as too?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on May 03, 2018, 01:31:16 PM
This is the thread that never dies. I say "thread," not topic.  The original topic died tens of thousands of views ago.  It's something like Henry Kissinger, he never expires, though many wish he would and deserves to. ???
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 03, 2018, 01:34:27 PM
John XXIII didn't promulgate any council, legit or not.

Would you have a problem with the Vll Council at all, if it had not been promulgated by JXXlll?

I assume that Cantarella only has a problem with the Council because she believes that it was called by a non-Pope. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 03, 2018, 01:37:16 PM
It was ratified by Paul VI.

So promulgated and ratified is pretty much the same thing?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 03, 2018, 01:38:16 PM
It wasn't promulgated by JXXIII. Just stop.

Sorry to get you so upset. It doesn't take much, does it?

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

Sedes don't like answering questions about what THEY believe. They are always attacking the non-sede position. They'd prefer to have non-sedes on the defensive all the time. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 03, 2018, 02:02:08 PM
HAHA. I am neither upset nor unwilling to answer questions. I just prefer to answer ones that make sense; asked by people with all their faculties; who aren't blinded by their rage and hatred for Catholics; such as yourself.

So the question doesn't make sense? How so?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on May 03, 2018, 02:12:37 PM
Sedes don't like answering questions about what THEY believe. They are always attacking the non-sede position. They'd prefer to have non-sedes on the defensive all the time.
Oh the irony.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 03, 2018, 02:26:26 PM
You asked "would you be fine with the Vll Council if it wasn't ratified or promulgated by a non-pope?"

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

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

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

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

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

You didn't actually answer the question. I already know about the three sede points you give above. They're nothing new. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on May 03, 2018, 10:28:36 PM
This is the thread that never dies. I say "thread," not topic.  The original topic died tens of thousands of views ago.  It's something like Henry Kissinger, he never expires, though many wish he would and deserves to. ???
:applause:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 04, 2018, 05:56:28 AM
You have your wife, Pax Vobis, and Stubborn each following you around, up - thumbing every single one of your posts while carelessly down-thumbing mine, yet no one of you are actually reading anything that has been posted.

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

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

Cantarella,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 04, 2018, 07:14:16 AM
Perhaps none.  I guess that they may have taught errors all the way back then ... since they didn't define doctrines.
Poor lad, you're all confused. Let's hope this helps clear up your confusion.

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

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

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

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

Hope this clears up some of your confusion.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 04, 2018, 07:41:24 AM
I know but it's the same reason you keep engaging Stubborn. Stubborn never has any substance either. They are way too similar. Their hatred for anything not R&R clouds their minds of all logic. Something needs to be said every once in a while.
In my case, IRL I've seen too many good Catholics, including priests lose their faith for sedeism. So why wouldn't I have a hatred for it?

We just explain the simple truths best as we can so others don't trap themselves in the iniquitous web of sedeism.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Theosist on May 04, 2018, 07:52:54 AM
Theosist,

Go back to the beginning of the thread.  This has been covered multiple times.  You are not the first to make this claim.  It is made by everyone who holds the pope as their rule of faith.  If after reading the previous posts you have a problem then offer your objections.  There are those like Cantarella who would agree with you but not one Church Father held that a personal never-failing faith was promised to the successors of St. Peter.  The never-failing faith of the popes only means that they cannot engage the Magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrinal and/or moral error and this was dogmatically defined at Vatican I.
 
Rev. Cornelius a Lapide addresses this directly and explicitly in his Great Commentary.

Drew
That is not never-failing faith. Engaging the magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrine is not faith, nor even essentially an act of faith, for as you yourself would hold, even a pope without any faith in what he is defining can define infallibly! Therefore infallibility in this sense and never-failing faith cannot refer to one and the same thing (they can’t even refer to the same category of things; faith is faith, not an engaging of a power).

The excerpt from Innocent III’s sermon explicitly identifying the never-failing faith of Luke 22:32 belonging to the Papal office with his personal faith (“For unless I were solid in MY faith ...”) is here: 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HK6oDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT294&lpg=PT294&dq=innocent+iii”+“for+unless+i+were+solid+in+my+faith”&source=bl&ots=Fp7c-1CHQf&sig=iT5yRXA7BNUPAaGhwN2RjZJtW-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig_9SZh-zaAhULZ8AKHf-lBBQQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=innocent%20iii”%20“for%20unless%20i%20were%20solid%20in%20my%20faith”&f=false
I really don’t care what non-conciliar, non-Papal “authorities” you want to cite to reject these facts (not constitutive of an argument, sorry, and I will disregard any non-argumentative responses)
And I’ll ask you one more time to provide an example of a true statement which is not true everywhere and for all time in its intended sense.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 04, 2018, 07:56:41 AM
No one has lost his faith due to sedeism; you on the other hand have clearly lost yours.  You don't believe in an indefectible Church as your rule of faith.  You're basically a Protestant who use your own private judgment as your ultimate rule of faith, and consequently you cannot, as St. Thomas taught, have supernatural faith.
You've lost your faith to sedeism, but I don't include you IRL. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Theosist on May 04, 2018, 08:08:46 AM
Quote
You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen.  You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen.  And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.  

The Attributes are powers that belong to the Church primarily and essentially.  They belong to churchmen only secondarily and accidentally. And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.  


You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen.  And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.  

The Attributes are powers that belong to the Church primarily and essentially.  They belong to churchmen only secondarily and accidentally.
 Another sophistic trip off at a tangent. Notice how this distinction is never made part of a deductive argument to refute Cantarella; it’s simply stated as if the conclusion “Therefore you are wrong!” we’re to follow by magic.

Notice the bait-and-switch, though? It’s just wrong and idolatrous to make attributes like infallibility those of churchmen, in the first paragraph, but in the following it is stated that such attributes do in fact belong to to such men, secondarily and accidentally (as if that made any logical difference to Cantarella’s position).


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on May 04, 2018, 02:07:09 PM
Stubborn: 
Quote
In my case, IRL I've seen too many good Catholics, including priests lose their faith for sedeism. So why wouldn't I have a hatred for it?

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

Gosh, I'm in much more danger of losing my faith by following the sophistry on this particular thread than from "sedeism."  I've never experienced this much long windedness on any topic thus far presented on CI.  The bottomless pit of verbiage exhibited by the likes of you and Drew just defies all undestanding.  Why Matthew lets it go on defies all explanation. He's closed down other threads under far less provocation, imo.  He's banned many for far less offensive and ridiculous input.  Maybe the moderator is addicted to blowhards.  I can't think of any other reason.  This thread has itself become "iniquitous." 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 04, 2018, 02:25:58 PM
Stubborn:  
Gosh, I'm in much more danger of losing my faith by following the sophistry on this particular thread than from "sedeism."  I've never experienced this much long windedness on any topic thus far presented on CI.  The bottomless pit of verbiage exhibited by the likes of you and Drew just defies all undestanding.  Why Matthew lets it go on defies all explanation. He's closed down other threads under far less provocation, imo.  He's banned many for far less offensive and ridiculous input.  Maybe the moderator is addicted to blowhards.  I can't think of any other reason.  This thread has itself become "iniquitous."
I feel for you - the solution to your dilemma is for you to go do something other than read this thread. Simple.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: King Wenceslas on May 04, 2018, 04:20:00 PM
That is a good point that MEG brought up several pages back. Where is the Holy Ghost? Does it reside now only in a few sede Bishops throughout the world? Whew, the gates of hell never prevailing against the Church is starting to sound questionable.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on May 04, 2018, 05:08:39 PM
That is a good point that MEG brought up several pages back. Where is the Holy Ghost? Does it reside now only in a few sede Bishops throughout the world? Whew, the gates of hell never prevailing against the Church is starting to sound questionable.
Arian. Crisis. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 04, 2018, 05:44:30 PM
That is not never-failing faith. Engaging the magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrine is not faith, nor even essentially an act of faith, for as you yourself would hold, even a pope without any faith in what he is defining can define infallibly! Therefore infallibility in this sense and never-failing faith cannot refer to one and the same thing (they can’t even refer to the same category of things; faith is faith, not an engaging of a power).

The excerpt from Innocent III’s sermon explicitly identifying the never-failing faith of Luke 22:32 belonging to the Papal office with his personal faith (“For unless I were solid in MY faith ...”) is here:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HK6oDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT294&lpg=PT294&dq=innocent+iii”+“for+unless+i+were+solid+in+my+faith”&source=bl&ots=Fp7c-1CHQf&sig=iT5yRXA7BNUPAaGhwN2RjZJtW-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig_9SZh-zaAhULZ8AKHf-lBBQQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=innocent%20iii”%20“for%20unless%20i%20were%20solid%20in%20my%20faith”&f=false
I really don’t care what non-conciliar, non-Papal “authorities” you want to cite to reject these facts (not constitutive of an argument, sorry, and I will disregard any non-argumentative responses)
And I’ll ask you one more time to provide an example of a true statement which is not true everywhere and for all time in its intended sense.

Theosist,


I am not really sure what you are talking about.  Most conservative Catholics and most S&Sers believe that each and every pope possess a personal "never-failing faith," that is, the belief that no pope can ever personally lose the virtue of supernatural faith,  just as was gifted to St. Peter by Jesus Christ.  I deny this claim. 
 
I would recommend that you read the commentary of Rev. Connelius a Lapide. It's only a couple of paragraphs but a nice summary that is wholly in accord with Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus.  Not one Church Father as cited in any of the authoritative biblical commentaries held that each pope possesses a personal "never-failing faith," and a Lapide says that a personal "never-failing faith" was a gift given by Jesus Christ to St. Peter alone. 
 
But Vatican I, Paster Aeternus says:

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. 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.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

This is exactly was a Lapide says.  The "never-failing faith" is understood to mean that the pope cannot err in the "discharge (of) their exalted office," 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 is not a personal gift but a gift associated through the Church with the "exalted office" of the papacy.
 
The Church in Paster Aeternus regarding the Dogma of papal infallibility refers specifically to this gift of "never-failing faith" given to St. Peter and his successors as scriptural evidence for the Dogma. The gift of "never-failing faith" and papal infallibility are directly associated.   One is the proximate cause of the other.  Obviously, the word "faith" in "never-failing faith" is not used in the same sense as the virtue of supernatural faith but to the Attribute of Infallibility that can only be engaged by the pope in the "discharge (of) their exalted office for the salvation of all."
 
So what is your point?
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 04, 2018, 06:52:32 PM
We are not talking about Fr. Johnson down the street. The Pope of Rome is the true successor of St. Peter, which is the very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church; as well as the Bishops in communion with him, are the true successors of the Apostles. That is the way Christ instituted His Church and for a good reason. Do you think that if God had wanted "Dogma" to be the Rule of Faith he would have established His Church precisely this way? he could have just left an inanimate "Book of Dogmas" which would be the only Rule of Faith for all generations. Protestants claim the same thing you do; but they call it "Sola Scriptura". In your view, what is the then the function of the Apostolic See, which is evidently composed of a human element, "the churchmen"?

The "churchmen" you are referring here constitute nothing less than the Apostolic See.

Vatican I Council:

Then right after this, it teaches, (what is this Rule of true Faith). It is the preaching of the Apostolic See.

Cantarella,

I have already provided you with two council docuмents approved by their respective popes that directly use the term, "rule of faith" as a synonym for dogmatic canons, as well as references from two respected theologians, Pohle and Scheeban's. Beyond these authoritative references, I have provided you with what is an argument you cannot answer.  That is, the definition of heresy is the failure to keep dogma as the rule of faith.  It is an essential definition which is the best of all definitions because it distinguishes genus and species.  Yet you are unconvinced and in reply provide a quote that shows nothing more than a literary association.  

But truth is not what you are interested in.  You pretend that the "magisterium is your rule of faith" but whenever you are trying to prove your point you appeal to Dogma, or what you think is Dogma, as you just did referencing article #29 from Exsurge Domine, which you said was a "dogma from the Council of Trent."  

You appeal to Dogma to make your case.  Why?  You should just say, "Well, let's write a letter to the magisterium and get our answer"!   But that won't do.  The magisterium might just make a dogmatic determination of divine revelation and send you the Dogma.  Then you could only answer, "Sorry fellas, Dogma is not my rule of faith.  Can you give me another answer?"  But all this is fantasy, your magisterium is dead. Your rule of faith is dead. You have no pope, no magisterium.  What is worse, you have no material or instrumental means to ever get them.  And it does not bother you one bit that you are in a church that cannot be the Catholic Church.  

You have nothing to argue with except Dogma which by your own arguments you cannot do.  And then you accuse others of being "Protestants" for "private interpretation" of Dogma whenever it doesn't suit you.  Dogma is not your rule of faith because it just gets in the way. You do not even know what Dogma is.  You claim that everything from a general council is infallible therefore you cannot distinguish any difference between anything.

There is no salvation in the church of Cantarella.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 04, 2018, 07:59:55 PM
Even Lapide's commentary itself refutes you.

Notice the highlight below. "ANY ERROR". The Pope should NEVER openly fall from the Faith, as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the Faith. Yet, you think Paul VI officially promulgated an error in Vatican II Council.


(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31870791_10155627585028691_8469905773793640448_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=dd69352b2a6c27ab5ba17fe19d2d990a&oe=5B962433)


Cantarella,

Amazing when arguments are driven by a heretical ideology how everything is corrupted.  S&Sers have a habit of providing partial quotes as you have just done.

Lapide makes it clear that a personal "never-failing faith," that it, that a pope could ever lose the virtue of supernatural faith, is a gift given to St Peter alone.  The gift that is given to all popes is that they would not fall from the faith so as to formally teach heresy.  Lapide is talking about the magisterium, that is, the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, that it should never impose errors of faith on the Church.  He appeals directly to the Church as the "the pillar and ground of the truth" which corresponds perfectly to the dogma of papal infallibility from Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus.

You have expressed the opinion that each pope possess a personal "never-failing faith" in the sense that he can never lose the virtue of supernatural faith. Rev. Cornelius a Lapide says that is not so, and the biblical commentaries of Haydock and St. Thomas alone with a Lapide do not cite a single Church father agrees with your opinion.  It is a common opinion that is held by all those who hold the pope as their rule of faith.

The complete citation from Rev. Cornelius a Lapide, Commentary on Luke 22:32:

Quote
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. For thee, because I destine thee to be the head and chief of the Apostles and of My Church, that thy faith fail not in believing Me to be the Christ and the Saviour of the world. Observe that Christ in this prayer asked and obtained for Peter two especial privileges before the other Apostles: the first was personal, that he should never fall from faith in Christ; for Christ looked back to the sifting in the former verse, that is the temptation of His own apprehension when the other Apostles flew off from Him like chaff and lost their faith, and were dispersed, and fled into all parts. But Peter, although he denied Christ with his lips, at the hour foretold, and lost his love for Him, yet retained his faith. So S. Chrysostom (Hom. xxxviii.) on S. Matthew; S. Augustine (de corrept. et Grat. chap. viii.); Theophylact and others. This is possible but not certain, for F. Lucas and others think that Peter then lost both his faith and his love, from excessive perturbation and fear; but only for a short time, and so that his faith afterwards sprang up anew, and was restored with fresh vitality. Hence it is thought not to have wholly failed, or to have been torn up by the roots, but rather to have been shaken and dead for a time.

 
Another and a certain privilege was common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith. So S. Leo (serm. xxii.), on Natalis of SS. Peter and Paul; S. Cyprian (Lib. i. Ephesians 3), to Cornelius; Lucius I., Felix I., Agatho, Nicolas I., Leo IX., Innocent III., Bernard and others, whom Bellarmine cites and follows (Lib. i. de Pontif. Roman).
For it was necessary that Christ, by His most wise providence, should provide for His Church, which is ever being sifted and tempted by the devil, and that not only in the time of Peter, but at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world, an oracle of the true faith which she might consult in every doubt and by which she might be taught and confirmed in the faith, otherwise the Church might err in faith, quod absit! For she is as S. Paul said to Timothy, "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tim. iii15).
Rev. Cornelius a Lapide, Commentary on Luke 22:32

The Magisteium is the "Oracle of the true faith."  An "oracle" is a medium, and what God's gives us through this medium is called Dogma.  Furthermore this "Oracle" will be in "His Church..... at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world."
 
 The Church you belong to has no "Oracle" and no means to ever get one.
 
 Drew


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 02:33:19 PM
Too bad for you that Vatican I teaches the exact opposite.  But, hey, that may have been in a fallible section of the decree.

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

Ladislaus,

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

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607419/#msg607419)
« Reply #1697 on: Yesterday at 05:56:28 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 03:32:12 PM
I had read the entire citation before; but it is only the second part of it, and not the first one, what is actually relevant to this discussion because you claim that a legitimate Pope (Paul VI) can teach error to the faithful in nothing less than an Ecunemical Council. Your position therefore, is refuted by Lapide himself, which clearly teaches that the Pope cannot teach error to the Church, even less through the decrees of a General Council. And this has nothing to with the "personal" Faith of Peter, which is a separate issue.

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

Cantarella,


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

 Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604374/#msg604374)
« Reply #1155 on: April 16, 2018, 08:31:58 PM »
 
I invite everyone to read the entire citation of Lapide for themselves posted nearly three weeks ago. 
 
The third paragraph was dropped because it makes it clear that the "never-failing faith" that was gifted to St. Peter's successors is in the exercise of the papal office which directs the "divine Oracle."  This is wholly consistent with the doctrine that was dogmatized at Vatican I on papal infallibility and its necessary relation to the exercise of the papal office.
 
A general council approved by the pope cannot teach error in faith and morals when the Magisterium of the Church, that is, the "teaching authority" God willed His Church grounded upon the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, is engaged.  That requires intent to define a matter of divine revelation.  That never happened at Vatican II and this has been explained to you countless times but to no effect.  You persist in claiming that everything from a general council is infallible without exception.  This, as said, is nothing other than a form of idolatry.  You are taking the divine Attributes which belong to the Church primarily and essentially and making them the primarily and essentially the personal powers of churchmen.
 
What do you possible care about Dogma?  It is not your rule of faith and you and Ladislaus have accused others of being "Protestants" for "private interpretation" when taking Dogma in its literal sense.  Anyway, you do not even know what Dogma is as evidenced by your referring to Article #29 from Exsurge Domine as a "dogma from the Council of Trent."  Dogmas have developed a common grammatical form and you could not ever recognize that. 
 
No wonder you are in a church without dogmas.  You have no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, no moral compass. and what is most damning of all, no material or instrumental means to ever get them.  All these are necessary attributes of the Catholic Church and an infallible sign that whatever church you belong, it is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: JPaul on May 05, 2018, 06:24:36 PM
Which means that Vatican II has nothing at all to do with the See of Peter. It is the false teaching of thieves and robbers. 
Who could argue to the contrary?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 07:06:05 PM
So, then, Drew, what happens to the Church when a Pope dies and before another is elected?  At one point there was a span of three years.  This dogma does not mean that there has to be a Pope at every moment of history since the founding of the Church.  And neither Cantarella nor I are straight sedevacantists, so our position absolutely maintains the "material or instrumental means" to get a true Pope elected.  So you keep putting up bogus strawmen, as is typical of people who are not intellectually honest.

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

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

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

Ladislaus,

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

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

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

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

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 07:31:44 PM
So Drew claims that Vatican I teaching regarding never-failing faith applies only to when the Pope is infallibly defining dogma.  Drew, using his own rule of faith, his own private judgment, explains away anything he doesn't like.

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

Ladislaus,
 
You should send your posts to me for corrections before publication so you don't look too bad.  You are committing the same error again that you did in your previous post that served as nice illustration for Cantarella, but one is enough.  
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607607/#msg607607)
« Reply #1730 on: Today at 02:33:19 PM »
 
The Dogma itself, the fruit of the Magisterium, defines what the "gift of never-failing faith" means regarding papal infallibility.  If you want to know what is means look to the Dogma.  Luke 22:32, the "gift of never-failing faith," is directly cited as the Scriptural authority for the doctrine as part of divine revelation and the justification for the dogmatic definition.  Dogmas are "truths fallen from heaven."  And therefore, what St. James said is doubly true for Dogma, "Receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls."
 
The link to the previous post above also provides the quotation of the Dogma on papal infallibility from Vatican I with a brief reflection.  Take the time to read it again for comprehension.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 05, 2018, 08:01:12 PM
Ladislaus,

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

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

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

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

Drew


Read again, Lad.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 08:04:15 PM
So Drew claims that Vatican I teaching regarding never-failing faith applies only to when the Pope is infallibly defining dogma.  Drew, using his own rule of faith, his own private judgment, explains away anything he doesn't like.

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

Ladislaus,

Because the Magisterium, that is the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility has only been engaged on rare occasions by the conciliar popes and in every instance, there has been no error.  God has kept his promise for more than sixty years. 
 
S&Sers corrupt everything by perverting the meaning of the Magisterium and the Pope primarily by taking the Attributes that belong primarily and essentially to the Church and making them primarily and essentially the attributes of churchmen. It is a form of idolatry because the Attributes of the Church are Attributes of God alone, and only of the Church because it is God's Church.  They are Attributes of churchmen only secondarily and accidentally when specific conditions are met.  When these divine Attributes are ascribed as the personal property of churchmen, there follows a litany of nonsense from S&Sers such as that the pope can never lose the virtue of faith, that everything in a general council is infallible, infallibility means the pope is infallible in everything, indefectibility means that the pope has a negative infallibility in every fallible act, obedience becomes unconditional with churchmen just as it is with God, Dogma is not divine revelation and therefore not the rule of faith,  Dogma is open for reinterpretation by the magisteriuim which is the rule of faith, anyone taking Dogma literally is a "Protestant" engaging in "private interpretation," all liturgy is disciplinary and accidental to the faith, and a matter of mere ecclesiastical faith that is subject to the free, independent, and arbitrary will of the legislator, and on, and on.

But you don't have to worry about any of this non-sense. In "your church" with "no magisterium" you get to be your own rule of faith.  You can believe whatever you want and nobody will care.  No reason you cannot be the next S&Sers pope.  Maybe someday, Ladislaus the Great. 
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 08:23:42 PM
So, then, tell us, Drew, how long is too long?  3 years, 5 years, 7.5 years, 10 years 3 months and 15 days, 15 years 6 months and give days?  Do tell us what the cutoff is.

Ladislaus,

In "your church" you can do whatever you want.  You can make things up as you go alone.  You are your own rule of faith.  

But for the sake of argument, let's assume the average election of a new pope has occurred at period of 6 months since the death of his predecessor.  And this repetition has occurred for the last two thousand years with minor variations.  And this repetitive line of the successors is called "perpetual."  And not only is it called "perpetual successors" but it is defined such as a Dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Now during the last two thousand years every time a pope died, there existed a material and instrumental means to elect his successor as well as a committed will and moral imperative to do so. Then suddenly it stops and you have no pope for sixty years.  And what is worse, no will, no moral imperative, no material and instrumental means to do so.  

Can you give a single example historically, or in nature where the applying the word, "perpetual" becomes meaningless?

But this just dreaming.  Sedeprivationism destroys the papal office by fracturing the form and matter.  There is no chair for your "pope" to sit in.  If you do become the pope of "your church," you just have to stand up.  Then we can talk about the Lectern of Ladislaus.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 08:36:13 PM
So, let's say the Church is restored and the undisputably-legitimate Pius XIII reigns on the See of Peter.  Pius XIII issues an Encyclical.  Immediately Drew sits back in his arm chair and begins his analysis of whether or not there might be any errors in it.  What kind of bizarro-world vision of the Church you have.

Ladislaus,

In "your church" this would be a problem since heretics are, by definition, those who do not keep dogma as their rule of faith there is nothing by which any judgment could be made.  As you have already said, you "have no magisterium."  But for faithful Catholics who keep Dogma as their rule of faith, Dogma will continue to serve them well.  You see, we rely on God, who through the Magisterium of the Church has given everyone of good will these unmistakable guidepost that illumine our paths so that even in the most difficult times we can keep our footing.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 08:46:25 PM
That has to be the dumbest nonsense you've posted yet.  Just because none of the popes has, according to you, engaged infallibility, "there has been no error".

:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
 
Ladislaus,

When you rip a quote out of context it is just a form of lying.  In "your church" is lying a sin?  Since you get to make up your own doctrine I suppose that you can make up your own morality.
 
No one said that there has been "no error" since Vatican II.  Quite the contrary, I have said many time the conciliar popes are heretics.  What I said is that these heretics have never engaged the Magisterium, that is, the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon her Attributes of Infallibility and Authority, to bind the Catholic faithful to doctrinal or moral error.

I have already posted how the S&Sers get around this by making the pope a god, but unfortunately, a god not to their liking.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 08:58:39 PM
St. Robert Bellarmine differentiated between the two.  And some untrained simpleton like yourself calling a theologian in the class of +Guerard des Lauriers an idiot who doesn't know philosophy 101, well, that's just preposterous and incredibly arrogant.  You have no credibility whatsoever.

Ladislaus,

The appeal to authority is the weakest of all arguments.  In fact, it's not an argument at all but often an excuse for not thinking.  This has been your one and only babble from the beginning of this thread regarding the fundamental error on which sedeprivationism is grounded.

Now in "your church" you can do whatever you want.  You can believe whatever you want to believe.  But in the Catholic Church hylomorphism is Dogma in that this philosophical principle has been used in the dogmatic canons on the sacraments.  It is a fundamental truth that the severing of the form and matter of any material being causes a substantial change in that being.  The being is dissolved.  Your theory has destroyed the papal office.  But for faithful Catholics, who keep dogma as their rule of faith, we know by divine and Catholic faith that the papacy with perpetual successors will last until the "consummation of the world" and therefore, your theory is bunk.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 09:13:20 PM
On our side you have a lengthy vacancy of the Holy See.

On your side you have a completely undependable Magisterium that can go 99.5% corrupt at any given time.  You create a heretical and blasphemous concept of the Catholic Church where any idiot like you can on a whim second-guess the Magisterium.

You keep parroting back the stupidity that we have no Magisterium.  I'll take no Magisterium over corrupt heretical Magisterium that endangers our faith if we submit to it.

You act as if we're talking about a problematic sentence in a narrative portion of the Council Docuмents.  No, what we have in Vatican II is a completely new ecclesiology and modernist theological system.  We have an epic failure on a grand scale, and not just a bad proposition here or there.

You blabber on about a 50+ year vacancy, but blow off the fact that, according to you, the Magisterium has been totally corrupt for over 50 years.

Ladislaus,

Again you admit that you will "take no Magisterium" over the "corrupt and heretical Magisterium that endangers the faith."  But Lad, the "magisterium is your rule of faith."  Since it is your "rule" how is it possible that the "rule" itself could ever be "corrupt and heretical" and "endanger the faith"?  

I guess it is only the "rule" sometimes.  But how did you know that the magisterium is "corrupt and heretical"?  

Let me guess?  Dogma?  You used Dogma as your rule of faith to decide that the "magisteium is corrupt and heretical."  

Gee, Lad, you change lanes so fast I can hardly keep up.  In "your church" when they make you the pope, make sure that everyone knows that you are the rule of faith so this kind of mess doesn't recur.  In "your church" there is no pope, no magisterium, no dogma and that's a good thing because you have no idea what they are.
 

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 05, 2018, 09:35:16 PM
Ladislaus,

The appeal to authority is the weakest of all arguments.  In fact, it's not an argument at all but often an excuse for not thinking.  This has been your one and only babble from the beginning of this thread regarding the fundamental error on which sedeprivationism is grounded.

Now in "your church" you can do whatever you want.  You can believe whatever you want to believe.  But in the Catholic Church hylomorphism is Dogma in that this philosophical principle has been used in the dogmatic canons on the sacraments.  It is a fundamental truth that the severing of the form and matter of any material being causes a substantial change in that being.  The being is dissolved.  Your theory has destroyed the papal office.  But for faithful Catholics, who keep dogma as their rule of faith, we know by divine and Catholic faith that the papacy with perpetual successors will last until the "consummation of the world" and therefore, your theory is bunk.

Drew

Ladislaus,

I neglected to answer your claim that, "St. Robert Bellarmine differentiated between the two" (the form and matter of the papal office).

St. Robert did not, as you claim, make the same distinction as the Sedeprivationists.  This was even brought up by Cantarella long ago and addressed long ago in this thread.  St. Robert's distinction referred directly to the pope personally and on a different question.  You should know better.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on May 05, 2018, 10:22:05 PM
Drew is a troll. :-\
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 05:51:02 AM
Sorry Drew, but I don’t think you understand properly the SP distinction material-formal as applied to the pope. The papacy it’s not a subtantial form, but accidental form, which can be lost without destroying the being.

Also, the SP affirms the continuity of the papacy until the end of the world, because it’s essential to the church, and for this reason these material popes can become formal popes at any time, if they remove the obstacle to receive authority from Christ.

What is impossible though, is that a true pope will impose a new religion, promoting false doctrine and evil disciple to the whole church. That goes against infallibility & indefectibility. That’s heresy.

 If you accept Francis as a true pope, divinely assisted by God to teach, govern & sanctify his church, then you have to accept his new religion. But then you will have a bigger problem...

Pugillator Fidei,
 
The papacy is an office that possess in itself a substantial being.  If it did not, there would be nothing to elect a successor to and there would be no possibility of discussing its form and matter.  It may be accidental to the person elected but Sedeprivationism postulates that the person can possess the material aspect of the office and not the formal aspect and that is impossible.
 
As for as accepting any heretic as the pope, it does not require accepting his new religion.  This is only possible if the pope is your rule of faith which is a big problem with S&Sers as well as conservative Catholics.  A Catholic who keeps dogma as his rule of faith is no more tainted by the heresy of a conciliar popes than Jesus Christ was by worshiping at Temple under the heretical high priest Caiaphas.
 
You are, like others, using the Attribute of Indefectibility to mean a negative Infallibility so that the pope possesses a "fallible infallibility" in his ordinary actions.  This I contend is absurd.  The Attributes of the Church are not the personal property of the pope but are possessed only secondarily and accidentally under specific conditions.   These Attributes are divine powers and when made personal attributes of the pope constitute a form of idolatry.

We do not have to answer every question.  Our duty is to keep the faith.  Heresy is defined as a failure to keep dogma as the rule of faith.  That is what heresy is.

 
Drew 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 06:31:49 AM
Pope Pius XII must be an idolater then, since he clearly teaches that Christ and the Pope (His Vicar) constitute one Only Head. (This is not only when the Pontiff speaks ex-cathedra, which has only happened 5 - 6 times in the entire history of the Church; but also in his regular teaching).

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

A heretic cannot represent Christ.

From Mystici Corporis:

Cantarella,
 
I have never called Pope Pius XII an "idolater" but, for the record, there are S&Sers who believe Pope Pius XII lost the office because he was a heretic.  Some of the charges leveled against him include, tampering with the liturgy, inverting the rule of faith lex orandi lex credendi,  establishing the liturgical commission under Bugnini, promoting all the Vatican II neo-modernists into positions of authority, authorizing the biblical commissions to permit the "days" of creation to be taken metaphorically, effectively allying the Church with Communism (an intrinsic evil) during WW II considering National Socialism a greater evil, his opening to NFP, etc., etc. 
 
Do you know that even the term "Vicar of Christ" has only been around for the last thousand years.  In the first millennium the pope was called the "Vicar of St. Peter."  But whatever he is called, he is not called "God."  To pretend that there is no distinction between the pope and Jesus Christ is what happens when the Attributes of the Church become the attributes of churchmen.
 
You are claiming a heretic cannot represent Christ.  But why limit to heresy.  Why can anyone who is sinner of any sort represent Christ or be identified with Christ?  I happen to believe it is true when Pope Pius XII says "That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head" but under specific conditions.  There union is not a constant identity because if it were, the pope would be the rule of faith just as Jesus Christ Himself is the rule of faith.  He would also constitute the rule of morality just as Jesus Christ is.  But this clearly is not so.  Christ and the pope when engaging the Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, are perfectly united, for the pope is then the material and instrumental causes of dogma while God is the final and formal causes of dogma.  They are perfectly united to one end.
 
If you want to argue that a heretical pope must necessarily lose the office, that is another question.  I claim that he does not, but surprisingly,  that question has not been addressed in this thread.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 11:52:05 AM
I've already explained this a few times ... except that I used the term absolute and relative.  One can BE one thing in act and another in potency.  I AM a Catholic man.  I am in potency to be a priest.  Because I am not a priest, this does not mean I do not exist and do not have act.  But Drew doesn't care.

Ladislaus,


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

Quote
Ladislaus said:
"Drew, you want to know why I have such animosity towards you?  It's quite simple.  With every post you are calling my mother a whore.  It's no different than if you and I were attending the same chapel and you started to tell everyone (falsely) that my wife is a whore.  It's the same thing as if you were saying such things about Our Lady.  You are saying that the Immaculate Bride of Christ is a whore that's committing adultery and is 99.5% corrupt and polluted.  If you were saying such things about my wife, it would take every ounce of restraint that I could muster not to beat you to within an inch of your life or knock your head clean off your shoulders.  With every post, you are essentially asserting that the Bride of Christ is a whore.  You need to think about what you're doing.  So on this forum, you're going to get the virtual equivalent of a beatdown every time you post such blasphemous calumny.  I will defend the honor of Holy Mother Church.  You're very lucky that I'm not the Pope, because I would excommunicate you so fast that your head would spin, and I would make you wear a hair shirt outside your church every Sunday for about ten years wearing a sign that you are guilty of blaspheming the Church.  You prefer to defend Bergoglio at the cost of Our Mother Church's reputation."
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607702/#msg607702)
« Reply #1757 on: Today at 07:17:23 AM »

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

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

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


Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 12:24:03 PM
You have this completely backwards, and this only proves our point.  Someone can not believe a particular dogma and still be a Catholic ... e.g. though ignorance.  But if someone pertinaciously rejects one dogma, he rejects them all.  Why?  Because he rejects the AUTHORITY behind all dogmas.  It's because the person no longer has the formal motive of faith in accepting these dogmas on the authority of the Church who has defined them.  So it's in rejecting the RULE behind the dogma that one becomes a heretic rather than in materially believing or not believing any particular dogma.

Ladislaus,


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

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

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

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

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

Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 01:27:00 PM
Respected theologian Scheeben answers this question explicitly:


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

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

Cantarella,

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

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

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

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

Roberto de Mattei wrote:

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

Roberto de Mattei, The Sack of Rome

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

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

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Theosist on May 06, 2018, 01:41:16 PM
Quote
The office of the papacy exists in act.  In is not in  potency to anything  ...
Enter the hidden premise of Aristotelian crypto-nominalism to turn that in a false dichotomy between the Papacy only existing in acts of the Pope or otherwise only in potency!

The Papacy exists, actually, whether or not there is any particular pope holding the office, and your denial of this is only made possible through your Aristotelian refusal to acknowledge the actual existence of universals outside of their particular instantiations, the reality of forms apart from matter, and objectivity of our ideas outside of minds to conceive of them - a trait you share with every philosophy that has helped dig the hole of the modern world.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Theosist on May 06, 2018, 02:08:42 PM
Cantarella,

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

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

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

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

Roberto de Mattei wrote:

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

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

Drew
Nonsense. Again note the bait-and switch:
He claims that being a heretic universally does no eo ipso separate one from the Church, but only argues for the special case of the Pope! Quod erat demonstrandum? 
In their hypotheticals, assuming the possibility of a heretic pope, the famed theologians concluded that occult heresy would not sever a pope from the Church for the reason you cite; what you fail to mention is that these same men, like Bellarmine, Cajetan, etc., considered it impossible for a pope to become a heretic in the first place.
The conclusion, in other words, begins from a false premise and leads to a reductio ad absurdum in which personal faith is necessary for membership of the Church, but that membership remains for a loss of personal faith that remains private for otherwise we could have no knowledge that any man is truly Pope! The contrived nature of this ad hoc hypothesis is so evident, yet you would rather accept this bit if sophistry than accept the actual opinion of these theologians you implicitly reference, which is that a pope cannot lose his faith in the first place. As if it made an ontological difference whether or not ones loss of faith were known to other men!

But to get to the root of things:

What we see here is the precise same underlying theology that leads the R&R/SSPX types to claim that persons can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ, contra Trent, contra the Athanasian Creed, and contra the entire New Testament. The Catholic FAITH is essential to us being members of the Church; it is not just what brings us into Her, in a once-odd causative sense, but is the ontological foundation of that membership. The Supernatural faith received in the Sacrament of Baptism is the ESSENCE of membership of Christ’s mystical body - there IS no membership without that faith in the same sense that there is no will without its freedom, no bachelorhood without unmarriedness, and no circle without a circuмference.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 02:37:45 PM
Drew Vs. Pope Vigilius.

An Even Seven,

Every mortal sin, occult or manifest, separates the sinner formally from the God although he remains materially part of the Church.  Every mortal sin, occult or manifest, is "judged already" in the internal forum but not in the external forum.  Judgment in the external forum requires a  manifest sin, formal charges, a hearing and a conviction before any penalty, even an ipso facto penalty, can be imposed.  Heresy, like every mortal sin does the same.  The question than is when and how does manifest heresy as a mortal sin materially separate anyone from the Church, and then how can this be applied to a pope?

I agree with Pope Vigilius that, "The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy."  But anyone who will not repent from any mortal sin is, like the heretic, "self-condemned."  I also agree that you should keep clear as far as possible from a heretics.  But some associations are necessary and everyone experiences these in their daily lives such as with relatives and co-workers who are heretics with whom we necessarily associate.  The pope, even as a heretic, requires a necessary association but as Jesus Christ admonished his disciples regarding  the Jєωιѕн leadership, "All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not."

Those who insist that manifest heresy has already removed the heretical pope from his office are usurping  the authority of the Lord of the Harvest.  There is no disagreement between Pope Vigilius' citation and myself.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 03:08:48 PM
Not true. Manifest heresy severs a man from the Church materially. If not, then the ipso facto excommunication has no meaning.

A non-heretical mortal sinner has the means to be reconciled to God through confession but the heretic has lost membership and the means to be reconciled.

A Catholic does not need to wait around to be told by the Church that so and so was a heretic in order to break communion with said heretic. A Catholic also knows that a Pope cannot teach heresy and commit public apostasy. Therefore the only conclusion to come to is that these men are not Popes. They cannot be or Our Lord lied. Since there is no teaching or evidence that a Pope can actually become a heretic, and strong evidence that he cannot, we must conclude that these men were never elected; whether by prior manifest heresy/apostasy or invalid elections themselves.

You do not agree with Pope Vigilius. You are saying the individual needs to be condemned first, the anathema must come prior to the exit, thereby denying that he has cut himself off.

An Even Seven,

The belief that in the external forum any one is free to impose an ipso facto penalty is a serious error and grave injustice.  You want to be Lord of the Harvest and should stop pretending otherwise.
 
There are plenty of examples in criminal law of ipso facto penalities, such as, a robbery committed with a gun may impose a mandatory sentence of 10 years.  Regardless of the ipso facto penalty, a charge and conviction is required before any ipso facto penalty in the external forum can be imposed.

God imposes ipso facto penalties in the internal forum and sometimes He does in the external forum as well, but man must judge by external facts and you are not authorized by God to be the judge.  Those who usurp judgment will bring judgment upon themselves.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on May 06, 2018, 08:05:20 PM
ladislaus: 
Quote
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif) Bergogio is Drew's moral compass.  Vatican II is Drew's Council.  Montini, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio exercise Drew's Magisterium.

Yes, perhaps.  But you Lad, and Cantarella, and Meg, a number of other forum members, are his enablers.  You are the source of his endless, dull,  and repetitive drivel.  You supply the battery power to this 'energizer bunny.'  You are as much to blame as he, (maybe even more so.)  And Matthew must come in for his share of culpability, as well.  He could easily interrupt the insane thread and put it out of its misery.

 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 06, 2018, 08:15:49 PM


"DULL"? With almost 36K viewings? Even you, can't stay away it seems.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 09:36:14 PM
I dare you to come over here and say that to my face.

Ladislaus,

Since you are two faced, which one should I talk to?

Any church that is not founded by Jesus Christ is a metaphorical whore. "Your church" is not the Catholic Church.  It has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no moral compass.  It furthermore has no means to ever get these essential Attributes that are marks of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ that make her knowable, that make her what she is.  "Your church" is not the Catholic Church. But I suppose when they make you the S&Sers pope you can call "your church" whatever you want but a whore is a whore by any other name.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 09:55:40 PM
:facepalm:

You need to stop immediately.  It is not the OFFICE that is in potency, but the office-holder.  Bergoglio, for instance, has been designated to be the office-holder, while God imposes the form of the papacy on him.  This is taught clearly by Bellarmine.  Sedeprivationism simply states that this designated man has an impediment to receiving the form from God, despite being put into potency to receive it by the Church's designation.  You have no clue what we're talking about and yet you pontificate about it being heresy and claim that +Guerard was a moron when it comes to philosophy and theology, where he couldn't get the basics right.

Ladislaus,

The papacy is a substantial being composed of form and matter.  To be in "Potency" to the office is not to possess it at all.  That is a fact.  If the papacy is possessed in Act, it is necessarily possessed both formally and materially.  To claim that the office can be possessed in potency formally and in act materially is to divide the form and the matter of the office.   To separate the form and matter of a material being necessarily causes a substantial change in that being.  It no longer is what it was.  We know by divine and Catholic Faith this cannot happen.  We know that the papacy will exist with "perpetual successors" until the "consummation of the world."

Those who keep dogma as their rule of faith will be spared of this gross error. 
My best guess is your emoticon means you like to keep your eyes closed to the truth of Catholic dogma.

Drew 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 06, 2018, 10:08:07 PM

Quote
He could easily interrupt the insane thread and put it out of its misery.
Why do you care so much?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 10:11:52 PM

:laugh1: Bergogio is Drew's moral compass.  Vatican II is Drew's Council.  Montini, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio exercise Drew's Magisterium.

Ladialaus,

You have no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, no moral compass and no means to ever correct this gross defect in "your church."  There is no possibility of salvation in "your church."  This is not really a laughing matter.  The consequences are for eternity.

Those that keep Dogma as the rule of faith have no problems with heretical popes.  The faithful Catholic is no more tainted by a heretical pope than Jesus Christ was by worshiping under the high priest Caiaphas.  Those who make the pope their rule of faith will have problems.  They will either follow the pope into heresy or they will join "your church."  Either way it will not end well. 

Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 10:35:28 PM
:laugh1: you embarrass yourself with every post, Drew.  It is you who have no clue about what supernatural faith is because you don't acknowledge the existence of its formal motive.

No, I despise you precisely for the reasons I stated ... you blaspheme and deride Holy Mother Church at every turn, and this seems to be your calling and your vocation in life.

Ladislaus,

Are trying to impress someone with this post? The definition of supernatural faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God the revealer.  The "formal motive" is in the definition, "God the revealer."  It is this definition that you denied.  You want me to repost you denial?  Happy to oblige, but if I were you, I would let it drop because someone is going to think that if you do not know what supernatural faith is, you cannot be relied upon to know anything worth passing on.

You do not belong to the Catholic Church.  You have made that absolutely clear by describing the attributes of "your church."  It is not possible to "blaspheme" "your church" because God has no part in it. 

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 06, 2018, 10:47:33 PM
The temerarious comparison between Caiaphas, the high priest, and the Pope of Rome demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the Roman Catholic Faith, and if not done in ignorance, simply bad will.

Jesus Christ did not give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to Caiaphas; but to Peter and his successors.  These "keys" are not a little matter. From the scriptural annotations, they mean "the authority of Chair of doctrine, knowledge, judgement and discretion between true and false doctrine, the height of government, the power of making laws, of calling Councils, of the principal voice in them, of confirming them, of making Canons and wholesome degrees, of abrogating the contrary, of ordaining Bishops and Pastors or deposing and suspending them, finally the power to dispense the goods of the Church both spiritual and temporal which signification and preeminent power and authority by the words keys the Scripture expresseth in many places: namely speaking of Christ, I have the keys of death and Hell, that is, the rule.

...By which words we gather that Peter's authority is marvelous, to whom the keys, that is, the power to open and shut Heaven, is given".

This is the plenitude potentate bestowed only upon Peter (and his legitimate successors).


It does not make any sense that the very keys of Heaven are and remain so, in the hands of a heretic (and in a continuous succession!). The keys of Heaven fell into an enemy of Christ?.

Faith cannot contradict reason.

Cantarella,

The only disagreement with your post is your conclusion. Your assumption that a heretic pope necessarily loses the keys does not follow from your exposition of the papacy.  This is a another question that I won't mind answering in detail but it will take a longer post.  Those that keep Dogma as the rule of faith have no problem with a heretical pope.  If you want a detailed answer why a heretical pope does not lose his office by that fact, I will be happy to provide a reply.  But you should remember that Christ Himself fell in the "hands of a heretic."  He was delivered by His own will "into the (power) of an enemy."  You should not be surprised to see that a similar trial is suffered by His Church.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 07, 2018, 06:08:06 AM
Drew, it's obvious you know you are dealing with those who practice another religion yet falsely call themselves "Catholic". Consider that poor lad received his formal theological formation at NO universities and also studied under one of the original sedes who was expelled from the SSPX. To him, unless one doubts the pope is the pope, they are not even Catholic.

Poor lad, there is another poster like you that I know of, one who was similarly formally educated in NO theology while being de-educated in the true faith, this poster still has some struggles on that account, but unlike you, that poster realized the NO teachings were wrong and is now firmly on the road to unlearning the deceits while learning to accept rather than reject Catholic truth. I pray that poster does not read any of your posts lest in that person, you cause a reversion to NO theology, effectively undoing years of strenuous effort put forth to purge those NO errors learned.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 07, 2018, 10:47:43 AM
You are so diabolically perverted that you claim that people who believe in the indefectibility and overall reliability of the Magisterium and the Church's Universal Discipline "practice another religion".  Indeed, you are correct.  We practice Catholicism, and the simple fact that you characterize basic Catholicism as "another religion" proves without a shadow of a doubt that you are heretics who are outside the Church.  You are not recognizable as Catholics.  You're anathema and have in fact been anathematized by various Church decrees over the centuries.
Poor lad, you are the one who went and got yourself formally educated into error, not I. You're the one who must strive to unlearn the errors you have been brainwashed into accepting as truths, not I. We keep trying to help you but you've been indoctrinated into error but good. You give new, NO meanings to the Church's indefectibity, infallibity, Magisterium, discipline and more.

The best rule of thumb for you to always remember is St. Vincent's rule  - He said that any idea (sedeism) that has *not* been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the faithful, is not Catholic - ergo, sedesim in whatever flavor you want to name it, is not Catholic. So plainly you should agree that it is not I who is the heretic here.

Can we at least agree on that much?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 07, 2018, 10:55:50 AM
Yes, years of reading the Church Fathers and pre-Vatican II theologians will do that to someone.  These must have just warped my sensus fidei.
Not sure what warped it, but your posts indicate a definite case of a most pernicious heresy. Where do you suppose you got it from if not from your years of NO and sede theological studies?

HHMMMmmmm, now where could you have gotten so screwed up?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 07, 2018, 10:57:52 AM
:facepalm:

Yeah, because the See has been vacant "through all the generations of the Church".  I guess that St. Robert Bellarmine was a heretic for speculating about this kind of scenario.
See what I mean? Your above reply is a case in point - you give new meanings to the most basic of Catholic truths as explained by the saint and echoed by popes -  just so you can try to weasel into sedeism.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 07, 2018, 11:15:43 AM
This ^^^ is disingenuous, man.  

You've posted about your esteem for "Father" Hesse and his conclusions about the current situation.  But "Father" Hesse was trained and formed exclusively in the NO (false church).  Not only that, but he was "ordained" in the invalid new rite of ordination...
 
And condemns his training for what it was - poor lad clings to his errors like the he was clinging to the side of a capsized rowboat in the middle of the ocean.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 07, 2018, 11:59:31 AM
Yet he has absolutely "no problem" with it, because he is "more Catholic" than the Pope.
Good heavens Cantarella, try to think why he would say such a thing as "Those that keep Dogma as the rule of faith have no problem with a heretical pope." No, it is not because he is more Catholic than the pope - although today, that is a bad analogy to use because it is actually true lol.

He means through all the confusion and chaos of this crisis, we have the dogmas of our faith as our foundation to keep us on the road to heaven - provided we actually use them as our rule of faith.

The sedes have a problem with the pope, not the rest of us. Far as the sedes are concerned, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to get to heaven if the conciliar popes are actually popes - what a terrible problem! 

 




Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 07, 2018, 12:46:39 PM
:laugh1:

Drew and Stubborn call St. Robert Bellarmine a heretic.
No, we don't call St. Robert a heretic - you're simply side tracking the topic again. Same o same o.

As terrible of a person as I already am, I wonder sometimes how much worse than you I would be if I had the same NO and sede theological education as you.

At any rate, I will stick with St. Vincent and Pope Pius IX - sedeism being only less than 50 years old is not a doctrine which been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the faithful, as such, sedewhateverism is not Catholic.

This of course means all conclusions, theories, rumors, beliefs and whatever other opinions which lead to sedesim, is not Catholic. There is absolutely nothing complicated at all about this.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 07, 2018, 01:04:47 PM
:laugh1:

Drew and Stubborn call St. Robert Bellarmine a heretic.


Again, for the benefit of others:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg605253/#msg605253


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 07, 2018, 02:25:39 PM
Then again, please don't.  I can't keep reading that tortured pseudo-logic without it hurting my brain ... almost physically.
That's what I mean - can you imagine how torturous the truth would be to me if I had gotten indoctrinated with the same sede and NO logic as you guys?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: TKGS on May 07, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
After watching this topic grow over the past few weeks, I'm wondering if the title of the topic should have been:

"Is the R&R crowd dumping Father Ringrose"
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 07, 2018, 04:43:42 PM
*whispering* he can't, that's why I said that. AND he knows that he can't.
Actually, if it weren't so tragic, it'd be quite comical how you guys preach the Church teaches that the popes cannot preach error, yet that is exactly what they have done for over 50 years. Instead of realizing there is something drastically wrong with your faith and your thinking process, you stick with that false idea implanted in your brains, and take it upon yourselves to claim popes are not popes, as if that is something you can actually even know lol.

If you actually believe it is a teaching of the Church that popes, and bishops united with the pope cannot teach errors, then you sin by not "submitting" to the pope and bishops, because the teaching of the Church is that you must submit to the pope because he can never teach error, that he will have an unfailing faith and forever be infallibly safe, lest he lead the whoooole Church into error. But that idea is not to your liking, so you find it much more to your liking to blow off that whole idea of submitting by claiming to know popes are not popes.

The truth is, preferring instead to decide the pope is not the pope in your effort to relieve you of your imaginary obligation to submit, you have zero faith in your own idea of what you say the Church teaches. Isn't that the truth?

If you have any faith whatsoever in your idea of the Church's teaching, then those teachings that you say you deem to be heresy and error coming from the pope and bishops, are actually authentic, true Catholic teachings - according to what you say the Church teaches regarding the pope and bishops. Isn't that the truth?

Hence, you are guilty of grave disobedience to the popes and hierarchy and sin by claiming them to be illegitimate and also rejecting as heresy, authentic Catholic truths which have become the magisterium since they were taught by the popes and bishops, but at least you have settled the pope problem that never existed while condemning all who try to help you see how wrong you are. Bravo idiots!    

 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: GottmitunsAlex on May 07, 2018, 04:48:16 PM
Actually, if it weren't so tragic, it'd be quite comical how you guys preach the Church teaches that the popes cannot preach error, yet that is exactly what they have done for over 50 years. Instead of realizing there is something drastically wrong with your faith and your thinking process, you stick with that false idea implanted in your brains, and take it upon yourselves to claim popes are not popes, as if that is something you can actually even know lol.

If you actually believe it is a teaching of the Church that popes, and bishops united with the pope cannot teach errors, then you sin by not "submitting" to the pope and bishops, because the teaching of the Church is that you must submit to the pope because he can never teach error, that he will have an unfailing faith and forever be infallibly safe, lest he lead the whoooole Church into error. But that idea is not to your liking, so you find it much more to your liking to blow off that whole idea of submitting by claiming to know popes are not popes.

The truth is, preferring instead to decide the pope is not the pope in your effort to relieve you of your imaginary obligation to submit, you have zero faith in your own idea of what you say the Church teaches. Isn't that the truth?

If you have any faith whatsoever in your idea of the Church's teaching, then those teachings that you say you deem to be heresy and error coming from the pope and bishops, are actually authentic, true Catholic teachings - according to what you say the Church teaches regarding the pope and bishops. Isn't that the truth?

Hence, you are guilty of grave disobedience to the popes and hierarchy and sin by claiming them to be illegitimate and also rejecting as heresy, authentic Catholic truths which have become the magisterium since they were taught by the popes and bishops, but at least you have settled the pope problem that never existed while condemning all who try to help you see how wrong you are. Bravo idiots!    

 
I rest my case.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 07, 2018, 05:00:44 PM
I rest my case.
As well you should when that's all you've got.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 07, 2018, 07:20:27 PM
There's remote potency and proximate potency.  I myself have the potency to be Pope, but that's a remote potency.  When the Church designates a candidate to be Pope, that's proximate potency, and in fact has a degree of act in it.  He's the Pope-elect in act.  That is obviously different than my remote potency to the office.

Basically, your statement reduces to fact that you claim that I and Jorge Bergoglio are the same when it comes to our potency to the papacy.  You don't understand that there can be degrees of potency.

You don't understand the terms involved, so you need to stop falsely condemning that which you've made clear you do not understand.  Moments ago you spoke of the office being in potency ... demonstrating that you have absolutely no clue about what is even being discussed.

Ladislaus,
 
The distinction is without significance.  The question of a person being in remote or proximate potency to the papacy in fact has nothing to do with the substance of the papacy itself which is the matter in question.  You are just trying to muddy the issue to camouflage a gross fundamental error.
 
Anything, either remote or proximate in potency to any given end does not possess that end.  Even a pope-elect, before accepting the office, is still in potency to that office.  When the office is possessed in ACT it is possessed in both its matter and form.  If it is not possessed in both its matter and form, that is, its substantial being, it is not possessed at all.
 
Sedeprivationism postulates the separation of the form and matter of the papal office that necessarily results in a substantial change, that is, the office itself is destroyed.  We know by divine and Catholic, that is, DOGMA, that the papal office will exist with perpetual successors until the “consummation of the world.”
 
You post is nothing but tripe.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 07, 2018, 08:31:15 PM
Nonsene.  Designation by the Church disposes the matter to receive the form and puts it in proximate potency to receive the form.  Otherwise, any layman walking around is the same as the pope-elect.
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 07, 2018, 08:35:48 PM
OK, once again, the substance of the papacy is not the matter.  Individual designated by the Church is the matter.  Office / power of the papacy is the form.  Please read St. Robert Bellarmine before posting again.

Quote St. Robert, then. Skip the babel.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 07, 2018, 10:11:08 PM
OK, once again, the substance of the papacy is not the matter.  Individual designated by the Church is the matter.  Office / power of the papacy is the form.  Please read St. Robert Bellarmine before posting again.

Ladialaus, 

Once again it makes no difference what you are posting.  You routinely make distinctions that are not possible and ignore distinctions that are necessary. The papacy itself consists of both prime matter and its substantial form and the proposition that a person can possess the material papacy and not the formal papacy is to divine the substance of the office itself and destroy it. 
 
The pope is not identical with the papacy. There is an ontological distinction.  The person of the pope is secondary matter and accidental to the office itself for accidents only subsist in secondary matter, not in prime matter.  When the pope dies, the office is not dissolved which would necessarily occur if the person of the pope were the prime matter of the office and there would be nothing left to appoint a successor.  The unity of the pope and the papacy is again accidental but whoever is united to the papacy possess both its prime matter and its substantial form To claim, as sedeprivationists do, that he can possess the prime matter without the substantial form is to have destroyed the office. 
 
We know by divine and Catholic faith, that is, Dogma, that this is impossible. 
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 07, 2018, 10:32:19 PM
:facepalm:

In no way is the office itself destroyed simply because it does not become actualized in a particular individual.  Just as the office separates from the individual when he dies, since the matter is no longer capable of sustaining the form, so too the form cannot join to the matter when the matter is not properly disposed to receive it (i.e. is not a member of the Church).

Ladislaus,

If the pope were the prime matter of the papacy, then the substance of the papacy itself would be destroyed at the death of the pope just as occurs when a living being dies and the soul and body are separated.  That does not happen.  The pope himself can only be secondary matter in which accidents may subsist.  The office of the papacy has its own prime mater and substantial form independent of the person of the pope who possess the office accidentally.  Sedeprivationism postulates the dissolution of the form and matter of the office itself that can be possessed materially but not formally. This we know by divine and Catholic faith is impossible.  It is a Dogma that the papacy will continue with perpetual successors until the "consummation of the world" regardless if Ladislaus believes it or not.
 
You have made yourself the Lord of Harvest.  You have determined that the "matter (the pope) is not properly disposed to receive" the form.  So since you claim the authority to dissolve the papacy how do you plan to put it together again?  Make yourself the pope? Since you are your own rule of faith, you can just make it up as you go along.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: GottmitunsAlex on May 08, 2018, 12:48:08 AM
Ladislaus,

If the pope were the prime matter of the papacy, then the substance of the papacy itself would be destroyed at the death of the pope just as occurs when a living being dies and the soul and body are separated.  That does not happen.  The pope himself can only be secondary matter in which accidents may subsist.  The office of the papacy has its own prime mater and substantial form independent of the person of the pope who possess the office accidentally.  Sedeprivationism postulates the dissolution of the form and matter of the office itself that can be possessed materially but not formally. This we know by divine and Catholic faith is impossible.  It is a Dogma that the papacy will continue with perpetual successors until the "consummation of the world" regardless if Ladislaus believes it or not.

You have made yourself the Lord of Harvest.  You have determined that the "matter (the pope) is not properly disposed to receive" the form.  So since you claim the authority to dissolve the papacy how do you plan to put it together again?  Make yourself the pope? Since you are your own rule of faith, you can just make it up as you go along.

Drew
When you have time.  Please listen. Not necessarily watch.
https://youtu.be/zJqdx81e0J8
(https://youtu.be/zJqdx81e0J8)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on May 08, 2018, 09:26:53 AM
ladislaus:
Quote
Drew, you are just babbling like a complete idiot.

True, lad.  But you consistently respond to his idiocy like a complete idiot. ::)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 08, 2018, 10:59:56 AM
I said this.

You said this.

I just can't seem to find the quotes from St. Vincent and Pope Pius IX in your post that prove R&R correct. You said you would stick with them, so they must have taught your belief system.

And you called us Idiots.

Below are snips of their teachings, I have no doubt that you'll come up with at least one reason why they do not mean what they say and that they do not apply. It would not even be all too surprising for you to foolishly claim they actually support sedeism.

As I said, sedeism was never believed by anyone anywhere until about 50 years ago, it was never believed because it was never held or taught by any of the faithful. For those not already trapped in sedeism, this is how we know sedeism is not Catholic.

The Vincentian Canon (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/434lerins-canon.asp), the "guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy."


(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecuмenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.


Pope Pius IX (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/):
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 Ecuмenical 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."

This effectively eliminates sedeism from being Catholic.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Theosist on May 08, 2018, 11:48:51 AM

And here we have the nominalism from the other side.
Platonic forms are only “abstract” is the minds of Aristotelian crypto-materialists, and Aristotelian metaphysics is not dogma nor will it ever be (the Bible and Apostolic tradition know nothing of it).
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 08, 2018, 01:59:45 PM
Of course not, because sedevacantism is not a doctrine which is "taught"; but simply a plausible explanation of the crisis.  

If your problem with it, is merely the "novelty" factor, then please realize that first, this is an unprecedent crisis, and second, the same can also be said of R&R...

Actually no, I take that back, R&R is not new: resisting the Pope of Rome and the Ecunemical Councils of the Church as R&R does is actually a very old practice always associated with the heretics, which I hope you would agree that is even worst than merely being a "novel" reaction.
Reference the Principle of the Vincentian Canon; The Church has always and everywhere taught that all who denounce the pope as pope *for any reason*, commit an act of schism. This is what all of the people have always believed because it is has always been a teaching of the Church.

This act of schism, no matter which one of it's many different varieties is invoked, the sedes have dubbed "sedevacantism".  

In their effort to thwart the most fundamental of Catholic principles, the sedes have dubbed this most fundamental Catholic principle as "R&R", as if this Catholic principle does not apply on account of their better, or higher principle, called sedeism.    

The Catholic Principle I am speaking of, which the sede's have dubbed "R&R", has also been taught by the Church and believed by all of the faithful always and everywhere, the principle this one:

"No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin." - Fr. Wathen, The Great Sacrilege

So it would be nice, as well as Just, to remember that whenever sedes derogatorily refer to R&R, they are referring to the above Catholic Principle.




Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 08, 2018, 04:23:13 PM
YOU denounce the "pope as pope" every single day.  We denounce Bergoglio as non-pope.  You have everything so backwards that it's diabolical.
It's is really, really quite amazing how the mind of dogmatic doubter works. Absolutely incredible.

FYI, you can denounce the pope and all of reality all night and day for the rest of your life if that's what makes you feel superior, but God said you are not permitted to do that and if you do, you are guilty of committing an act of schism. 

To you, that is so backwards that it's diabolical - I attribute that bit of ignorance to your formal NO / Sede theological de-education.

 
 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 09, 2018, 08:23:47 AM
You have completely lost your Catholic bearings.  YOU denounce the Pope every single day.  We say that he's not the Pope.  And it has precious little to do with feeling superior ... it's about the indefectibility and incorruptibility of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline, something which you do not believe.  Your concept of the Church lines up with that of Luther and the other Prot heretics.
They must have really put you through the ringer at your NO and sede theology courses.

St. Vincent's teaching testifies against all things sede, that includes your personal, confused and consistent contradictory opinions.  


 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 09, 2018, 09:59:21 AM
How are y'all still going on about the "evils" of R&R when +Bellarmine CLEARLY says that a bad pope should be ignored.  He also says that the faithful can discern if he be a good or bad pope by USING THEIR BRAINS to compare orthodoxy with any novelties.  He also says that the people cannot depose a bad pope.  All of what +Bellarmine says is the general mindset of many non-sede clerics who lived pre/post V2 (+ABL, Fr Wathen, Fr DePauw, +Castro Meyer, etc, etc).  All of you who contend that R&R is heretical are contradicting +Bellarmine.

“I respond that the people indeed ought to discern a true from a false prophet, but not by any other rule than by diligently attending to whether he that is preaching says things contrary to those which were said by his predecessors, or else contrary to those things which are preached by the other legitimate pastors, and especially the Apostolic See, which is the principal Church; …

Moreover, it should be observed that, on the one hand, the people, by the rule which we have laid down, can indeed discern a true prophet from a false one; but, on the other hand, they cannot, for all that, depose the false prophet, if he be a bishop, and substitute another in his place.  For the Lord and the Apostle command only that the people not hear false prophets, and not that they depose them.  And certainly the practice of the Church has always been thus, that heretical bishops be deposed by bishops’ councils or by the supreme pontiffs.”
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on May 09, 2018, 10:22:18 AM
The Campos priests in making their deal with Ecclesia Dei, Bishop De Castro Mayer’s own writings and testimony from the 1988 episcopal consecrations all suggest that he favored the sede vacante position as a valid Catholic opinion. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 09, 2018, 05:14:02 PM
Still waiting for Mr. Drew to answer how is it that manifest heresy does not destroy the Papal Office.

The belief that a Pope cannot be a heretic is rooted in the dogma that manifest heretics are outside the Church. They are not members.


Patience is a virtue. Mr Drew has a very demanding profession and has had an extremely busy week and Mass tomorrow night for Ascension Thursday. You may have to wait another day, maybe two.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on May 09, 2018, 08:06:24 PM
Cantarella:
Quote
Still waiting for Mr. Drew to answer how is it that manifest heresy does not destroy the Papal Office.

You have some doubt that he will answer?  Of course he will answer; and he will probably do so lengthily.  He feeds off forum members like you, Cant.  You energize and abet his long winded effusions. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 10, 2018, 05:14:08 AM
This is quite a childish tactic and extremely deceptive. First, you definitely posted those quotes knowing full well that they do not apply. Second, you add a prediction that I will say they don't apply, because they don't, so that you can look like you are right and super intelligent. It's hilarious. I don't, however, think they support the position that the Papacy can remain vacant for an undetermined amount of time. So you were wrong on that one.
No, it is no tactic at all, and there is no deception involved because those Catholic quotes are the simple truths to live and die by,  have always been the simple truth and will forever remain simple, Catholic truths to live by.

It's simple, basic Catholicity - sedeism, being a *new* idea, is not Catholic. This new idea is accepted and promoted only by a  few as if it is doctrine, which means sedewhateverism cannot be Catholic. The whole idea has not been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, that is how we know it is not Catholic.

Like all sedes who cling to error, poor lad argues against this teaching saying basically the reason sedeism is new, is because it's a reaction to a new situation - it is for this reason that these quoted teachings do not and cannot apply - and he says this as if our Holy Mother did not already forewarn us of what She expects of us in this type of situation.

The Church always condemning as an act of schism those who presume to decide the status of the pope, we may be absolutely certain is not among those expectations. So we may be absolutely certain of at least one course that we may never presume to undertake, sedevacantism.

Your argument against the quoted teachings by attempting to equate sedewhateverism to the period of sede vacante, the space of time between the death and election of popes, is altogether childish, bordering on insanity in virtue of reality.




 



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: jxtrqmvxuh on May 10, 2018, 08:48:14 AM
The situation at Saint Athanasius has caused me to take more of an interest in the issue of sedeism than I had.  It has been interesting indeed.  Having opinions is one thing, but that is not what is going on in the parish.  We have a priest omitting the prayer for the Pope at Mass and various other parts of the liturgy (e.g. Litany of the Saints, Exsultet), and openly attacking the position traditionally associated with Archbishop Lefebvre.  I don't buy it, no priest has the authority to decide such things, only the Church.  At some point the Church will presumably deal with this issue but we are not there yet.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 10, 2018, 09:16:11 AM
In the meantime you will continue to be the good and faithful subject of an open and manifest apostate? That is what it boils down to. The Sedes are not trying to take over the role of the ecclesiastical authority of the Church. There are just some things the faithful must recognize and there are Dogmas which prevent us from considering these men Catholic, let alone our hierarchy.


It's not like you sedes are "trying" to take over the ecclsiatiscal authority of the Church. You ALREADY have taken that role. You have determined that all Catholics MUST accept your proclamation that Francis isn't the pope.

You are not allowing other Catholics to believe that +ABL was correct in his assessment of the situation. You do not allow any other view, except your own. Whereas we who follow +ABL do admit that the Pope may not be the Pope, but that we don't have the authority to make that determination (that Francis isn't the Pope).
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 10, 2018, 09:25:30 AM
True.

It is a dogma that manifest heretics are outside the Church and this is not a novelty.

Anyone has a doubt on that?

What I doubt is that you have the authority to force others to accept your proclamations regarding the Pope.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 10, 2018, 09:27:15 AM
True.

It is a dogma that manifest heretics are outside the Church and this is not a novelty.

If you want to argue that Bergoglio is NOT a manifest heretic, that is one thing. But you cannot say that a manifest heretic who is not a member of the Church can be Pope and head of the Church.

Anyone has a doubt on that?

We don't actually have to "prove" anything to you or any other sede. We simply take the prudent route, as +ABL did. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 10, 2018, 09:32:00 AM
What make you think that you have the authority to reject an Ecunemical Council and a Liturgical Rite approved by a legitimate Pope?

R&R argument of authority is laughable.  

You aren't asking the right question. We don't have to prove anything that you sedes come up with, because your questions are not relevant to those who are prudent. You take the most extreme route possible, which isn't Catholic, but it's very AMERICAN. (Think of all of the extremist sects in this country, due to "religious liberty").

You frame your questions in a manipulative manner. It's diabolical, but you can't see that.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 10, 2018, 09:43:25 AM
What I am guessing is that you simply do not have the right answer.

For you, the only "right" answer would be to the liking of your extremist sede view. No other answer will suit you. That's why it's futile to debate with you and the other extremists here.

You want to continually have non-sedes on the defensive by insisting that we answer your STUPID extremist sede "questions." You are manipulative, like the other sedes.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 10, 2018, 09:47:46 AM
A "Pope" who is not a member of the Church cannot be his head. If you want to argue that an ecclesiastical declaration is necessary, then fine, but you cannot deny the underlying principle where the conclusion is derived from.

The fact that this is not a novelty is proved by the fact that Bellarmine already wrote about in the XVI century and furthermore, he says that the Church Fathers teach it in unison.

Your "facts" are not in fact "facts." They are an invention of your mind. You have gone the extreme route in order to have some emotional relief from the severe Crisis in the Church. But you have no authority to force others to your view, just because you have the need to be comfortable.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 10, 2018, 09:54:10 AM
No one is forcing you. If you feel coerced over my views, then that is your problem; and not mine.

This is an anonymous online forum and I am allowed to participate, unless Mathew says otherwise.

So you believe that no one has to accept your view on the matter?

And you are over-reacting if you think that I'm saying that you shouldn't participate on this forum. That's manipulative too. But not surprising.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 10, 2018, 10:00:53 AM
1) It is deceptive because you know that those quotes do not prove R&R. You know it because I asked you to explain how they prove it and you didn't.
2) Sedevacantism takes the Dogma that Manifest heretics are not Catholic and draws conclusions from that. Show how that is a new idea. R&R may claim to be Catholic but no one in the history of the Church ever claimed one may have selective obedience, under any circuмstance, towards the Pope.
3) If there was a Pope right now, I wouldn't decide his status. I also would not take it upon myself to decide when I needed to obey and submit to him like you do. In fact, you're projecting your own false beliefs on us again. You are the one who decides upon the status of everything your "pope" says.
4) Here's a challenge for you; show where I argued against your quotes. Your quotes have nothing at all to do with what we're arguing. There is no truth in you.
1) Those quotes wholly condemn sedeism and at the same time prove "R&R" to be the only correct response. R&R is correct because R&R actually applies the inherent-to-the-Catholic-faith-principle, that: "No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin." - Fr. Wathen, The Great Sacrilege

The sedes, clinging to the new doctrine of sedewhateverism which has been wrought by their own confused conclusion, wholly reject, not only the above Catholic principle, they also condemn those to be heretics who embrace and apply it to this situation.  

2) We know sedeism [mis]uses dogma to draw their confused conclusion, which they make into doctrines - or as often happens, they make their confused conclusion that the pope is not the pope, anything from being a dogmatic certainty to dogmatically doubtful. The quoted teachings expose the whole sedewhatever idea for what it is, not Catholic.

3) There is a pope right now, he was put in place the same way all other popes were put in place for the last +1000 years - there is no other way for the Church to have a pope.

4) See #1.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on May 10, 2018, 10:02:09 AM
I don't think I've ever seen Meg write anything but emotional rants. They never have any pertinence. She usually only expresses, with different wording, her distaste for Sedes and their position.
Just an observation Meg. Maybe add something else, like a Church Teaching to back up your position perhaps. Just a helpful hint.

Yeah, you want us to "prove" our position. As if you will accept anything that we would offer as proof. You will not, because you are an extremist who believes that everyone is compelled to accept your sede proclamations.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 10, 2018, 10:09:08 AM
Stubborn,

We spent a long time defending the EESN dogma in the past.

Do you doubt that manifest heretics are outside the Church?
No, I don't doubt it at all. They are not members, neither are infidels, apostates or schismatics. But we have no authority, responsibility, duty or right to decide the status of the pope no matter what heretical crimes he has perpetrated or will perpetrate, because we have no reason to. God claims that responsibility as His own, personal responsibility.

I have the utmost faith in Our Lord that He will not fail to give us all, especially the conciliar popes, their just reward.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 10, 2018, 11:50:39 AM
According to Wathenism, non-members can still continue to hold office/jurisidiction in the Church by virtue of their baptismal character alone.

If you want to properly apply this, however, you would be led once again to sedeprivationism.
I don't have to apply anything to this, certainly avoid at all costs adding another divisive variety of sedewhateverism into the mess. What I have to do, and all that really matters, is that I have to save my own soul, that's what I have to do. Unlike the sedes, I am 100% perfectly content to leave the judgement AND the sentencing up to Our Lord, which is exactly how He wants it.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 10, 2018, 11:55:21 AM
1) Just saying that they condemn "sedeism" does not make it so. You still haven't explained how those quotes condemn sedevacantism.
Instead you post a comment by Wathen. In this quote, Wathen is seen failing to make a distinction between sins which do and sins that don't separate one from the Church. I am not going to opine as to whether he did this intentionally or not. I will say that if he did this through ignorance, I don't' think anyone could take anything he said seriously. It's such a basic principle. Heretics and Apostates are not Catholic.
Contrary to what you believe, the quote is not a Catholic Principle and could be understood as directly opposed to the St. Robert quote I posted on the other thread. It is definitely opposed to the Dogma that one may withhold any obedience whatsoever to a Roman Pontiff. It's opposed to the Dogma of the Authority given them by Christ to feed and rule the Sheep.

2) If this is what you believe, then answer these. Are heretics outside the Church? Can we withhold obedience to the Pope as long as he isn't teaching infallibly?

I will be waiting for an answer to the questions in number 2. As well for you to explain how your quotes prove R&R, which you have ignored for 4 or 5 posts now.
Unlike sedes, I am unafraid to answer questions, but if you cannot understand the answers already given, to the point where you ask the same thing in different ways over and over, there is not much I can do about that.

1) The teaching inherent to the Catholic faith, which you call a "comment by Wathen", not even Fr. Wathen, (a priest who earned that title you have no problem disrespecting by leaving it out), is a part of the faith. If you do not like the faith then you will not like that principle, which explains why you cannot comprehend it for what it says, so what can I say, you obviously do not have the faith.

2) Read my sig.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 10, 2018, 01:39:15 PM
It's quite hypocritical of you to call me out for not applying the "Fr." for a Priest who held heretical views yet you call the man that you consider pope, a heretic and never obey him.
Just remember he was one of the faithful priests who busied himself taking care of his sheep and preserving the faith while you were out NOing it up.

And again as regards your pope problem, I refer you to the most basic of Catholic principles, which is apparent that you were never taught, but should have been taught shortly after you learned to walk. That's how basic it is - even a 3 year old can understand it. Too bad it wasn't in any of the books you read.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 10, 2018, 01:40:25 PM
Rejecting heresies might be a good start to that end.
I try. At least I reject all of your heresies.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 10, 2018, 02:09:59 PM
Stubborn,

Bellarmine is referring here to an hypothetical morally evil Pope giving morally evil commands to the faithful. This is a completely different case from a Pope teaching doctrinal error, evidently failing to the infallibility promised to his Papal Office.

Also, Bellarmine is debating here the errors of Gallicanism and Conciliarism, not the case of a heretical Pope. Specifically this quote is taken from Bellarmine’s reply to the following argument:

The resistance he is referring to is that of kings and Councils, not individual Catholics, and this in opposition to the errors of the Gallicans, who considered the authority of a king or a General Council superior to that of the Roman Pontiff.
Again, I am absolutely content to let Our Lord take care of the pope in His own time as He sees fit. A heretic in the Chair does not effect my salvation any more than a saintly pope in the Chair would effect my salvation. I have no need or reason to join the divisiveness of sedeism.

Because it has no effect on my salvation, I really do not care what St. Robert's opinions are, I do care that the sedes always reference a Catholic saint and Doctor of the Church, as well as popes and fathers in their efforts to justify their sedeism. Certainly, doing that is something very displeasing to God, and the fact that of their own free will they've chosen to blind themselves to the truth does not change the fact that God is very displeased with those who do such things.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 10, 2018, 06:08:38 PM
No, I do not believe so.

This is a very good quote to reflect on. Hopefully, all of us can reach this level of perfection:

(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/32077322_10155634073133691_3422951246850424832_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=006b3a06b772fbc94af14131384d70fa&oe=5B528F16)


Indeed. And as Fr. Bergamo says in the Humility of The Heart: "...But in paradise there is no Saint who was not humble".
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 11, 2018, 01:53:02 PM
Yes it would mean that were it true. This is the infamous Fr. Wathen "dogma"; "Once a Catholic, Always a Catholic".
This is directly contrary to the Dogma that heretics are not in the Church.
You have a sede understanding of dogma, which is to say you don't have a clue what you're even talking about.

When an apostate Catholic dies, they are judged as a Catholic and will suffer worse than the non-Catholic because more was expected of that person.

You likely never read in the books that you learned your sede faith from, that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops, but that is how it is. It does not say the floor of hell is paved with imposter bishops, or non-bishops or fake bishops or whatever it is you imagine.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 11, 2018, 02:11:11 PM
You truly are nowhere near the Catholic Church. Your brainwashing has made you incoherent.
Yes, pretty much everything Catholic is incoherent to the sede mind because pretty much everything Catholic is antagonistic to the sede errors - by design.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 11, 2018, 02:33:51 PM
I guess that's what I would think too, if I grew up in an anti-sede cult that called itself Catholic like you did. I hope you wake up.
The only thing that can be said about that one is: :facepalm:

You believe the route everyone should take is take the same route you took - grow up NOing it up, then after 30+ years of that, get online (which is always reliable, ha!) and learn the real truth - the sede faith. SMH.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 11, 2018, 06:20:42 PM
Still waiting for Mr. Drew to answer how is it that manifest heresy does not destroy the Papal Office.

The belief that a Pope cannot be a heretic is rooted in the dogma that manifest heretics are outside the Church. They are not members.

Cantarella,
 
I  know that Pope Francis is a heretic because I keep Dogma as my proximate rule of faith.  The definition of a heretic is a baptized Catholic who does not keep Dogma as their rule of faith.  I do not know by what criteria you are judging that the conciliar popes are heretics if it is not by Dogma.
 
It is a dogma that manifest (formal) heretics are formally outside the Church but so are occult formal heretics (as are all who are in a state of mortal sin) because every mortal sin ends the life of grace in the soul.  It is not a dogma that manifest heretics are materially outside the Church, and it will never be because the removal of a manifest heretic materially from the Church is a question of law and not one of doctrine. 
 
We have already covered the parable of the cockle and wheat.  The Church Fathers commenting on this passage say that the cockle refers to heretics.  The Lord of the Harvest admonishes that the cockle remain until the harvest.  The Church may in her wisdom remove any manifest heretic from the Church if in her judgment they are more harmful to the wheat by their continued presence.  Again as has already been said, Caiaphas was a manifest heretic and his heresy was not an impediment to sitting on the Chair of Moses thereby legitimately exercising authority under the Old Law.  There is in Christ's admonition to 'do as they say but not as they do,' a distinction between the person and the office.
 
Which leads to your other question, the answer requires a proper distinction between the person and the office, and a recognition that both are substances with their independent beings that through the grace of God are accidentally united.  The Pope is accidentally united to the office and the office is accidentally united to the Pope.  Contrary to this is the opinion that the office is just the form which is united to the person making the pope and the office one thing without distinction.
 
Some proof has to be offered either way. For the former, I argue that the dogma on papal infallibility clearly distinguishes between the pope and the office.  If the pope and the office were one substantial being, then every act of the pope without exception would be a formal act of the office and this is clearly not so. 
 
But without the dogma, there is other evidence. The Church is a society and a society is philosophically defined as a group of persons working toward a common end under a directing authority.  The reason a mob working for a particular end is not a society is because it has no directing authority.  It is in the nature of every society to possess a directing authority as a necessary attribute without which it cannot be a society.  St. Pius X said in Pascendi, that “The nature of this authority (of a society) is to be gathered from its origin, and its rights and duties from its nature.” A “nature” can only be possessed by something having a substantial existence and it is from understanding the nature that we know the "rights and duties" of the authority exercised.  The "origin" of this divine Authority we know as well as its "rights" and "duties" which are the visible signs of the office.  We know that the papacy has a substantial existence because it is the material expression of the Attribute of Authority which God has endowed His Church.  This Authority is present in the Church even after a pope dies, and when the new pope assumes the papacy, he will then exercise the exact same Authority as his predecessor.  This is also true for the Magisterium, the teaching authority, is the exact same Magisterium for every pope.
 
When a pope is elected and accepts the office, God units the substantial form of the papacy accidentally to the subject of the pope, and the substantial form of the pope accidentally to the subject of the papacy.  The union is analogous to the sacrament of marriage where both parties are united accidentally but maintain their own substantial existences.  When the pope dies, we know the soul has departed because the body corrupts.  When the body corrupts there can be no accidental forms subsisting in the subject as well. The papacy continues to exist in the Church as the necessary structure of authority without a pope while awaiting its next designated occupant.  In this "marriage," it is God who unites the substantial form of the papacy as an accident of the designated pope.
 
What happens with manifest heresy?  Without the corruption of the body, there is no evidence that the substantial form or any accidental forms have been removed.  The pope cannot be judged by anyone excepting in the possibility of heresy, (which is open to theological speculation as to when and how), and as the supreme legislator, he is not liable for any canonical penalty being subject only to the moral consequences of violating the law.  Since God has bestowed the form of the papacy on the person of the Pope, only God can remove it. 
 
What is the evidence that God has done so?  There is no physical evidence outside of death or personal abdication that the pope is removed from the office. There is plenty of speculation as to if, when, and how this might happen and you are free to join in the speculation provided you keep dogma as your rule of faith and never arrive at doctrinal positions that are incompatible with revealed truth. S&Sers do not do this.
 
But there is evidence that God has not dissolved the union between the manifest heretical conciliar popes and the papal office.  That is this: not once have these popes, in spite of having complete control of the Vatican, ever engaged the Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, to bind the Catholic conscience to doctrinal or moral error.  Until this happens, and the S&Sers get their own pope, they have no argument.
 
A manifest heretic cannot damage the papacy in its substance but he can do great moral harm to the office just as he can do great moral harm to the Church as a whole with the associated loss of many souls.  Without divine intervention there is little hope.  John of St. Thomas offers a very good argument that the pope can be judged for the crime of heresy by the bishops in council, and as the Church designated the pope-elect before God joined him to the office, so the Church must designate him a heretic before God will remove him.  The problem is that long before Vatican II Dogma was overthrown as the rule of faith primarily by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Since that time nearly every bishop has reduced Dogma to theological maxims rather than formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.  Since the bishops do not hold Dogma as the rule of faith, there can be no council to charge the pope as a heretic for not keeping Dogma as his rule of faith.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 11, 2018, 09:47:02 PM
:facepalm:

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis --

Ladislaus,
 
I am familiar with the encyclical but there  are certain facts that cannot be ignored. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Holy Ghost is the soul of the Church. A person in mortal sin no longer has the Holy Ghost dwelling in his soul by grace. He is therefore cut off from the "soul of the Church."  If he dies in that state he is lost for forever.  He is still a material member of the Church but he has no life of sanctifying grace.  That is the hard fact of the matter and cannot be personally identified with the Mystical Body of Christ in any other sense than a dead material member.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 11, 2018, 10:02:13 PM
Vatican II and the New Mass.  Not possible if the Pope who promulgated them was legitimate and acted freely in promulgating them.

Ladislaus,

The Novus Ordo is not a "received and approved" rite.  Those that follow Dogma as their proximate rule of faith recognizing this fact.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 11, 2018, 10:27:55 PM
Manifest heretics are by definition outside the Church and therefore incapable of holding the papal office.  At least some R&R argue that the heresy is not truly "manifest" until it's judged so by the Church.  While I disagree with that position, at least it's defensible ... unlike this statement of yours above (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine).

 Ladislaus,
 
"Definition"? Whose? Yours?  The opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine is nothing more than an opinion.  It is worthy of examination but there are a lot of opinions that do not agree with his.  St. Robert held the opinion that a pagan pretending to be a Catholic, and fooling a Catholic community that he was a Catholics, would be that fact be a member of the Church.  This error was described by Fr. Joseph Fenton.  I only bring it up as an example that even great saints and doctors of the Church can offer opinions that are not only wrong but foolish.
 
The parable of the cockle is Jesus Christ speaking and in this parable the cockle represent heretics.  That is the opinion of every Church Father cited by Haydock, Lapide, and St. Thomas in their commentaries on this parable.  The Lord of the Harvest does not remove the cockle in the parable.  Manifest heretics are not "by definition" necessarily materially separated from the Church.
 
John of St. Thomas quotes many theologians who hold the opinion that a manifest heretic until formally charged by a general council would continue to act validly as a pope.  So what you are affirming as fact is nothing but your opinion.
 
The problem with your opinions is that they lead to the denial of dogma. You are in a church with no pope, no magisteium, no rule of faith and no material or instrumental means to ever correct this permanent defect.
 
As for "my statement above," you again have taken a quote out the context. 
 
Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 11, 2018, 10:58:08 PM
Ladislaus,
 
I am familiar with the encyclical but there  are certain facts that cannot be ignored. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Holy Ghost is the soul of the Church. A person in mortal sin no longer has the Holy Ghost dwelling in his soul by grace. He is therefore cut off from the "soul of the Church."  If he dies in that state he is lost for forever.  He is still a material member of the Church but he has no life of sanctifying grace.  That is the hard fact of the matter and cannot be personally identified with the Mystical Body of Christ in any other sense than a dead material member.
 
Drew

Under discussion is not mortal sin considered generally, but specific sins: schism, heresy, apostasy



Satis Cognitum, On the Unity of the Church, Pope Leo XIII - 1896
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13satis.htm

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, Theodore :, 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. 88 )

Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, Book VI, Letter 14

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360206014.htm

Quote
Your Charity, being anxious to learn our opinion, has been at the pains of writing to us to ask what we think of the book against the presbyter Athanasius which was sent to us. Having thoroughly perused some parts of it, we find that he has fallen into the dogma of Manichæus. But he who has noted some places as heretical by a mark set against them slips also himself into Pelagian heresy; for he has marked certain places as heretical which are Catholicly expressed and entirely orthodox. For when this is written; that when Adam sinned his soul died, the writer shows afterwards how it is said to have died, namely that it lost the blessedness of its condition. Whosoever denies this is not a Catholic.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 11, 2018, 11:02:46 PM
:facepalm:

Where does one even begin with this?  So this substantial form of the papacy exists on its own somehow like a Platonic idea?

Ladislaus,
 
I am affirming that the pope and the papal office have a real, and not just a logical, distinction. That this distinction is affirmed in Catholic Dogma and consistent with divine and natural law. The Church as a society, by natural and divine law, has the Attribute of Authority that exists necessarily in the Church.  And as St. Pius X said in Pascendi, "The nature of this authority is to be gathered from its origin, and its rights and duties from its nature."
 
The pope enters into this office not as a personal possession that he can arbitrarily direct.  As the pope he is the only one who can engage these powers of the Church but the Authority is primarily an Attribute of the Church and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope.  The Authority of the office has its own "nature" and it is from an examination of this "nature" that we can understand the "rights and duties" of the pope in the exercise of the office. 
 
The universal exists both in the thing itself and the mind of God.  I would not be so dismissive of "Platonic" ideas.  Absolute realism was the leading philosophy in the Church for long time.  And Joseph Pieper makes it clear that St. Thomas was by no means a simple "Aristotelian" and those that think so are making a serious error in judgment.  He says that there are over 1500 citations in the Summa from St. Dionysius the Areopagite alone and St. Thomas always affirmed the reality of all universals in the mind of God.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 11, 2018, 11:20:33 PM
Under discussion is not mortal sin considered generally, but specific sins: schism, heresy, apostasy



Satis Cognitum, On the Unity of the Church, Pope Leo XIII - 1896
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13satis.htm

Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, Book VI, Letter 14

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360206014.htm

Trad 123,

All I am saying is that heretics, like all guilty of mortal sin, are formally not members of the Church in that they are cut off from the life of grace. The Holy Ghost, Who is the "Soul of the Church," does not dwell in them by grace.  The question of being materially removed from the Church is not done by the sin of heresy per se as it is acknowledged by all that an occult heretic would still be a material member of the Church holding any office validly.  The heretic is removed materially from the Church not because of his heresy, but because he is harmful for the faithful. This material removal of the heretic does not necessarily happen.  When the heretic is materially removed it is a question of law and not doctrine.  Even the laws that remove a heretic ipso facto, if the heretic denies guilt, still require a canonical determination of guilt.

Modernists in the Church have been numerous and yet relatively few were ever excommunicated.  The great problem with Modernism and Neo-modernism is that the heretics admit no guilt and have not left the Church but remain and corrupted her dogmas and worship.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 11, 2018, 11:52:30 PM
All I am saying is that heretics, like all guilty of mortal sin, are formally not members of the Church in that they are cut off from the life of grace.

Do you agree that they are cut off from the Body of the Church as well? If cut off from the Body, it necessarily follows that they are cut off from the life of grace.


Quote
The question of being materially removed from the Church is not done by the sin of heresy per se as it is acknowledged by all that an occult heretic would still be a material member of the Church holding any office validly. The heretic is removed materially from the Church not because of his heresy, but because he is harmful for the faithful. This material removal of the heretic does not necessarily happen. When the heretic is materially removed it is a question of law and not doctrine.

Materially removed? I'm not familiar with that expression. I've heard of Catholics dead in sin referred to as material members.


Quote
Even the laws that remove a heretic ipso facto, if the heretic denies guilt, still require a canonical determination of guilt.

I need to read before I respond to this part.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 12, 2018, 12:06:46 AM
All I am saying is that heretics, like all guilty of mortal sin, are formally not members of the Church in that they are cut off from the life of grace.

I didn't see that the first time I read it.

Surely, a Catholic who commits murder is still a member of the Church? Dead in sin, yes, but he still professes the faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 12, 2018, 12:10:09 AM
Can someone provide definitions, please, preferably with a link to sources.

Formal.

Material.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 12, 2018, 12:36:19 AM
https://books.google.com/books?id=x4YNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=%22material+and+formal%22+%22body+and+soul%22&source=bl&ots=Vx0__CyWoe&sig=he6DaeS__gox6UpbcEieX9AJD-s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitm4zVt__aAhXHzlkKHTNcDRAQ6AEIPjAC#v=onepage&q=%22material%20and%20formal%22%20%22body%20and%20soul%22&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=x4YNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=%22material+and+formal%22+%22body+and+soul%22&source=bl&ots=Vx0__CyWoe&sig=he6DaeS__gox6UpbcEieX9AJD-s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitm4zVt__aAhXHzlkKHTNcDRAQ6AEIPjAC#v=onepage&q=%22material%20and%20formal%22%20%22body%20and%20soul%22&f=false)


Chapter 1, page 3


Attaching excerpt.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 12, 2018, 01:00:06 AM
I'm reading articles that present a distinction between crime and sin, I'm looking for a source that shows this.

Sin of heresy.

Crime of heresy.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 12, 2018, 05:58:03 AM
I've tried to limit the amount of time I waste responding to the complete incoherence of Stubborn's thinking.  There's no way to engage in a rational discussion with him.
Unless you gain at least an elementary understanding of the most basic, most fundamental of Catholic truths and make them your own foundation, it is apparent that engaging with me is going to remain completely incoherent for you.

As it is, you sedes don't simply ignore those foundational truths, oh no, simply ignoring them will never work, the sedes must first claim them to be either inapplicable to this crisis or altogether heretical ideas - and those who hold to them to be heretics. After that, the sedes proceed to claim all sorts of their own truths - right down to concluding it a teaching of the Church that  popes are not popes, which is their foundation.

There may be a quicker cure, but in my opinion, the quickest cure for sedewhateverism is to cease attempting to use any sources associated with the Catholic Church's teachings, opinions, speculations or ideas in attempts to vindicate sedeism. The prots used their knowledge of Scripture to lose the faith, the sedes use whatever of the Catholic Church's teachings, opinions, speculations or ideas to lose the faith. No matter the method, the end result is the same.     







 





 

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 12, 2018, 06:17:30 AM
Can someone provide definitions, please, preferably with a link to sources.

Formal.

Material.
Fr. Hesse starts on Material / Formal at about 7:23: (https://youtu.be/lfJZv44xFHQ?t=439)

Can't get the actual video to post for some reason.
https://youtu.be/lfJZv44xFHQ?t=439
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 12, 2018, 01:19:24 PM
If this secret pagan publicly professes the Catholic faith I don't see why he wouldn't be a member of the Church. If he was baptized as an adult, but internally rejected this act, even at the very moment of it's carrying out, he would be a member, a dead member.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Matthew on May 12, 2018, 01:27:55 PM
If this secret pagan publicly professes the Catholic faith I don't see why he wouldn't be a member of the Church. If he was baptized as an adult, but internally rejected this act, even at the very moment of it's carrying out, he would be a member, a dead member.
I just clicked on this thread out of curiosity, and here is my first impression:
Talk about an ivory tower, hypothetical, useless, academic discussion!  Is that what the rest of this thread is like?

In other news, "here is how many angels could fit on the head of a pin..."

Meanwhile, Tradition burns.

Seriously -- think of the situation for so many Trads today: the downfall of the SSPX, the necessity of Mass, the economic reality of 2018, newlywed couples trying to get by, couples where the wife is forced to work, the issue of education "how to school our children without sending them to public school, and I can't homeschool", finding friends for your children who aren't a horrible influence, young people discerning marriage (both male and female), dealing with non-Trad and non-Catholic family members, and so many other important, critical, AND PRACTICAL topics.

We're talking about issues that affect Trads everywhere, in all parts of Tradition, regardless of what group they patronize. There are a lot of struggles we have in common. Yes, even between a young sedevacantist couple and a young SSPX couple. Yes, I know that's blasphemy for those who love to divide...

So is this academic issue really the most important issue pressing on Trad Catholics today? Are our lives so stable and worry-free that we can indulge in such academic discussions? I'm sure many would like to say (or shout) MUST BE NICE.

NOTE: I'm actually in a pretty stable situation myself -- but A) even I have issues I have to deal with, like the lack of weekly Mass, raising children in the 2018 pagan modern world, lack of friends/family "support network", etc. and B) I'm objective -- I don't always talk about myself. I step outside myself and my situation as easily as others are stuck thinking from their own situation/perspective :)


TL;DR:
We need less "Crisis in the Church" posts and more "Catholics Living in the Modern World" posts. The latter could have been called "The Rubber Meets the Road" or "Trad Catholic in Action" or "Trad Catholic life all week long - the struggles" and so forth.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 12, 2018, 01:34:50 PM
Is that what the rest of this thread is like?

The crisis in the Church can be summarized as an ecclesiological battleground.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Matthew on May 12, 2018, 01:41:42 PM
I'm surprised you wrote that post in this thread and not one of the flat earth discussions
Oh it applies to many other posts, I'm sure. I'm not excluding Flat Earth from the criticism.
I get the impression that if someone embraced Flat Earth, certain Flat Earth zealots would consider that person "100% good to go" -- according to their distorted thinking. 
What about all the other problems and issues facing Trad Catholics? Give me a break.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 12, 2018, 04:27:27 PM
Where is the source of his error?

Here is Bellarmine explicitly excluding pagans from membership in the Church:

Cantarella,

When you quote me it should always be done in context.  I attributed this source to Msgr. Joseph Fenton in an article in AER and that should be included in your question.  This citation says that St. Robert Bellarmine believed a non-baptized man pretending to be a Catholic, if accepted as such by a Catholic society, would be a member of the Church.
 
Msgr. Fenton wrote:

Quote
St. Robert was perfectly in line with a then existent theological tradition in holding that a man could he a true member of the Catholic Church when he possessed the outward bond of unity with the Church, apart altogether from the inward bond. He believed that a man was a real member of the Church when he had this outward bond of union, even though he had no true and inward Christian faith whatsoever.

He differed, however, from other ecclesiologists of his time in his concept of the outward bond itself. He held literally and consistently that these factors which were capable of making a man a member of the true Church and sufficient to constitute him such were the profession of the Christian faith and the communion or reception of the sacraments, under the direction of legitimate ecclesiastical pastors and ultimately, under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff. He definitely did not teach that the baptismal character was necessary for real membership in the Church.

He definitely taught that those who have not given their names to Christ through baptism, but who follow other religions, "are not members of the Church." He also denied that catechumens, those who were preparing for the reception of baptism, and thus for entrance into the true Church of Christ, were members of the kingdom of God on earth. But, in the light of what he has set down towards the end of the tenth chapter in his De ecclesia militante, it is obvious that he considered an unbaptized man a true member of the Church when that man lived in society as a Catholic and was accepted as such, either by reason of a mistake about his status, or because the man cold—bloodedly falsified his position, claiming to have been baptized when he knew well that he had never received the sacrament.

It is manifest that this particular aspect of St. Robert’s teaching is unacceptable in the light of Mystici corporis. It must he remembered, however, that St. Robert’s faulty description of the Church’s outward bond of unity in no way militates against his teaching about the possibility that occult heretics can be members of the true Church, and in no way invalidates the arguments he employed in favor of that contention.
Msgr. Joseph Fenton, AER, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching About the Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church; page 221

And answering your previous post.

Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and the definition of a heretic proves this necessarily.  You are either unwilling or unable to understand this.  No one can see this for you.  In a mathematics textbook, you will typically find  an axiom proposed followed by its mathematical proof.  A lot a students cannot see the proof, they just assume the book is correct, memorize the axiom and leave it at that, but is always better to understand the proof which becomes helpful in higher orders of study.
 
The definition of a heretic is a baptized person who rejects one or more dogmas.  He does not keep Dogma as his rule of faith.  This is the essential definition that provides the genus and species.  It proves that the faithful are those who keep Dogma as the rule of faith. 
 
It is worth repeating for the benefit of others even if you cannot appreciate it.  For you the question becomes why do S&Sers reject this evident truth?  I think it is because they end up in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogmas and cannot be the Catholic Church.  If you turn your back on the revealed truth as your rule of faith, the current error is less psychologically troubling.
 
Do you know that the condemned error against Huss is of the same category of authority as the condemnations of Luther in Exsurge Domine?  They are not dogmatic truths and therefore must be contextualized.  The "foreknown" are those predestined to Hell.  Huss held that only those predestined to heaven were members of the Church.  A wicked pope in a state of mortal sin is still a material member of the Church but he has lost the life of sanctifying grace by definition. That is, he is no longer a temple of the Holy Ghost, an heir to heaven.  The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Holy Ghost is the "Soul of the Church."  If any Catholic is without sanctifying grace he cannot be a living member of the Church.  Exactly what his relationship is admittedly a matter of theological dispute but as Fr. Fenton said that ultimately everyone is either a member of the Church or not.  If we are not perfectly accurate in discerning the grey areas it is our incomplete understanding of the problem.  You are free to speculate in these area of uncertainty but you are not free to engage in speculation and practical decisions that overthrow dogma. 
 
You are in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith and no material or instrumental means to ever correct these permanent defects.  You are in a church that is not Catholic and never will be.  Instead of trying to figure out how you ended up in this spiritual desert, you try only to overthrow the authority of dogma whenever it suits your purpose.

Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: ctarozzi on May 12, 2018, 07:55:52 PM
I'M PUBLISHING HERE A POST NOVUSORDOWATCH REFUSED TO PUBLISH TO THE 'POSTSCRIPT ON FR RINGROSE':

I apologize if I come like a ‘party crusher’ in the middle of your celebrations of Fr Ringrose’s public statement on the conciliar Popes.

First of all, I imagine Fr Ringrose smiling at the pompous “earthquake” metaphor given on this website to his modest three part comments on the Pope in his Bulletin. Father is well known for his harmless meteorological observations but not for producing any telluric activity! (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)


More seriously, I noticed you're making too much of it. For instance, I remarked that Fr Ringrose in his Bulletin never said that the two other discarded explanations were ‘heretic’, that he never used the word ‘material’ Pope, nor ‘sedeprivationism’ to  characterize his own opinion. It seems rather that Fr Ringrose has his own particular theory, probably close to sedeprivationism, but not identical to the one of Des Lauriers.

Fr. Ringrose’s position can be summarized to a single phrase at the end: “the Chair is not totally vacant, not is it totally full.” Any people with deep knowledge on Theology will hardly find this ‘half-pope” fiction taught in any serious Theology manual. In any case, it doesn’t square with any theologian in the past, like Bellarmine et alii.

I found particularly ‘selective’ Bp Sanborn, quoted above praising Fr Ringrose’s public position, when he fails to mention that the Fr. Ringrose condemned also unequivocally totalist sedevacantism...! This misleading attitude of Bp Sanborn, a sedeperivationist, is motivated by the fact he is comfortable with Fr Cekada, a totalist sedevacantist, teaching in his own Seminary in Florida. “Sede-ecuмenism”?

I found also interesting that the initial comment about Fr Ringrose’s position on the conciliar Popes quickly degenerated on a serious and embittered brawl between the different sede factions! The totalists fighting the privationists, the Sanbornists fighting the Cekadists. Very telling.

All the discussions posted above, no matter which kind of sede they belong to, prove at least one thing: the irreconcilable and contradictory character among the different sede theories. They concur only on something purely negative, “there is not a valid Pope in Rome today,” but their explanations and their solutions differ enormously.
I remarked that the only sede version missing in this debate are the conclavists. This is truly the craziest sede branch, but at least they are consistent. They say: “If the Pope is essential to the Church, and the Chair is empty, it logically follows that the Church cannot continue without a Pope, so LET’S ELECT ONE!”

How many sede “popes” do we have now? We lost the counting... and interestingly enough they’re mostly Americans. BTW these people should not be called sede-vacantist but sede-plenist because they have a “pope,” and even a dozen. The problem is that there are too many “popes” to accommodate on the same chair... like playing to the musical chairs!
Now, do you expect that anyone after reading your ‘Babelian’ discussions posted above will take seriously any sede position?

Imagine any newcomer Catholic, with a solid Faith and a lot of common sense, arriving in the middle of this sede thread and witness your irreconcilable positions... He will think that none of your explanations and solutions cannot be taken seriously.
We know that Truth is one and error are multiple. The multiplicity of the different versions of sede theories are the most telling proof that any sede theory cannot be the solution.

Therefore, I appeal to the last remnant of common sense among you, folks. You’re utterly disconnected with reality and with Catholicism. All of you seem to be comfortably living in an unreal world, alien to Catholicism. Do you imagine that the Catholic Church could have lived without a visible head, bad as the occupants could be, for almost 60 years?

The empty Seat theories don’t only question your ability to connect with the sensus Fidei, but also it is offensive to God who, if you’re right, not only would have miserably failed to preserve the Church’s visibility for 60 years, but also prevents the possibility of returning to a normal state of the Papacy.

The bottom line is that the so-called theological sede explanations betray too much of self-complacency, theological ignorance, and are alien not only to Catholic Doctrine but even to common sense.

One thing that seems to me evident is that the crisis in the Church is worsening and that even some Traditional Catholic are victim of this crisis as well, being blindsided by the illusion of bringing “The” solution to a situation too mysterious in the Church that we cannot grasp it in all of its aspects.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 12, 2018, 08:27:56 PM
You have this completely backwards, and the definition of heresy actually proves that the Church/Magisterium are the rule of faith.  This has been amply demonstrated.

So, for instance, one could deny a dogma BEFORE its definition by the Church and he would not be a heretic.  If dogma were the rule, one would be a heretic even before its definition by the Church.

One could deny a dogma out of ignorance, but so long as there's no implicit rejection of the formal RULE of faith, the authority of the Church, the heresy is material only (and some theologians deny the term heresy to so-called "material" heresy).

That's why it is rightly said that if one denies a single dogma he denies all the dogmas.  Why?  Because in rejecting the one you are rejecting the authority behind them all, so that you do not actually believe ANY of them, not with the requisite formal motive of faith.

You are just so completely befuddled and dazed and confused due to having to defend your R&R at all costs.

Ladislaus,
 
You are the guy who did not even know that the Magisterium was part of divine revelation.  You are they guy who did not know the definition of supernatural faith, and then you divided its necessary attributes corrupting its meaning.  You are the guy whose "magisterium is dormant"  and shows no signs of life.  And now you want to offer your opinion on the rule of supernatural faith?  You have displayed a phenomenal ignorance on the fundamental meaning of both of the terms in the proposition.  Really, how could you possible make a truthful judgment?
 
Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church and proposed by the Church as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Therefore, it is impossible to deny a Dogma before it is defined.  The magisterium is the insufficient material cause and instrumental cause of dogma.  God is the final cause and formal cause of dogma.  God is the "authority behind" all Dogma.  The Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church, is also a Dogma.
 
St. Thomas defines heresy as, : "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas."  The definition is addressing formal heresy for mere material heresy is not heresy at all. This definition of St. Thomas is called an "essential definition" because it includes the genus and the species.  I do not expect that you would understand why this is the best of all possible definitions but you should be able to at least confirm that it is from any authoritative textbook on logic or epistemology.  This essential definition necessarily makes Dogma the rule of faith and it is clearly demonstrated by simply moving from the species to the genus.  Those who break the rule are heretics.  Those who keep the rule are the faithful.  The breaking or keeping the rule of dogma becomes the essential difference.  If Dogma is not the proximate rule of faith, no one could be called a heretic. 
 
And yet, you like to freely slander others with the charge of "heresy" and you are ignorant of this fact.
 
Why don't you go and wake up your magisterium and ask them? 
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: TKGS on May 12, 2018, 08:37:35 PM
I'M PUBLISHING HERE A POST NOVUSORDOWATCH REFUSED TO PUBLISH TO THE 'POSTSCRIPT ON FR RINGROSE':

What do you mean "Novus Ordo Watch refused to publish"?  Did you post this as a comment using DISQUS and Novus Ordo Watch deleted your post?  
There are critical posts on many Novus Ordo Watch posts so I would be surprised that this would have been deleted.  In general, Novus Ordo Watch only deletes comments when they stray from the topic.  These comments seem to be on subject.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 12, 2018, 09:10:51 PM
This is utter garbage and filled with lies and distortions ... which have been corrected.  But you are of bad will and therefore refuse to accept correction.

Let's start with the easiest one.  With sedeprivationism (which is most akin to what Cantarella and I believe), there's every "instrumental means" to correct the problem.

We have a Magisterium that is not exercised at the moment, just as you would have after the death of one pope and before the election of another.  You, on the other hand, have a thoroughly corrupt and polluted Magisterium that you are required to reject in order to save your soul.

You have perverted the term "rule of faith" in order to suit your agenda, so that doesn't apply at all.

You continue to lie even after you are corrected.

Ladislaus,
 
Since you do not know the rule of faith no one should be surprised to see you in a church of your own making without pope, without magisterium, without rule of faith, and without means to ever get these necessary attributes of the Catholic Church.
 
You have made the pope a god by claiming that the office and the pope constitute one being.  Therefore you have made the divine Attributes of the Church the personal possession of the pope. His personal infallibility means he is infallible whenever he want to be infallible, his personal indefectibility means he is infallible whenever he wants to be just fallible, that is his "infallible security" blanket.

But even if I were to accept your claim that the office is the "form of the papacy" and the "person the matter," sedeprivationism posits dividing the form itself from the matter which again would be a substantial change that is not any different from sedevacantism in its practical result.

 
But you are wrong because we know from dogma, and divine and natural law, that the pope and the office are not an identity but have real distinctions.  Sedeprivationism posits that the pope can materially possess the office and formally not possess the office at the same time.  This separates the form and matter of the office itself which necessarily produces a substantial change in what God has promised will endure until the end of the world with perpetual successors.
 
And what evidence can be offered that the form has departed from the pope as you claim that the form departs from a heretical pope in the same manner as from a dead pope?  We know it departs from a dead pope because the matter corrupts.  You have nothing but your own high opinion as evidence that any separation has occurred and there are many theologians who would not agree with you.  It is God who joins and only God can divine. 

And by what criteria are you judging the pope as a heretic?  Could it be Dogma?  You like to use Dogma to charge others with heresy but when you deny Dogma yourself, "it's not the rule of faith" is the answer. In the end, you are your own rule of faith.  Whatever serves your end will do. 

It has led you into your own church of your own making.

 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on May 13, 2018, 07:03:57 AM
What do you mean "Novus Ordo Watch refused to publish"?  Did you post this as a comment using DISQUS and Novus Ordo Watch deleted your post?  
There are critical posts on many Novus Ordo Watch posts so I would be surprised that this would have been deleted.  In general, Novus Ordo Watch only deletes comments when they stray from the topic.  These comments seem to be on subject.  
I noticed that a couple of posts were deleted on a different thread about Francis' latest heresy.  Perhaps these were the same posts.  If so, then this poster posted his post in the WRONG thread rather than on the Fr Ringrose thread.  I suspect that THIS was the only reason why it was deleted.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: TKGS on May 13, 2018, 07:07:44 AM
What do you mean "Novus Ordo Watch refused to publish"?  Did you post this as a comment using DISQUS and Novus Ordo Watch deleted your post?  
There are critical posts on many Novus Ordo Watch posts so I would be surprised that this would have been deleted.  In general, Novus Ordo Watch only deletes comments when they stray from the topic.  These comments seem to be on subject.  

I noticed that a couple of posts were deleted on a different thread about Francis' latest heresy.  Perhaps these were the same posts.  If so, then this poster posted his post in the WRONG thread rather than on the Fr Ringrose thread.  I suspect that THIS was the only reason why it was deleted.
This would make sense.  I've just not seen Novus Ordo Watch delete topic appropriate criticisms--no matter how inane they are.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on May 13, 2018, 07:15:15 AM
I noticed that a couple of posts were deleted on a different thread about Francis' latest heresy.  Perhaps these were the same posts.  If so, then this poster posted his post in the WRONG thread rather than on the Fr Ringrose thread.  I suspect that THIS was the only reason why it was deleted.

This would make sense.  I've just not seen Novus Ordo Watch delete topic appropriate criticisms--no matter how inane they are.
Actually I just went back int here and it is there.  This poster is probably new there and it had not been approved yet.  In fact NOW actually responds to it.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 13, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
So you continue with this calumny despite the fact that it's been explained to you at least a dozen times that this accusation was rooted in your inability to comprehend the English language and my use of the term revelation.  You disputed that revelation (in English) could have the meaning with which I was using it, and I cited dictionary.com which listed my use of the term first and yours second.

You really are a bad-willed degenerate.  You've got nothing else to rebut my arguments, so you keep dusting off this false accusation in desperation.

Ladislaus,


"Calumny"?  "False accusations"?  These are a links to your claim that the "Magisterium is not part of divine revelation."  It does not matter whether your were claiming that the "Magisterium is not part (of the content) of divine revelation," or that the "Magisterium is not part (of the act) of revelation."  Either way, it is a spectacular error with grave doctrinal implications that you have never corrected.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg605805/#msg605805)
« Reply #1468 on: April 25, 2018, 08:07:46 PM »

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606106/#msg606106)
« Reply #1521 on: April 27, 2018, 12:05:27 PM »

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606156/#msg606156)
« Reply #1543 on: April 27, 2018, 01:25:21 PM »


Here are the links to your denying the correct definition of supernatural faith.

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 »

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 »

It is not easy to keep track of your posts Ladislaus because you are an expert on everything and cannot keep your mouth shut. You have, on this thread alone, posted more than 450 times. You make up nearly 25% of all posts on this one thread.  You have more posts on this thread alone than I have in all my posts on CathInfo going back four years.  The outstanding characteristic of your posts are a crude arrogant dismissal of opinions that are not your own, a failure to ever correct gross errors of fundamental first principles, a superficial flippant pretense of erudition, a routine quoting out of context, and the use demeaning language in approximately 90% of your posts on this thread alone.

Since you do not know the correct definition of the Magisterium and you do not know the correct definition of supernatural faith, you cannot possibly know what you are saying when you claim, "the magsiterium is the rule of faith" because you do not know the meaning of the terms of the proposition. You are only fooling those who want to be fooled.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of them.

Now we know from your last post that you do not know what "calumny" is.   Calumny is the detraction of another by lying.  Actually, to accuse anyone of calumny when it is not is a good example of calumny.  

Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 13, 2018, 05:16:35 PM
You bumbling idiot, the second proposition is Catholic doctrine ... as taught even by Vatican I.  The first is the distorted heretical meaning which you tried to tar me with due to your inability to understand English.

So, according to you, when the Magisterium defines a doctrine, the Magisterium is revealing the doctrine.

Ladislaus,

Why don't you shut up and let others read the posts that I have provided links. Let your own words speak for you.  Let others see for themselves what kind a person you are.  If these links do not demonstrate that I am telling the truth, then you will be vindicated and I put to shame.  If they do in fact demonstrate what I claim, your protestations are to no avail and only further denigrate your reputation.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg608787/#msg608787)
« Reply #1981 on: Today at 03:07:08 PM »

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on May 13, 2018, 10:49:26 PM
drew:
Quote
It is not easy to keep track of yo'ur posts Ladislaus because you are an expert on everything and cannot keep your mouth shut. You have, on this thread alone, posted more than 450 times. You make up nearly 25% of all posts on this one thread.  You have more posts on this thread alone than I have in all my posts on CathInfo going back four years. 
So maybe Lad is a "bad willed degenerate," and a "bumbling idiot" too.  I mean, there's got to be some kind of degeneracy and idiocy at play here.  Otherwise, a totally outrageous and embarrassing thread like this would not be approaching 40,000 views.  But as long as Matthew allows this ridiculous food fight to continue, we can only expect more of it, I suspect.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 14, 2018, 09:23:43 AM
The English translation of the end of the tenth Chapter of Bellarmine's De Ecclesia Militante is as follows:

He is responding to this argument:

His response is:

I do not think that the hypothetical pagan here pretending to be Catholic is necessarily unbaptized. If he is pretending and professing the Faith externally, he must have been sacramentally baptized, most likely. If he is receiving the Sacraments and externally  "professing" the Faith, then he must have already been baptized. I think this is more a case of a pagan who is baptized as an adult and seems to be a Catholic only externally and publicly, but internally he rejects the Faith. He is a false convert. An occult heretic or secret infidel, who is still considered a member of the Church.


Cantarella,

But what does St. Robert mean by this quote?  Can the pope be like the non-baptized fake who pretends to be Catholic and if accepted by the Catholic community as Catholic is therefore a member of the Church?  You cannot or will not even accept Msgr. Fenton’s understanding and reporting of this fact.  There have been rare occasions in which I have not agreed with Msgr. Fenton’s conclusions but I have never thought that he did not properly report facts, or try to do so in a manner that forced unsupported conclusions.

St. Robert has his speculative opinions on the question of a heretical pope and so do lots of others.  You are free to speculate on any of these questions that are not determined and settled by the Church, but you are not free to speculate or take practical measures that contradict determined and settled questions.  Determined and settled questions are called Dogmas.  S&Sers do not follow this rule.

Unless you have something new to add there is no point in continuing this exchange.  I have received through private emails at CathInfo and through direct contacts to Mission chapel in York, PA nearly two dozen communications that have expressed their appreciation for addressing these questions covered in this thread.  If the discussion has been no benefit to you I am grateful that they have benefitted others.

I believe you are committing a grave error and you have the same opinion of me.  If you are correct, the implications of my error are simply personal because S&S is admittedly a dead end going nowhere.  If I am correct, the implications of your error are not just personal but extend to the heart of the possibility of bringing about any corrective measure.  If the Resistance cannot be structured in the defense of Dogma, it is not going anywhere either.

We both cannot be right.  The truth will reveal itself in time.  We shall see.

Drew 


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 14, 2018, 03:24:02 PM
You're the one who need to shut up ... and stop promoting heresy.

Ladislaus,

Heresy is the rejection of dogma as the rule of faith.  Since you have already done that, the problem of heresy is your own.  Without Dogma, you cannot know even what a heresy is.  But then again, you denied the definition of supernatural faith.  Maybe the problem is yet more fundamental.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 14, 2018, 03:26:36 PM
It means what it says. It is when the heresy becomes manifest, public, when the heretic loses Authority and Jurisdiction in the Church. An ecclesiastical declaration would be necessary at this point just to make the fact known to the faithful. It is different if the heresy is occult or private. Bellarmine says private heretics, even if it is the Sovereign Pontiff himself, "do not lose Jurisdiction, nor dignity, nor the name of the head of the Church, until he either separates himself publicly form the Church or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will". But this is in the case of secret heretics, who continue to have Jurisdiction.

"For this reason a heretical Bishop to the extent that he began to preach heresy, could bind and loose no one, although without a doubt if he had already conceived the error, were it before he began to preach publicly, he could still bind and loose".

Bellarmine is not the only one who teaches this.  Secret heretics can still have Authority in the Church. Public heretics cannot because they are not inside the Church.

The proposition of "Francis is a manifest heretic but he still retains Authority or Jurisdiction in the Church" is therefore, indefensible.

Canterella,

You will not accept what Msgr. Fenton writes regarding St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinion that a non-baptized fake pretending to be a Catholic, and therefore accepted by the Catholic community as a Catholic, would therefore be a member of the Church. Why try to brush it over?  If St. Robert is correct in this opinion, why cannot it apply to a pope?

St. Robert also believed in the “soul” vs “body” membership in the Church that was elaborated upon by Fr. Jean Bainvel, S.J.  Even Msgr. Fenton said that this opinion of St. Robert was incompatible with Leo XIII, Divinum Illud, that taught that the ‘Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church.’  You have in the past rejected St. Robert’s opinion on this question that soul membership was all that was necessary for salvation without the reception of any sacrament.  Why has St. Robert become the only acceptable opinion on the question of a heretical pope and the loss of office?  In the end, you are picking and choosing to accept no authority beyond yourself and reject any reasoned arguments to the contrary. 

All you are offering is the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine and affirming it as if it were dogma.  It is not.  The opinion that a pope who is manifest heretic loses jurisdiction without any declaration whatsoever by any authority in the Church, or rather by every “authority” in the Church, is nothing but an opinion that would lead, as John of St. Thomas said, to chaos. 

You admit that an occult heretic, as St. Robert opines, would not lose jurisdiction.  Therefore, it is not the heresy per se but the welfare of the faithful that is the determining element to remove any heretic materially from the Church.  The material separation from the Church is a matter of law and not a matter of doctrine. 

As said before you are free to speculate in on any matter that is not a determined and settled question but you are not free to speculate and make practical judgments that overthrow determined and settled questions.  Determined and settled questions are Dogmas.

It is only through Dogma as the proximate rule of faith that anyone whatsoever can be charged with heresy.  If Dogma is not the rule of faith, there is no such thing as heresy.  Without the restoration of Dogma as the rule of faith there is no possible way to mount any effective resistance because truth is the only weapon against the abuse of authority.  The S&Sers deny Dogma as the rule of faith because they themselves end up in a position that is incompatible with Dogma.  The final end is they are no better off than the pope they are throwing out of office.

Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 14, 2018, 08:44:33 PM
Long quote, scroll down to read the whole thing.


The Dublin Review, Vol. 14, January -- April, New Edition, 1870, pgs. 241 - 244

https://archive.org/details/dublinreview17wisegoog


Quote
THE publication of this collection of S. Alphonsus de Liguori's various treatises on the Pope and on General Councils is most opportune.  While all eyes are turned towards Rome, it is well that the clergy and educated laity should thus be enabled to learn, what one so high in esteem for sanctity and learning as S. Alphonsus thought on these subjects. It is a happy coincidence, too, that this volume should have appeared in the same language and at the same time as the Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of Orleans.

That letter came from one so greatly admired for his eloquence and zeal that it made much more impression on men's minds than its contents alone  could account for ; especially among the laity, who have never given a  special study to the questions of which it treats. Among some few an impression actually exists, that the illustrious French Bishop has defended the cause of moderation and of the ancient traditions of the Church against,  as it is maintained, the extreme theories of a few theologians and the hasty speculations of some intemperate laymen.

We recommend those who have received this impression to purchase and read attentively the volume before us.

In the excellent Introduction which has been prefixed to his translation  by P. Jacques, they will find in what esteem S. Alphonsus and his writings are held by the Church. To quote but one passage from the bull of his canonization, having reference to the very treatises which compose this volume, Gregory XVI. has said : " (The Saint) wrote many books for the maintenance of the rights of this Apostolic See ; in them we admire an extraordinary vigour of argument, a vast and varied learning, singular proofs of his solicitude for the Church, and a rare zeal for religion." Passing to the writings of the Saint thus solemnly praised, the reader will find that S. Alphonsus maintains, with all the erudition of a doctor and the earnestness of a saint, propositions exactly contrary to those of the Bishop of Orleans. The latter, although he professes not to discuss in any way the infallibility of the Pope but only the opportuneness of its definition, yet continually assumes that hitherto it is not held generally in the Church. He speaks as if the definition would introduce a new rule of faith,  S. Alphonsus, on the contrary, maintains with Suavez and Bellarmin that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is proxima fidei closely allied to what is of faith ; that it is the ancient and almost universally received rule of faith, based on Scripture and tradition ; and though not yet expressly defined as of faith, that it is expressly taught by Sovereign Pontiffs and by General Councils.

Alexander VIII. had condemned the following proposition: " The assertion of the authority of the Roman Pontiff above a General Council, and of his infallibility in defining questions of faith, is vain, and has been often refuted." S. Alphonsus concludes the dissertation which he has written against this proposition, by saying that the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility is the belief and practical rule of the whole Church : totius Ecclesiae sententiam, regulam et sensum.

The Bishop of Orleans says, that since all Catholics are agreed that the Church is infallible, and this belief has been sufficient for eighteen centuries, it is inopportune and productive of great evils to raise the question as to the exact seat of infallibility ; that " at the very statement of the problem, the devil is on the alert, the faithful are troubled, the East is arrested in its approach, Protestants are driven back, governments become uneasy, the saddest pages of history are again brought to view, bishops are grieved, the peace of souls is compromised, and the road of salvation made more difficult" (§xvi.).

S. Alphonsus thought very differently. "Febronius," he writes, " pretends that the supreme authority which we ascribe to the Pope keeps heretics from joining the Church. He is mistaken. It is not the doctrine regarding the Pope, but hatred of restraint, sensual delights, the love of riches, and pride, which keep them separated from the Church. They make  no more account of the authority of Councils, in which Febronius places the supreme power, than they do of that of the Popes."

So far was the Saint from thinking it inopportune to raise the question of the exact seat of infallibility, that he has written no less than three treatises to prove the infallibility of the Pope and his superiority to General Councils, and has been praised for doing so by the Holy See. He goes out of the way to treat of these questions even in his moral theology. The ecclesiastical censor at Naples thought it inopportune to publish such matters : but the Saint answered : " You may change, if you like, certain reflections .... but if it is a question regarding the supreme authority of the Pope, then no. I am ready to give my life in its defence. Take away this supreme power, and I do not fear to say that the authority of the Church is annihilated."

The Bishop of Orleans at great length endeavours to show the almost inextricable difficulties which will arise, both as regards the past and the future, if the rule of faith is placed in the infallibility of the Pope. S. Alphonsus, on the other hand, sees no issue out of the historical difficulties of the past, and no practical rule for the future, for those who reject this infallibility. He does not see how any Council can be certainly known to have been ecuмenical, or to have fulfilled the conditions which even Galileans require in order that the definitions of an Ecuмenical Council may be infallible, except from the infallible judgment and approbation of the Pope ; so that, to use his own words, "even the adversaries of the Pope's infallibility cannot find complete assurance in matters of faith without coming in a last analysis, by one road or another, to acknowledge in the Pope a supreme and infallible authority" ("Du Pape," &c., p. 71).

Again, the Bishop of Orleans says that if the infallibility of the Pope is admitted, the faithful will never be able to understand that the bishops are in any true sense judges of the faith; but "the fact is," answers S. Alphonsus, " that the supreme power, which before the Council resided entirely and exclusively in the Pope, in the Council extends also to the bishops, and is shared by them ; so that they can say in all truth in the definitions pronounced unanimously by the Pope and Council, Visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis " {ib, p. 75).

Neither does it follow, as the Bishop of Orleans insists, that General Councils will be esteemed useless if the infallibility of the Pope is admitted. As this is the most speccious part of his lordship's letter, it may be well to set down the objection as he stated it, and the answer supplied by S. Alphonsus.

" Councils," says Mgr. Dupanleup, " have, up to the present time, been one of the great forms of the Church's life, one of its most powerful means of action. They began in the very origin of the Church in Apostolic times ; they have been known to every century of Christianity except the last two."

Then, after stating his desire and hope that they may in future become  periodical, he continues : —

"But, if the Council should define the infallibility of the Pope, might not the faithful think and say : — 'What use in future will there be in Ecuмenical Councils? Since the Pope alone, apart from the bishops, can decide infallibly on questions of faith, why call together the bishops? Why undergo the delays, the researches, the discussions of Councils ?'

"Thus, then, it is wished that the Council shall make a decree which in future would either put an end to Councils, or at least diminish their  number and importance ! It is wished that the bishops should decree, so to say, their own abdication " (§ xii).

First, then, S. Alphonsus also reviews past ages, and concludes that Councils neither were nor could be the regular means of defining controversies : —

"If God had not appointed," he says, " that the definitions of the Popes  should be infallible, but had willed that questions of faith should be  decided in General Councils, he would not have made sufficient provision for the good of the Church ; for, considering the numerous difficulties which stand in the way of convoking general Councils, the Church would have been deprived, during the greater number of centuries, of an infallible judge, capable of applying a prompt remedy to the schisms and heresies which may ever be arising.

"As a matter of fact, the constant practice of the Church proves that heresies have been condemned by the Sovereign Pontiffs alone ; and when  the definition of the Pope has been pronounced, Councils have only been  assembled when it could be done conveniently, and when it was considered useful to convoke them in order to extinguish more completely the fire of some heresy that was spreading " (p. 106).

As to the objection, that the infallibility of the Pope makes Councils useless, S. Alphonsus says : —

"No ; though the Pope is infallible, yet Councils are not useless. On the contrary, they are useful in many respects.

1st. In order that the people may receive more readily the decrees which have been unanimously drawn up.

2ndly. That the Bishops may have a more perfect knowledge of the doctrines discussed, and of the reasons on which the decrees are based, and that thus they may be better able to instruct the faithful with regard to them.

3rdly. They are useful to close the mouths of those who resist the definitions of the Pope.

4thly. They are useful for the better examination of certain points not yet defined nor sufficiently discussed. Though it must be well understood that to have authority the definitions of Councils must be confirmed by the Pope, seeing that they derive all their force
from this confirmation" (p. 168).

With regard to this latter point the Saint adds, in another place :—

" Sometimes the Sovereign Pontiffs convoke Councils in order that they may be more enlightened by the Holy Ghost by means of the discussions carried on in the Council on some doubt in matter of faith ; for, as Cardinal du Perron says, the infallibility of the Pope does not consist in his always receiving at once from the Holy Ghost the necessary light to decide questions of faith, but in his deciding without error in matters in which he feels himself to be sufficiently enlightened by God, while he sends other questions, on which he does not feel himself sufficiently enlightened, to be decided by the Council, in order that afterwards he may pronounce his own judgment " (p. 346).

These passages will, we think, show the importance as well as the opportuneness of the republication. It is only necessary to add that the translation seems both accurately and elegantly made, that it is enriched with judicious and learned notes, and that the original Latin of three out of the five treatises which compose the volume, is given in an Appendix.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 14, 2018, 09:35:32 PM
Does anyone have more of Cardinal Billot?

http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/CASSICIAcuм%20THESIS-Lucien.pdf



Quote
“At the minimum one should firmly hold as absolutely unshakable and beyond all doubt the opinion that the adherence of the universal Church is always for her the one infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff,  and  hence  the  existence  of  all  the  conditions  required  for  this legitimacy.  And  one  does  not  have  to search far and wide to find reasons for this. It derives directly from the infallible promise and providence of Christ: The Gates of hell shall not prevail against her, and again, I shall be with you till the end of days. In point of fact, it would be one and the same thing for the Church to adhere to a false pope as it would be for her to follow a false rule of faith, because the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church is obliged to follow in believing, and certainly this is always the case, as will appear most clearly from what we say below. God can certainly permit that on occasion the vacancy of the Holy See should persist for a long time. He can also permit that a doubt could arise about the legitimacy of a given person who was elected. But He cannot allow that the entire Church would accept as a true Pontiff one who is not truly and legitimately such.” (“De Ecclesia Christi,”Rome, 5th edition, p. 635).
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 14, 2018, 10:07:51 PM
The Letter of Pope Agatho

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm



Quote
And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecuмenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.

This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace.

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren." Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 14, 2018, 10:08:41 PM
On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope : when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a general council

Published 1809

https://archive.org/details/OnTheApostolicalAndInfallible
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 15, 2018, 12:22:00 AM
The Dublin Review, Vol. 31, 1878, pg. 463 - 478

ART. IX.—THE ASSENT DUE TO CERTAIN PAPAL UTTERANCES.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ozpDAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&pg=GBS.PA463



IN the July issue of this Review we laid down, as plainly and as clearly as the subject-matter allowed, the doctrine which we go on to defend in the present article, and, having then adduced arguments from a two-fold source to uphold our important thesis, we shall now, without further preface, resume the subject where we left off, by proceeding at once to the third class of proofs already marked out. “ First, we shall show, 'as if by a negative proof, that the doctrine of some theologians, such as Suarez, Bellarmine, and Gotti, which has been said to be opposed to our teaching, is for the most part fully in harmony with it, and even something more. Then we shall adduce arguments of a really positive character, by showing how the doctrine of our thesis has been held by theologians in general, and especially by Zaccaria, Gregory XVI., and Benedict XIV., who may justly be regarded on the matter as organs of the entire teaching Church.”*

I. The teaching of Suarez has been brought forward as in direct opposition to what we maintain in the thesis under our consideration, and, as Suarez is a host in himself, it is of much importance indeed for us to see whether he stands on our side or is leagued with our adversary. On what grounds has it been alleged that Suarez is opposed to our doctrine on this _ head, and that, consequently, what he teaches is opposed to the interpretation of the substance of the Munich Brief, which we deem the only obvious, natural, and truthful one ? Because he holds that the consent of Catholics in matters of doctrine is an infallible criterion of truth! Whence it has been argued

that intellectual submission is, indeed, due “ to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions,” for the plain and simple reason that such submission should be tendered to an infallible authority, which exists in the present case. In like manner it has been contended, if mental consent is to be given “ to the doctrinal decisions which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations,” it is only when and because these decisions are decrees which emanate from that authority which rules supreme, and is unquestionably infallible. The bold conclusion is that this, nothing else and no more, was what Suarez meant and what Suarez taught.*

By referring to the great doctor’s works, even to that portion of them which is adduced as unfriendly to our purposefl' we can readily gather what was his meaning, and. what his express teaching, nor do we find the least reason for dreading lest our cause may suffer from the research. Concerning the authority of the consent of Catholics in matters of doctrine, or, what is the same, concerning the Church’s passive infallibility, her infallibility in believing, —- Suarez teaches, first of all, that the Church cannot sin against faith, cannot fall away from the true faith, by heresy. He lays down, in the second place, that in those matters which the Church believes as being certainly of faith she cannot be led astray by any ignorance. Thirdly, what is altogether to our purpose, and fully answers our end,—that in those points of doctrine which the Church does not indeed believe as certainly of faith, but which, nevertheless, hold such a place in her convictions that any opposite opinion would be accounted deserving of some censure -—that even in these the presumption is, and it must be held, that the Church is not wrong, although there is no real certainty that in these points she is infallible.

This is what the great theologian who is said to be against us says, and of his very words this is as faithful a translation as we can offer. “ I say, in the third place, that although it is not certain that those things which the Church believes as pious and probable are true, still, if the entire Church consents in anything of this sort, it must be held that in this she does not err, not only that she commits no practical, but even that she commits no speculative, error. The reason of the first part of the assertion—why it is not certain that matters so believed as pious and probable are true—is because it is not agreed on as of certainty that the Church is ruled by the Holy Ghost in all these things, since they do not belong to the faith, and are not necessary for salvation. The reason of the second part of the assertion,— viz., why it must be held that even in these the Church does not err,—is because the entire Church, even when considered only as a human society, in which there are very many wise men, has the greatest authority that exists except the divine. If, therefore, the whole Church judges—by its belief—that anything is probable, it evidently is so, and in this way the danger of practical error is at once done away with, whilst it becomes most likely that it is even true in reality, especially as it is likely that the Holy Ghost gives particular aid and light to the doctors of the Church. If this is admitted with regard to truths of the natural order, as we have; said,* how much more should it be believed with reference to the matter of which we now treat? But it must be borne in mind that there are degrees in these things, as can be gathered from what we have to say,1- for although some of them are not so certain that opinions contrary to them would be heretical, still they are sometimes very closely connected with principles of faith, and then opinions contrary to them are erroneous. Sometimes they are sustained by the great consent of the fathers, and then the opposite teaching is rash.

After this quotation it must indeed seem rather astonishing that Suarez should have been put forward as teaching some thing at variance with what we defend; for surely there is nothing here that is out of keeping with our thesis, nothing that is not completely in harmony with it, and a good deal too which seems to be a strong defence and confirmation of it. For it is clear as light of day from these words of the illustrious theologian that he never taught that the only authority to which intellectual assent is due is an infallible authority. He expressly teaches that this assent is at times due to an authority which is not infallible when he says that “although it is not certain that those things which the Church believes as pious and probable are true, still, if the entire Church consents in anything of this sort, it must be held-—-tenendum est—that in this she does not err; not only that she commits no practical, but even that she commits no speculative, error.” The Church’s belief on the matters referred to is not an infallible criterion of their truth, and yet it must be held that the Church does not make any mistake in believing them ; that, in consequence, it is practically safe to believe them, or assent to them ; that the presumption is that they really are true, and that not to believe them or assent to them would be censurable. The reason of the obligation of giving mental submission in such cases is found further on. “The entire Church, even when considered only as a human society in which there are very many wise men, has the greatest authority that exists except the divine,” and, moreover, “it is likely that the Holy Ghost gives particular aid and light to the doctors of the Church,” who, of course, exercise a mighty influence on the Church taught and on her belief. The language of Suarez corresponds most faithfully with our fundamental distinction between the infallible truth and the infallible security or safety of a doctrine, and with what we deem the only sure means of avoiding practical and speculative mistakes.


What he declares to be the greatest authority on earth except the infallible, except the divine, reaches its culminating point in the Roman congregations, which are the exponents, the adequate and, humanly speaking, most trustworthy exponents, of the mind and convictions of the entire believing Church. Among the matters referred to by Suarez as having no infallible authority to guarantee their truth, which still, he says, must be maintained, should be found, no doubt, “those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions so certain that, although the opinions opposed to these same points of doctrine cannot be called heretical, still they deserve some other theological censure.” This latter passage is found in the Munich Brief, as we have seen, in closest connection with “the doctrinal decisions which are issued by Pontifical congregations,” and for both classes of truths so connected at similar assent is exacted. It is thus that Suarez turns out to be a defender of our thesis instead of an adversary. He, no doubt, must not have thought the disciple above the master; and if, according to him, intellectual religious assent is due to the authority of the Church taught, even in matters on which its belief is not infallible, much more must it be due to the authority of the Church teaching, even in those instances under our consideration in which it is not necessarily infallible.

Another great authority cited as hostile to us is that of Cardinal Bellarmine; and surely, from what we know of his teaching, of his history, and especially of the prominent part which he took in the remarkable case of Galileo, his is the very last name that we would expect to see quoted as that of a theologian differing in opinion from us on the present subject. The following is the passage from the writings of the renowned Cardinal, which has been brought against us as an objection :—-“ In the third place, we are bound, under pain of anathema, to believe the Church in all things, as is evident from Matthew xviii. :—‘ And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.’ All the councils, moreover, declare anathema against those who do not assent to the Church’s decrees. But it would be an iniquitous thing to be bound under so heavy a penalty to assent to things that would be uncertain and might sometimes be false.”* From this quotation it has been very forcibly contended, that if Cardinal Bellarmine held that it would be an iniquitous thing to be bound under so heavy a penalty, as that of anathema, to assent to things that would be uncertain, and might some times be false, he must hold, in consequence, that it would be an iniquitous thing to exact assent to the utterances to which we say it is due, and his doctrine must be diametrically opposed to ours.

We answer, as Cardinal Franzelin does with a just indignation (p. 143), that the words objected contain nothing at all objectionable to our thesis; that what they do contain is a strong proof of the necessity of an infallible authority in the Church, which we and all Catholics acknowledge; that, there fore, the teaching embodied in them stands parallel to, and in perfect conformity with, that now put forward by us, and by no means against or out of keeping with it.

In the chapter of his Treatise on the Church Militant from which the above quotation has been taken, Cardinal Bellarmine treats the question of the Church’s Infallibility, asks himself, can the Church err, and replies. The heading of the chapter is a thesis—Ecclesiam non posse errare—that the Church cannot err. He then lays down the restrictions set by Calvin to this proposition. After that he says, “ Our opinion is that it is absolutely impossible for the Church to err, either in things which are absolutely necessary, or in others which she proposes to us to be believed or to be performed by us, no matter whether they are or are not expressly contained in the Scriptures. And when we say that the Church cannot err, we under stand this boon of all the faithful and of all the bishops, so that the sense of the proposition that the Church cannot err is, that what all the faithful hold as of faith must needs be true and of faith, and, likewise, that what all the bishops teach as belonging to the faith must needs be true and of faith.” Here we have the meaning of the proposition explained in very intelligible terms, and after this explanation the author goes on to prove, first, how the entire Church taught must be infallible in its belief, and secondly, how the entire Church teaching must be infallible in what it does teach. Dealing with the first part of the thesis he gives as a first proof of it that, according to St. Paul (1 Tim. iii.), the Church is the pillar and the ground of truth. As its second proof he brings forward the fact that the Church is ruled and governed by Christ as her Head and Spouse, and by the Holy Ghost as her very life and soul ; finally, as a third proof, we find him give the argument of the words we have quoted, as cited against us :—“ In the third place, we are bound,” &c. The context throws a good deal of light, as much as can be longed for, on Bellarmine’s teaching, and on the meaning of his words. No doubt what all the faithful believe as of faith must necessarily be true, and of faith. The Church of God cannot believe a lie. No doubt what all the bishops teach as of faith must necessarily be true and of faith.

The Church of God cannot teach falsehood for the truth. And if he that does not hear the Church is to be looked on as a heathen and publican, and if the Church smites with anathema, cuts off as a withered branch from her living trunk anyone who refuses to submit to her decrees, it follows that the Church possesses an infallible authority, and does exercise it, since it would unquestionably be an iniquitous thing to be bound under so dreadful a penalty to what would be uncertain, and might be false. But what else follows ? Does it follow, from what Bellarmine here says, that it would be an iniquitous thing to be bound too under pain of some less heavy censure to offer a religious intellectual submission to the doctrinal decisions of the Roman congregations ? Or does it follow, that the highest authority on earth short of the infallible has no right to require, from those who are subject to it, subjection of mind and of will to its dictates? Or does it follow, that Catholics can lawfully refuse this subjection—not that of divine faith, but the mental subjection of which we speak—on the plea that the authority requiring it is not absolutely infallible, and that, because this is so, the matters of teaching, for which it is called for, are uncertain, and may be false?

It is one thing to believe a truth by divine faith, as. God’s revelation and the Church’s teaching, and to be obliged to believe it in this way under pain of anathema; quite another religiously to submit one’s own private judgment and views to an authority of the very greatest weight, and to be bound to do so under pain of greater or less censure, according to circuмstances. If infallibility is required in the first case, as undoubtedly it is, it does not at all follow that it should be required in the second: there is no parity. Had our adversary but seen and understood this, he would have seen and understood that Cardinal Bellarmine’s doctrine is also ours. By means of a little more research, he would have been able to find out, over and above this, not only that the doctrine of Bellarmine is ours, not only that the doctrine of all theologians in general is ours, but that ours is the doctrine of all Catholics, as Cardinal Bellarmine himself expressly says, in these other words of his which have, indeed, a telling application here :—All Catholics agree on two other points, not, indeed, with heretics, but only among themselves. The first of these points is, that the Roman Pontiff with a general council cannot err in issuing decrees of faith or general precepts of morality. The second is, that when the Pontiff, either alone or with his particular council, lays down anything on a doubtful matter, he should be listened to with obedience by all the faithful, whether it is or is not possible for him to be wrong.”* The mind of Bellarmine on the real subject before us is clearly shown forth here. If no language of his can fairly be shown to be in the slightest degree at variance or inconsistent with what we have laid down, it must certainly be admitted that this last statement is our thesis and its proof:—the authority of the Church in doubtful matters, even when it is not strictly infallible, must be “listened to with obedience,” must be obeyed by all the faithful—on this all Catholics are agreed.

A third “ mighty name ” declared to be hostile to us is that of Cardinal Gotti. We cannot for a moment admit that this distinguished theologian holds consistently any doctrine in consistent with our own. But since we cannot maintain that his language is free from serious ambiguity, we will abstain from citing him in our favour. Finally, we have to cope with an objection, a twofold objection, of a general character, which, although pushed forward with much boldness, is not on that account the more formidable. If things are as we would have them be, it is declared, the theological argument by which theologians prove the Roman Pontiffs infallibility necessarily falls to the ground, and the heresy of Gallicanism again raises up its smitten head. If, moreover,-—-it is further objected,——the distinctions laid down by us are to be admitted, they are well calculated to render the Supreme Pontiff’s infallible authority of no avail, practically and in the concrete, and they favour the denial of the infallibility of a decision put forth in any particular decree; since, it is asked, how can we know whether the Pope delivered his doctrinal judgment as the infallible teacher of the Church, or as a mere fallible ruler?

As regards the theological argument in proof of Papal infallibility, we hold that, far from suffering from the doctrine expounded by us, far from falling to the ground before it, it gains by it, presupposes it, and rests on it in a great measure.

The argument in question is thus given by Suarez: “It is a Catholic truth that the Sovereign Pontiff, defining ex-cathedra, is an unerring rule of faith when he authentically proposes anything to the universal Church, to be believed by her as of Divine faith. This can be proved principally from the testimonies just quoted (Matthew xvi. 3 20, xxi.). For Christ gave Peter and his successors power to rule the Church most of all in doctrine, and in a singular manner, through the juridical power of interpreting and laying down truths to be believed, and of imposing the obligation of believing them. Therefore, this power necessarily carries with it infallibility, and the assistance of the Holy Ghost, that it may not err. This is proved, because it is necessary for the Church’s in fallibility in believing. For if the Pontiff, teaching in that way, could deceive her, she too could be deceived ; nay, would be forced into error, because she would be bound to believe.”

How can this argument suffer from the distinction made by us between ex-cathedra definitions and other decisions, and from-what we maintain of the assent due to each class of pronouncements respectively? Does it not rather gain by our statement, presuppose it, and in great measure rest on it? In the words of Suarez, the Pope is an unerring rule of faith, when defining ex-cathedra, when authentically proposing any thing to 'the entire Church to be believed as of Divine faith, and when imposing the obligation of so believing it. The understanding of this must necessarily gain from the under standing of the fact that some Papal utterances are ex-cathedra definitions, and that others are not; and that to the former Divine faith is due, to the latter religious intellectual submission. Our statement, furthermore, is evidently presupposed in the proof advanced, and is such a stay to it, that, as it is, it could not stand without its support. If, however, the theological argument in question is, even in substance, much different from that which we have given, we cannot in deed account for its consistency with other theological principles held by Suarez and by us.

If it is required in principle that every authoritative act that exacts not reverential silence, or merely external obedience, but internal assent of any kind, even not of faith, must of necessity be infallible, we reject the principle, and deny that there does exist any such theological argument,—any such argument that has any foundation to rest on, either in revealed truth or in the general teaching of Catholic theologians.

If the doctrine of Papal infallibility does not lose, but gain, by the doctrine which we defend, the heresy of Gallicanism cannot gain, and must lose by it, and must keep down its smitten head before it. The Gallican system taught that the subject of infallibility, the infallible authority in the Church of God, is not the Roman Pontiff, but the universal Church, whether scattered all over the world or represented in her ecuмenical Councils, even without her Head. It taught that, in consequence, assent of Divine faith was not due to the ex-cathedra definitions of the Roman Pontiffs. Any of its upholders would admit as due to them nothing more than a religious assent, or even a respectful silence; whilst all Gallicans were unanimous in denying that religious assent or anything beyond their respectful silence was due to such papal utterances as were not ex-cathedra, and, in particular, to the doctrinal decrees of the Roman congregations. If this was the heresy of Gallicanism, our system is its very opposite, its deadly enemy.

A few words now on the danger pointed out, that the distinctions laid down by us are well calculated to render the Pontiffs infallible authority of no avail, practically and in the concrete. The enemies of the Holy See, those who most' vehemently attacked the infallibility of the Pope, whether in the abstract or in the concrete, were precisely those who denied the truth of what we maintain, and who rejected the distinctions which we have laid down. The so-called Old Catholics, whom Cardinal Franzelin very justly calls New Protestants, are of this number. One of their leading organs, Frederic Schulte, in order to sustain heresy and attack the dogma of infallibility, thought it well, and even necessary, to direct all his energy towards showing the futility of the distinction between the ex-cathedra definitions and other public docuмents and declarations of the Sovereign Pontiffs. Rejecting this distinction, he concludes that, after the Vatican council, Catholics must hold as infallible definitions all Papal utterances issued by the Pope, no matter how, in virtue of his pastoral office. Qui nimis probat nihil probat. This therefore clearly shows whether it is the teaching of our thesis or its opposite that is the better calculated to render the Pontiff’s infallible authority of no avail, practically and in the concrete. The Catholic dogma stands on its own merits, broad-based on unshaken truth; those who embrace and defend it do not go too far, avoid extremes, and sin neither by excess nor by defect.

We acknowledge,—a fact which we have already noted down as furnishing a proof of our thesis,—“ that doubt may exist in the mind of many Catholics as to whether some particular docuмent coming forth from the Holy See is or is not ex-cathedra. In the case of such uncertainty, no Catholic could venture to think that he is free to accept or not accept, to submit or not submit to, the doctrine embodied in the declaration of which the authority is questioned. The only safe course would evidently be to subject the intellect as well as the will to all that is taught in this way. Whence it follows, that mental subordination should be given to doctrinal pronouncements, the absolute infallibility of which is not quite certain. The nature of the assent itself will, of course, be in accordance with the motive for which it is offered.* Thus the clearly-defined distinctions, which mark in broad outline the degree and kind of certitude, the possibility of uncertainty and its actual existence in some particular instances, and the unmistakable infallibility, do not destroy, combat, or even weaken, but do mutually uphold, defend, and strengthen, each other.

II. Having endeavoured thus far to wield in our own defence the arms that had been raised against us ; having shown, and,we flatter ourselves, not unsatisfactorily, that the theologians said to be arrayed against us stand on our side as able supporters; and having proved, more than was necessary, that the truths 'said to be difficulties in our way are rather proofs in our favour than what they were represented to be ,' it only remains for us, in order to complete the present division of our subject, to show how the doctrine of our thesis has been held by theologians in general, whom we find represented by some reliable and thoroughly representative witnesses whose evidence should decide the verdict. The details into which we have already entered, on evidence of no dissimilar tendency, allow us, if they do not oblige us, to deal more summarily with this part.

Zaccaria, who was Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Roman College, and is justly regarded as a theologian of great weight, inculcates the very doctrine of our thesis, and, in so doing, quotes a Brief addressed by Alexander 111., in 1660, to the Rector of the University of Louvain,--which Brief is, on this point, the same in substance as the Munich Brief, on which we have laid so much stress. He says, among other things, “ Let the authors of books submit themselves to the prohibitions of Rome with true docility and submission of mind, condemning what Rome condemns, and acknowledging that these prohibitions, according to their different qualities, have for author, or at least for first fountain-head, the Supreme Pontifi', whose authority, even when he does not exercise it in all its intensity, and does not direct it in the most solemn manner to the teaching of the universal Church, should prevail over the judgment of all private doctors and teachers.”* If the authority of the Pope, when exercised only in this way, should prevail over the judgment of all private doctors and teachers, it follows that these latter should submit their judgments to his decisions, even to those which are not directed in the most solemn manner to the instruction of the entire Church.

In another place Zaccaria says, “ I am persuaded that it belongs to the providenceof God not to permit that Rome, even out side the case in which the Pope speaks ex-cathedra, should condemn as an error a doctrine which in reality is not false. The justice of the prohibition is not to be examined, but is always to be supposed, unless it should be, what it never shall be, evidently extra Dei preceptum ; and, if the presumption is that the prohibition is just, what remains to be done but to obey ?”1' Here we find a good reason given for the obligation stated in the words quoted before. It belongs to the providence of God not to permit that Rome, 9. Roman congregation, should condemn truth as an error. The case considered by Zaccaria is evidently our own, for he speaks of congregational decrees, and of those in particular that prohibit certain books, and proscribe the doctrine contained in them. The justice of the prohibition must never be questioned, but must always be supposed, and so with the justice of every declaration of similar authority. The presumption is in its favour, and as this is so, the subjects are bound to obey; not to examine or teach, but to submit their own judgments.

Pope Gregory XVI. is another very influential authority in support of the doctrine of our thesis,which he taught both before and after his elevation to the chair of St. Peter. In his learned and well-known work on the “ Triumph of the Holy See ” he shows at length the wiles of the enemies of the Church’s teaching, who by design and with fixed purpose recognize no degrees in her sacred authority, confound the doctrinal pronouncements of the Holy See with one another, and place them all on the same level. He himself lays down as fundamental the distinction between declarations that are and declarations that are not ex cathedra. Linked with this distinction based on it, he has another which is somewhat peculiar, yet intelligible and perfectly true in his sense, viz. that between the Pope defining solemnly and the Pope as a private doctor. The peculiarity is in this, that he terms the Pope a private doctor, not in his unofficial writing and judgments only, as is usually understood, but always, even in doctrinal decisions officially issued, when he does not teach ex-cathedra, in all the fulness of his power. He says : “As all that is resolved on in the council even regarding faith, without the express intention of defining, does not constitute a dogmatic decision; so, without that express intention on the part of the fathers, the Church defining cannot be said to be represented by them in these resolutions. The same application can easily be made to the Pope. But when the Pope, after being consulted, answers and gives judgment, he shall, consequently, have the intention of giving judgment. Yes, no doubt, but when he does not exercise all the fullness of his authority, his intention is to deliver his decision as a theologian and private doctor. . . . Thus it is proved that the Pope can speak as head of the Church and as a private doctor.”* What Gregory XVI. means by the Pope speaking as head of the Church is the Pope solemnly defining a doctrine to be accepted and believed by the entire Church of which he is the head. His meaning in this, as well as in the sense he gives to “ private doctor,” is peculiar, as the Pope is generally understood to say and do much as head of the Church besides defining ex-cathedra.

Having made the meaning of his distinction evident, he teaches that to contradict the Pope, even as a private doctor, would be a rashness that could not be tolerated, and that consequently obedience, mental submission, is due to him, even when he does not speak as an absolutely infallible teacher. We have already remarked how, when Maurus Capellari had been raised to the sovereign Pontificate and had taken the name of Gregory XVI., he instructed the Bishop of Strasburg to require that M. Bautain, a professor of Strasburg seminary, should subscribe to certain propositions which were drawn up for him. By this act of his Gregory XVI. taught the truth of the theory which we defend, and insisted on its practical application, as his Brief of the 20th of December, 1834, undeniably shows. The process of Galileo gave occasion to a theologian of much repute, Caramuel Lobkowitz, to treat in detail of the principles involved in it, and we gladly avail ourselves of his authority as an additional testimony in favour of our theological principle. From what he has written on the subject we translate the following extract, which will bear advantageous comment :—“As to how the declarations of the Cardinals are certain, and not doubtful, I distinguish between practical authority and speculative authority. And although I grant that only the Pope speaking ex-cathedra has the power of forming articles of faith, to be held as true, and to be believed ; still I acknowledge that the most eminent lords, whom our Holy Father has associated to himself in the practical government of the Church, have the power of making practical decrees, which control the speaking,teaching, and preaching, the direction and general conduct of the Church’s children. I say that they are invested with a twofold authority that of interdicting, and that of condemning. When a book or opinion is interdicted, its teaching is not declared to be improbable, but neither is it declared to be probable; only, order is given that such teaching remain in such a degree of probability as it previously enjoyed, and that, for the sake of the public good or of private, it be not taught or defended. When any opinion is condemned by their eminences the Cardinals it is practically condemned.

A proposition so condemned does not begin to be a heresy, but it loses all extrinsic authority, and is rendered practically improbable. But what it it is condemned as heretical ? In this case a proposition that was not previously heretical will not become so in virtue of this condemnation; but a proposition that previously was heretical will by this condemnation be declared to be heretical, and this with so much certitude that it is unlikely that it is not heretical. In this case, and in others of the same kind, the inquisitors have authority to prohibit, to command, and to exact abjuration, and the subjects are bound in conscience to obey and sincerely to abjure ,- so that, in consequence their acts both internal and external, are in these cases subject to that tribunal.”* The distinction here made between the practical authority and the speculative is in complete accordance with, and answers to, what we have said of a doctrine’s infallible truth and infallible safety, what must be thought of it from a speculative point of view, what from a practical. This explanation, then, of how the cardinals’ decrees 'are certain and not doubtful, coincides with ours.

The decrees which they have power to make for the practical government of the Church are practical decrees, and, because of the existence of authority in their authors, and because of the nature of the decrees themselves, all Catholic subjects are bound in conscience to obey what is dictated, and sincerely to reject what is condemned, by them. A sacred congregation is a tribunal, a judgment-seat, whose sentences hold sway over the internal and intellectual, as well as over the outward bodily, acts of those for whom they are intended. In the same sense, and relatively to the same question, the learned Gassendi said, that because a decision had been delivered by men whose authority was so great in the Church as was the cardinals’, he did not blush to hold his intellect captive, not that he looked on what they taught as an article of faith, for they themselves did not say that, nor was it promulgated by them to the whole Church, and received by it as such; but because their judgment should be accounted a presumption which cannot but be of the greatest moment among the faithful.

We have reserved for the last mention the name of Benedict XIV., of whom Cardinal Franzelin says, that his authority on this matter, though only that of a private theologian, is the very greatest that could be invoked. He thus teaches that infallibility in the authority laying down a doctrine is by no means necessary, as a condition, for imposing the obligation of internal religious assent. It is the Sovereign Pontiff who beatifies the servants of God and who canonizes them. In the beatification his judgment is not infallible ; in the canonization it is. Still, so speaks Benedict XIV., whoever would assert that the Supreme Pontiff did actually err in this or that ' particular beatification, and that, as a natural consequence, the person declared blessed by him is not really so, and should not be made the object of veneration on the part of the faithful according to the Pontifical concession,—whoever would assert this would undoubtedly incur the theological censure of rashness or some more serious and severe one.* The two state ments here made by Benedict XIV. make up and embody the principle in which we are so much concerned, and to this name, which is more than legion in the world of mind and thought, and especially in the realm of theological science, we shall add no other. '

Why indeed should we go on citing names, one after an other, and quoting distinct passages from the greatest authors, if that is true which Cardinal Franzelin tells us he believes to be so, that this is the common teaching of theologians after Benedict XIV.? (p. 146). The one beautiful testimony of Cardinal Bellarmine, so grand in its simple truth, would seem to be and to contain all we could desire. All Catholics are of one accord in believing that the Roman Pontiff should be listened to with obedience when, alone or with his particular council, he settles on anything in doubtful matters, no matter whether, in the case', it is or is not possible for him to err. This doctrine of obedience, of intellectual submission, requires the authority of no theologian or of any host of theologians to defend it and prove its truth. lts influence permeates the whole framework of the Church; it rules her outward action, is the living bond of her social life; and it holds uncontrolled sway over her interior unseen actions, over the mighty tide of supernatural life that ebbs and flows within her vast ocean-like soul. In the interior tribunal, before which the Christian soul places itself in voluntary submission, there is found a sacred authority, and, in virtue of it, the faithful not only can submit, but often, in doubtful matters, are bound to surrender their own views and conform their practical judgments to the authority of the ministers of God, who are entrusted with the spiritual direction of their souls.

The evangelical counsel of obedience is a clear proof that intellectual subjection and obedience can be given to the command of a fallible superior, that infallibility is no requisite condition for this. Suarez and St. Alphonsus say that a subject doubting whether the command of a legitimate superior is or is not lawful is bound to lay the doubt aside, and can and ought to obey. Saints Bernard and Bonaventure and Ignatius, and all ascetical theologians, say with one voice, that whatever command is given by a man who holds the place of God, unless it is certain that it is displeasing to God, should be received as if it were God’s command. This is the doctrine of the saints and doctors of the Church, and this is the belief of her children; and this doctrine and this belief, in a religious matter, falls nothing short of the weight of the common consent of men on the ordinary moral truths; it throws the light of evidence over the truth of the theological principle which we have laid down, and of which we believe we have given more than sufficient proof.

As the doctrine of theologians had been objected to us, we deemed it well to investigate that doctrine in no narrowly circuмscribed sphere, and to unfold the result of our investigations. If the names of Suarez and of Bellarmine and of Gotti,—all renowned and venerable names,—were thrown against us as those of adversaries, we deemed it well, if not a duty, to show that these “men of renown” are our doctrinal friends and defenders. As theologians in general were vaguely said to be at variance with our strong principle, in which they were much concerned, we thought it well to call on some representative organs of the great theological school, to speak the mind of those among whom they were leaders, of those whom they taught or who taught with them. As this portion

of our subject, in which we bring the positive teaching of theologians to bear on our thesis, grew before us and widened out in importance as well as in extent when we entered on it, we have dwelt on it much longer than we intended, and with a satisfaction beyond what we anticipated. With it, on account of the detail and the considerable length, we shall close the present article, with the hope and intention of showing later on the bearing of what we have said on his torical questions such as that of Galileo, and of comparing or contrasting our principles with those put forth in publications on such questions by the friends and foes of truth and principle.

The thoughtful reader will no doubt gather from what we have said, or be reminded by it, that the Church of God, the Catholic Church, is indeed very intolerant in her teaching. The inference is most just; she really is so; but this noble intolerance of hers is the only sure preservative of intellectual and moral life,—is the only bulwark and safeguard of human society,—is the only hope of salvation for the erring world. Donoso Cortes says, that the Church alone has the right to affirm and deny, and that there is no right outside her to affirm what she denies or to deny what she afiirms because she alone cannot err. He says too :-—“ The day when society, forgetting her doctrinal decisions, has asked the press and the tribune, newspapers and assemblies, what is truth and what is error, on that day error and truth are confounded in all in tellects, society enters on the regions of shadows, and falls under the empire of fictions.”*

We conclude with these other words of the same enlightened author, whose grand Catholic genius we cannot but admire :—“ The doctrinal intolerance of the Church has saved the world from chaos. Her doctrinal intolerance has placed beyond question political, domestic, social, and religious truths,—primitive and holy truths, which are not subject to discussion, because they are the foundation of all discussions; truths which cannot be called into doubt for a moment without the understanding on that moment oscil lating,lost between truth and error, and the clear mirror of human reason becoming "soiled and obscured. . . . Doubt perpetually comes from doubt, and scpeticism from scepticism, as truth from faith, and science from truth.” 1'
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 15, 2018, 03:42:05 PM
Hard to believe that this thread is now over 2000 posts.  Is that a record?

The rule of faith debate seems endless.  I don't recall anyone calling into question the Catholic Encyclopedia definition.  Rule of Faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm)

It seems simple enough:

Quote
The word rule (Latin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm) regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm), and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is Divine and infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm); and since faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is supernatural (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm) assent to Divine truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm), I, ii), the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm); since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)". Unless, then, the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Drew is denying that there is a proximate rule of faith which is animate/living.  Essentially, that would make his own private judgement (himself) the animate/living proximate rule of faith.  This is indeed what the Protestants have done.  I'm sure Drew would deny that he has done this but unless he identifies what is the animate/living proximate rule of faith we have to assume that he has assumed that role for himself.  The dogmas of the Church are the proximate but inanimate rules of faith (according to the above definition).  Drew agrees with this.  Good for him.  I take it he also agrees that the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself is the ultimate or remote rule of faith.  But denying (in practice) that the hierarchy of the Church is the animate/living proximate rule of faith is essentially to separate oneself from the Church.  It's not clear that Drew has actually done that.  I take it he attends a Catholic Mass somewhere and obeys the priest.  If so, then he isn't separated from the Church, he just has a really terrible way of explaining what the rule of faith is.  I recommend that we stick to approved sources and I don't see anything wrong with the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on this topic.  I only quoted the first paragraph.  There is additional information included in the link above.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 15, 2018, 04:54:04 PM
Hard to believe that this thread is now over 2000 posts.  Is that a record?

The rule of faith debate seems endless.  I don't recall anyone calling into question the Catholic Encyclopedia definition.  Rule of Faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm)

It seems simple enough:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Drew is denying that there is a proximate rule of faith which is animate/living.  Essentially, that would make his own private judgement (himself) the animate/living proximate rule of faith.  This is indeed what the Protestants have done.  I'm sure Drew would deny that he has done this but unless he identifies what is the animate/living proximate rule of faith we have to assume that he has assumed that role for himself.  The dogmas of the Church are the proximate but inanimate rules of faith (according to the above definition).  Drew agrees with this.  Good for him.  I take it he also agrees that the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself is the ultimate or remote rule of faith.  But denying (in practice) that the hierarchy of the Church is the animate/living proximate rule of faith is essentially to separate oneself from the Church.  It's not clear that Drew has actually done that.  I take it he attends a Catholic Mass somewhere and obeys the priest.  If so, then he isn't separated from the Church, he just has a really terrible way of explaining what the rule of faith is.  I recommend that we stick to approved sources and I don't see anything wrong with the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on this topic.  I only quoted the first paragraph.  There is additional information included in the link above.


Wrong:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599170/#msg599170

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 15, 2018, 05:05:33 PM


And here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599371/#msg599371
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 15, 2018, 09:45:09 PM

Wrong:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599170/#msg599170
So is Drew claiming that he himself defines "Rule of Faith" to be synonymous with dogma?  I ask because I distinctly remember Drew saying that "dogma is the rule of faith".  Which, if rule of faith and dogma are synonyms, is completely meaningless.  It would be like saying dogma is dogma or the rule of faith is the rule of faith.  It is nonsense.  I'm not saying there isn't a sense in which dogma could be synonymous with the rule of faith but in the context of this discussion it is not.  If you want to have a civil discussion concerning a topic the first order of business is coming to some agreement on the definition of the terms of the argument/discussion.  I would argue that the CE article on the Rule of Faith is a good starting point.  I believe is is the working definition which most of the other participants in this discussion were referring to.  And if you are going to gainsay the CE article, I would like to know your qualifications for doing so.  I'm certainly not going to give more credibility to a part-time amateur theologian than I would give to a pre-Vatican II full-time theologian with a doctorate in sacred theology.  e.g. Hugh Pope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Pope)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 15, 2018, 09:53:11 PM

And here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599371/#msg599371
Right.  That post confirms my assertion that Drew denies that there is an animate/living proximate rule of faith.  He admits that the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself is the remote rule of faith.  He admits that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  But he does not make any distinction between the inanimate proximate rule of faith and the animate proximate rule of faith.  In effect, he makes himself the animate proximate rule of faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 15, 2018, 10:18:57 PM
By the way, even Drew will have to admit that in this discussion dogma and rule of faith are not synonyms because even he admits that there is a remote rule of faith (the truthfulness of God in revealing himself) which is not equivalent to dogma.  But I will assume that when he says dogma is the rule of faith, he means that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  Which is true.  However, dogma is the inanimate proximate rule of faith.  There is also the animate proximate rule of faith (according to CE/Hugh Pope) which would be the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (Magisterium).  We are required to be subject to the hierarchy.  We are not permitted to overrule the hierarchy when we think they have gone wrong.  Obviously, it is our responsibility to identify who is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (which in this day and age we should do very carefully and prayerfully) but once we have identified the hierarchy, we are obligated to obey their commands/instructions.  The perplexing thing about the SSPX/R&R position is that they (the SSPX clerics) say that they have no jurisdiction and that the Magisterium lays with the Conciliar hierarchy which they then advise us to ignore/disobey.  So they save us from the heresy of Modernism only to have us die in schism and/or a strange form of the Gallican/Anglican heresy.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 16, 2018, 11:51:45 AM
On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope : when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a general council

Published 1809

https://archive.org/details/OnTheApostolicalAndInfallible (https://archive.org/details/OnTheApostolicalAndInfallible)


Trad123,

This is an interesting book.  I have found a number of references especially from the councils in the first millennium referring to the defined canons, dogmas, given to restore heretics to the Church as the rule of faith.

But this quote below is appropriate because it demonstrates that clear distinction between the pope and the office which some have conflated, between the pope engaging the Magisterium of the Church and teaching by his grace of state which some have not differentiated, and between the personal errors of a pope and errors related in the teaching authority of his office.  It sets the standard for those who claim and wish to prove that the personal errors of Liberius and Honorius in any way damaged the authority exercised by the papal office.


Quote
Before answering the accusation (that Popes Liberius and Honorius were heretics and formally taught heresy), we must once more remind our opponents that, in order to overturn our thesis (of papal infallibility), they must prove not merely that Liberius or Honorius has spoken or written what is contrary to faith, or denied it, but that he did so as Pope, teaching in matters of faith or morals, and thereby binding the Universal Church.  If they cannot prove this, they prove nothing, for the fallibility would then be only personal and private, and would no more affect the infallibility of the Pope as Universal teacher, than the denial of Peter in the Court of the High Priest injured his infallibility as Prince of the Apostles.  They must, then, first produce good, historical evidence of the fact; secondly, they must prove that it was a definition or teaching contrary to truth in matters of faith; and, thirdly, that the Pope intended, by his teaching, to bind the Universal Church to believe it.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope, when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a General Council

The conciliar popes are heretics.  I can say this because I recognize that dogma is the proximate rule of faith and provides the criteria to make such a judgment.  Those that deny this have no standard by which to make any accusation of heresy.  I also recognize that the conciliar popes have never “intended to bind the Universal Church to believe” their errors as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.  Whenever the “ordinary and universal magisterium” has been employed, even by Paul VI and John Paul II, it has always been faithful to Catholic doctrine and morals.

The great problem is that since few recognize that dogma is the rule of faith, they have followed this heretical popes in their errors, such as conservative Catholics, or they have embraced their own set of heretical errors.

The S&Sers have no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, and no means to ever correct these permanent defects that manifest their error.  The church they belong to cannot be the Catholic Church.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 16, 2018, 12:15:10 PM
Sedevacantism Reconsidered:

A Public Heretic Cannot Retain The Papacy

Saint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): “Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church.” (The Catholic Controversy)

(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12963354_1747251052160021_8053769530672360395_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=09dabb3c4a15526233fb20f42f218fce&oe=5B83ABFC)



The Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry of "heresy" teaches the same, 1910:

It is an absurdity to think that a non-member of the Church, such a manifest heretic, can still be the head thereof.

Cantarella,

How do you know that the conciliar popes are heretics?  When you answer this question bear in mind the following taken from your previous posts:

1. The magisterium is your rule of faith.

2. Dogma is not your rule of faith so you cannot appeal to any dogma without being guilty of “private interpretation” and becoming a “Protestant.”

3. No pope can be a heretic because they have a “never-failing” personal faith.

4. No pope can error in his fallible teaching because he is gifted with a negative infallibility by his personal indefectibility.

5. All general councils are infallible in everything they do.

So how do you know Pope Francis is a heretic?

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 16, 2018, 12:33:07 PM
Cantarella,

How do you know that the conciliar popes are heretics?  When you answer this question bear in mind the following taken from your previous posts:

1. The magisterium is your rule of faith.

2. Dogma is not your rule of faith so you cannot appeal to any dogma without being guilty of “private interpretation” and becoming a “Protestant.”

3. No pope can be a heretic because they have a “never-failing” personal faith.

4. No pope can error in his fallible teaching because he is gifted with a negative infallibility by his personal indefectibility.

5. All general councils are infallible in everything they do.

So how do you know Pope Francis is a heretic?

Drew
Drew, we knew Jorge Bergoglio was a heretic even before he started dressing in a pope costume.  Likewise, the other Conciliar "popes" were all known to be liberals and/or Freemasons before they were elected.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 16, 2018, 01:51:22 PM


This:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg609436/#msg609436
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 16, 2018, 07:30:07 PM
I think you misunderstand. My "S&S" is not really based on any personal heresy, either material or formal, or occult or public, of the "pope"; but in a Magisterial contradiction occuring in the setting of an "Ecunemical" Council, which is the indication of an impostor usurping the Seat of Peter, because we know that a legitimate successor of St. Peter cannot teach doctrinal error to the faithful. They were never popes to begin with. The events emanating from the Council confirm this usurpation.

The reason I post the Church teaching on a "heretical Pope" is to demonstrate the logical conclusion one can draw from your illogical position. That the Pope can be a manifest heretic and still retain office, even though he is not a member of the Church.

What do we say of a body whose head falls off?

Cantarella,

So you determined that Vatican II taught error and therefore the pope cannot be the pope.  But since the "magisterium is the rule of faith," how did you determine that the magisterium is teaching error?  What possible criteria are you using to judge that the magisterium is teaching error and therefore cannot be the magisterium? Concrete examples would be helpful.
 
Once we find out how you are judging the magisterium as heretical we can get back to the problem of a heretical pope.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 16, 2018, 07:40:12 PM
Do you really have any doubt that Vatican II Council (if ratified by a legitimate Pope) belongs to the "ordinary and universal Magisterium" of the Church, at the very least?

Cantarella,

You do not know what the word "universal" means.  I know that Pax and Stubborn have pointed this out to you before but to no avail. "Universal" necessarily contains the attribute of time.  Without time, there is no universal.
 
Any novelty cannot be a universal by definition.  Furthermore, there was never at any time at Vatican II the intent to define any doctrine, much less, impose the definition on the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Vatican II does not "belong to the ordinary and universal magisterium."

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: TKGS on May 16, 2018, 07:46:22 PM
Cantarella,

So you determined that Vatican II taught error and therefore the pope cannot be the pope.  But since the "magisterium is the rule of faith," how did you determine that the magisterium is teaching error?  What possible criteria are you using to judge that the magisterium is teaching error and therefore cannot be the magisterium? 
Just out of curiosity, have you ever noticed that what was taught during and since Vatican 2 is not the same thing that was taught before Vatican 2?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 16, 2018, 08:13:11 PM
On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope : when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a general council

Published 1809

https://archive.org/details/OnTheApostolicalAndInfallible

trad 123,

I have enjoyed reading this book. It was not published in 1809 but in 1869.  The author is a Jesuit with a doctorate of divinity.  I have found the term "rule of faith" used about 15 times in the text.  Since the book is dealing directly with the question of the Pope and his engagement of the Magisterium, I thought I would post a few examples of his usage of the phrase.


Quote
“Testimony of all the general councils of the East and West, declaring the judgment of the Chair of St. Peter at Rome, to be the infallible Rule of Faith.”  
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
That is, the “judgment” is the Rule of Faith.  What do we call the judgment?  Dogma!


Quote
Agatho likewise asserted his Apostolical authority in his letter to the Emperor, whom he reminds that the Church of Rome has never strayed from the path of truth into the by-ways of error, and that her decisions have always been received as a rule of faith, not merely by individuals, but also by the Councils.  “Haec Apostolica ecclesia nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est.” This is the rule of true faith. “Haec est verae fidei regula.”  Alluding to the words, “Confirm thy brethren,” the Pontiff remarks that the successors of St. Peter have always strengthened the Church in the truth.  Hence he infers that “all bishops, priests and laics, who wish to please the God of truth, must study to conform to the Apostolical rule of the primitive faith, founded on the rock Peter, and preserved by him from error.”
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
“Her decisions have been received as a rule of faith.”  We call these “decisions” Dogma.


Quote
The consent, as we have shown, is not and cannot be sufficiently clear and definitive to be a rule of faith. The Pope’s definitions, on the other hand, are in precise and positive terms and immediate answers, word for word, to the questions proposed.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
We call these “clear and definitive... definitions" Dogma.


Quote
A Judge has a rule before him, the law of the country, and he must strive to decide according to its dictates. For the Bishops, that rule is the teaching of the Church grounded on the authority of the Holy Scripture and tradition.  By their “definiens subscripsi” the Bishops declare, that the definition of the Council to which they subscribe, in their conviction, is in accordance with the faith based upon the Holy Scripture and tradition. When it is confirmed by the Papal approbation, the Divine Law is more clearly expressed by the definition, and the Bishops, acting as Judges, declare it to be their faith also, and by their subscription, announce its accordance with the normal rule of faith.  We would recall in this connection what we before mentioned concerning the subscription of the Bishops to the acts of the Eight General Council : “I, N. N., Bishop of N., have subscribed the profession of faith made by me in the person of his Holiness, Pope Adrian, Supreme Pontiff.”
By such a declaration, they affirm with St. Jerome, that they believe with the faith of the Head of the Church; that his faith is their faith; that that is an article of faith which he, as the Head of the Church, pronounces to be such, and their “definiens subscripsi” is to show that they were aware of what they did, and intended it, and it was to be the evidence that such faith was the faith of the whole Church.
 Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
The bishops “subscribe to the definition” as their “normal rule of faith.”  We calls these “definitions” Dogma.


Quote
Moreover, Bossuet is well aware that by the formula of Adrian II, which he holds himself bound to defend, whosoever subscribes it is obliged to obey the decisions of the Pope actually occupying the Apostolic See, as “a rule of faith;” neither could he be ignorant that the Fathers of the ecuмenical Councils recognized in every individual Pope, the rock upon which the Church is built, the divinely commissioned teacher of the faith, the Vicar of Christ in whom Peter always lives.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
We call these “decisions of the Pope” Dogma.


Quote
It is only under the same supposition that we can account for the action of Adrian II toward the Eight General Council, in the time of Photius, in sending them a letter for their subscription, which contained the following declarations: “First of all, true salvation is found in keeping the right rule of faith, which is to submit to the decisions of the Apostolic See, according to the promises of Christ to Peter, ‘Thou art a rock,’” etc. That this is true is proved by the fact that the Apostolic See has always preserved the Catholic religion immaculate, and professed its holy doctrine. “Quia in Sede Apostolica immaculate est eemper Catholica servata religio et sancta celebrate doctrina.”
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
The “decisions of the Apostolic See” that we “submit to” as the “right rule of faith” are called Dogmas.


Quote
How, otherwise, could Agatho, in the face of the Council, assert that the Roman See has never deviated from the path of truth? “Haec Apostolica Ecclesia nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est.”  How, otherwise , could he insert, in his instructions to his Legates, that, after the decision contained in his dogmatical letter to the Council, the Fathers could not discuss the dogma, but must simply subscribe it as a rule of faith?  “Non tamquam de incertis contendere, sed ut certa et immutabilia compendiosa definition proferre.”  We have seen with what joy the Fathers obeyed his decree. ……. Yet neither he nor the Fathers of the Council had one word to say of his case, nor objected to the “rule of faith” as proposed by Adrian, but subscribed in the memorable way that history has made known to us.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
Needs no further comment.  They must “subscribe to it (the Dogma) as a rule of faith.”


The Magisterium is the insufficient material and instrumental causes of Dogma.  God is the formal and final causes of dogma.  The Magisterium is the means, Dogma the ends.  "It is the ends that are primary in practical matters." I have placed the last sentence in quotations because it is a fundamental rule of Thomistic philosophy.  The means to the end cannot be the end itself.

If anyone is interested in learning more about the Fr. Weninger, S.J., he has a Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Xavier_Weninger

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 16, 2018, 08:23:04 PM
Just out of curiosity, have you ever noticed that what was taught during and since Vatican 2 is not the same thing that was taught before Vatican 2?

TKGS,

I know that because I keep Dogma as the rule of faith. Therefore, I can see what was taught at Vatican II is not in accord with the Dogmas that constitute the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.

But S&Sers deny that Dogma is the rule of faith.  They obviously think that Vatican II taught error.  What I want to know is what criteria they are using to come to this determination since it is not by Dogma.  It is particularly a problem because they hold the "magisterium as the rule of faith."  So they apparently are declaring that their rule of faith has failed as a rule of faith.  So what is taking its place?

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: TKGS on May 16, 2018, 08:44:31 PM
Drew,

What is your criteria for determining what teachings are DOGMA what what teachings are Satanic Verses?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 16, 2018, 08:58:01 PM
For the 94th time now, a true formal heretic is someone who pertinaciously rejects the RULE OF FAITH.

If I think (mistakenly) that the Church has taught PROPOSITION X, I am a formal heretic if I reject X ... even if the rejection of X is not materially heretical (since the Church never actually taught it).  That's like being guilty of mortal sin for stealing if I take $1,000 that I THINK belongs to someone else ... even if it turns out that it was mine.  Materially not a theft, but formally a theft.

If I think (mistakenly) that the Church has NOT taught PROPOSITION Y, I am not a formal heretic for rejecting PROPOSITION Y.

What's key is whether I am implicitly rejecting the very RULE OF FAITH behind all the dogmas.

But this does not register to your brain.

Ladislaus,
 
This is not a discussion of the subjective morality of heresy but its objective qualities.  You act as if heresy does not have a definition.  The Catholic Encyclopedia defines heresy by quoting St. Thomas who says that heresy is “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.”  
 
Canon laws defines heresy as: "The offense of one who, having been baptized and retaining the name of Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that one is under obligation of divine and Catholic faith to believe (cf. Codex iuris canonici [Rome 1918; repr. Graz 1955]c. 751)."
 
“Truths that one is under obligation of divine and Catholic faith to believe” are called DOGMAS.
 
A heretic fails to keep Dogma as his rule of faith.  This definition necessarily means that those who keep Dogma as their rule of faith are not heretics.
 
What you are conflating is the definition of heresy and apostasy.  The denial of the Dogma that the Magisterium is a revealed truth of God, is therefore denial of all revealed truth, which makes the person an apostate.  There is a difference between heresy and apostasy but that is not convenient for you.
 
You never seek clarity but glory of Ladislaus.

You have no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, and the church you belong to will never have these necessary attributes of the Catholic Church.  So when you get to where you are going, do not say that you were not warned.
 
Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 16, 2018, 09:03:44 PM
Drew,

What is your criteria for determining what teachings are DOGMA what what teachings are Satanic Verses?

TKGS,

Maybe that is why S&Sers deny Dogma as their rule of faith.  They do not know what it is.  The first clue to recognizing Dogma is the intent of the Magisterium, that is, the teaching Authority of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, to define an article of divine revelation.  That is why Dogma itself is divine revelation and, like all divine revelation, constitutes the rule of faith.

I hope this helps you out.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 16, 2018, 09:14:19 PM
Papal judgements and decisions do not necessarily pertain to dogmas. They can also be of a disciplinary and temporary nature, and / or not appertaining to Faith or morals.

A dogma is simply a revealed truth solemnly defined by the Church as such.  Revealed truths do not become dogmas until the Magisterium proposes them in that way. A dogma implies a twofold relation: Divine Revelation + authority teaching of the Church.

Cantarella,

The title of the book should give you a clue on the subject matter:

Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council

The book is focusing on the authority of the pope, not on Dogma per se.  But what is clear from the context of the book is that the definitive judgments of the pope are the rule of faith.  And when pope defines a doctrine of revelation as a Dogma, it is a permanent rule that cannot be changed by any future pope because there is only one universal Magisterium teaching that every individual pope engages.

Quote
How, otherwise, could Agatho, in the face of the Council, assert that the Roman See has never deviated from the path of truth? “Haec Apostolica Ecclesia nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est.”  How, otherwise , could he insert, in his instructions to his Legates, that, after the decision contained in his dogmatical letter to the Council, the Fathers could not discuss the dogma, but must simply subscribe it as a rule of faith?  “Non tamquam de incertis contendere, sed ut certa et immutabilia compendiosa definition proferre.”  We have seen with what joy the Fathers obeyed his decree. ……. Yet neither he nor the Fathers of the Council had one word to say of his case, nor objected to the “rule of faith” as proposed by Adrian, but subscribed in the memorable way that history has made known to us.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council

Needs no further comment.  They must “subscribe to it (the Dogma) as a rule of faith.”


Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 16, 2018, 10:24:39 PM

Cantarella, is there a reason why you always say "Ecunemical" Councils? Instead of Ecuмenical? Just wondering.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 16, 2018, 11:08:59 PM

Quote
When I say that Ecunemical Councils approved by the legitimate successor of St. Peter are infallible, I am not saying that they are necessarily dogmatic; or irreversible. (They can deal with pastoral, disciplinary, and temporary affairs as well). Infallible does not necessarily mean "dogmatic". It only means "incapable of making mistakes or being wrong".

Ecunemical Councils ratified by a Pope are infallible, and they are binding to all Christians. That means they are applicable to Catholics of all rites, they do not erragainst the Faith and they cannot contradict the Faith even when they deal with disciplinary matters which potentially could be reversible in time. Ecunemical Councils represent the Universal Church which has the assistance of the Holy Ghost.
I lost track of how many times you contradicted yourself above.  One of the most illogical posts I’ve ever read.  Your understanding of the words “infallible”, “doctrine”, and “irreversible” is astoundingly wrong.  


Quote
English is not my first language;
You should learn English before you try to teach theology.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: TKGS on May 17, 2018, 08:47:05 AM
Every Catholic theologian knows that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.  Drew just refuses to back down because he has his ego invested in it.

If you want to argue about the limits of infallibility, go ahead, but you need to drop this Protestant-heretical stupidity of making dogma the proximate rule of faith.
I've noticed a lot of amateury theologians have a desire to coin new terms and theories in order to attempt to explain the Crisis since the standard terms and theories the Catholic Church has used for centuries simply doesn't satisfy their personal desire for absolute clarity.  So, in order to make things clear in their own minds, they muddy the very doctrines they are trying to understand.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 17, 2018, 09:05:24 AM
According to the CE article (Rule of Faith) dogma is the proximate rule of faith, specifically the inanimate proximate rule of faith.  The Magisterium is the animate proximate rule of faith.  The two go together and are inseparable.  That the Magisterium holds to dogma is taken for granted.  Which is an indication that a manifest heretic being a member of the hierarchy would be an absurdity.  The big question is how do we identify the hierarchy.  We are responsible for that.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 17, 2018, 09:09:41 AM
Quote
When I say that Ecunemical Councils approved by the legitimate successor of St. Peter are infallible, I am not saying that they are necessarily dogmatic; or irreversible.
Absolutely nonsensical statement.  Absolutely wrong.  Absolutely BAD THEOLOGY.  Infallibility applies to faith/morals.  It ONLY applies to faith/morals.  The fruit of infallibility is dogma, so ALL infallible statements ARE NECESSARILY dogmatic.  Since they are dogmatic, and since infallibility CANNOT EVER ERR, in any way, infallible statements ARE IRREVERSIBLE.

So your assertion that infallible statements are "not necessarily dogmatic or irreversible" is so absolutely wrong and theologically erroneous that I'm appalled.

Quote
Ecunemical Councils ratified by a Pope are infallible, and they are binding to all Christians. That means they are applicable to Catholics of all rites, they do not err against the Faith and they cannot contradict the Faith even when they deal with disciplinary matters which potentially could be reversible in time. Ecunemical Councils represent the Universal Church which has the assistance of the Holy Ghost.
Another mix of illogical statements.  So you say an infallible statement is binding on Christians, they do not err and cannot contradict the Faith, but they can be reversible in time?  ??  ??  So what was infallible in the 1500s could be reversed in our day?  So your're saying truth can change.  ?? ??

(I know you don't believe that truth can change, but that's what your logic means, and this is due to your lack of understanding of infallibility and discipline and all the matters in between.  You need to stop posting until you go read more on these subjects.  You are VERY badly misinformed.)

Infallibility ONLY deals with faith/morals.  Its statements can never be reversed, changed, edited, etc.  An infallible statement is true always and everywhere.

And disciplinary matters HAVE NOTHING TO DO with infallibility.  Outside of faith/morals infallibility IS NOT USED, CANNOT BE USED, HAS NEVER BEEN USED.  Go read Vatican I.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 17, 2018, 09:37:05 AM
English is not my first language; but you already know that.


That's the reason I asked. English is also my second language but I only know such terminology in English since I came to the U.S.as a teenager. Since you have used the term a lot I thought you may have a reason and give you a chance to explain it. No malice intended.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 17, 2018, 10:18:46 AM
According to the CE article (Rule of Faith) dogma is the proximate rule of faith, specifically the inanimate proximate rule of faith.  The Magisterium is the animate proximate rule of faith.  The two go together and are inseparable.  That the Magisterium holds to dogma is taken for granted.  Which is an indication that a manifest heretic being a member of the hierarchy would be an absurdity.  The big question is how do we identify the hierarchy.  We are responsible for that.
This is correct. The two go together and are inseparable, but to say, "That the Magisterium holds to dogma is taken for granted" - is not true. That would only be true if the Magisterium was the pope, hierarchy or anything other than teachings.

I have posted many times what the Magisterium is as explained by Pope Pius IX, and yes, the two go together and are inseparable, as long as you have the correct understanding of what the Magisterium is.

One more time, here is Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the Magisterium is:
Magisterium:

"...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." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 17, 2018, 11:59:15 AM
Quote
Councils pronouncements can deal with either dogmatic matters (which are unchangeable and true for all times) and / or disciplinary matters (which can be renewed or updated because they are temporary).
Yes, agree.

Quote
They cannot err either in dogma or discipline because they have the living assistance of the Holy Ghost until the end of time.  
No!
The promise of infallibility does not extend to disciplinary/governmental aspects of the Church, only matters of Faith/Morals, as CLEARLY outlined in V1.  Only when the pope fulfills the 4 conditions of V1, (one of which is that IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS, and the other is that the pope INTENDS TO TEACH CLEARLY ON SUCH A MATTER) is something infallible.

Matters of discipline are not infallible and never have been, or else infallibility would be meaningless, since disciplinary matters can be updated/changed.  Infallibility only deals with TEACHINGS of the Faith/dogma.  Discipline deals with govt rules, church law, and certain aspects of the liturgy.  Discipline is decided by the church hierarchy and can err, magnificently and unfortunately, as history has shown.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 17, 2018, 01:14:17 PM
Yes, agree.
No!
The promise of infallibility does not extend to disciplinary/governmental aspects of the Church, only matters of Faith/Morals, as CLEARLY outlined in V1.  Only when the pope fulfills the 4 conditions of V1, (one of which is that IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS, and the other is that the pope INTENDS TO TEACH CLEARLY ON SUCH A MATTER) is something infallible.

Matters of discipline are not infallible and never have been, or else infallibility would be meaningless, since disciplinary matters can be updated/changed.  Infallibility only deals with TEACHINGS of the Faith/dogma.  Discipline deals with govt rules, church law, and certain aspects of the liturgy.  Discipline is decided by the church hierarchy and can err, magnificently and unfortunately, as history has shown.
Can you think of any instance prior to V2 where the Magisterium led the Church into error (even in some doctrine which was non-infallible)?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 17, 2018, 01:58:59 PM
There is no such thing as a non-infallible doctrine.

Church discipline is man-made, it has nothing to do with doctrine, hence it is never perfect and can change based on the time period or needs of the faithful.  For example, the communion fast used to start at midnight the night before mass.  Since mass times are not 'normal' due to the shortage of priests, the church changed the communion fast to 3 hrs then to 1, because She realized people could not fast all day if they were going to a noon mass or an evening one.  Is that wrong or right?  It's neither.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 17, 2018, 03:00:11 PM
Infallibility has to do with faith/morals.  It does not have to do with discipline.  If you disagree, give me an example.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 17, 2018, 03:05:18 PM
Well, if you say so.  I was waiting for your opinion on it before pronouncing it good and Catholic.
I emphasized what was correct in his post so as to demonstrate what was his obviously wrong understanding of what the Magisterium is. If the two (dogma and magisterium) go together and are inseparable, which is correct, then saying that  only assumes that the Magisterium holds to dogma is to be taken for granted, is one heck of a confused thing for anyone to say - and they would never say such a confused thing if they had the correct understanding of the Magisterium.  

As you can tell, the obvious truth as I presented it to him evades him as completely as it evades you, because in his very next post, he asks Pax if he knew of any other instance that "the Magisterium led the Church into error". His needle is as stuck as any sede.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 17, 2018, 08:13:40 PM
All of your examples only deal with doctrine indirectly, and many times not at all, and they don’t TEACH anything, so 95% of the time, no, these are not infallible.  


Quote
These universal disciplines are infallible but reformable.
Something infallible cannot be reformable.  That’s impossible.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 18, 2018, 12:02:12 AM
Infallibility has to do with faith/morals.  It does not have to do with discipline.  If you disagree, give me an example.

Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII, 1947

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12media.htm


Quote
46. On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed that the sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise. Hence the epigram, “Lex orandi, lex credendi” — the law for prayer is the law for faith.

47. But this is not what the Church teaches and enjoins. The worship she offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous profession of Catholic faith and a continuous exercise of hope and charity, as Augustine puts it tersely. “God is to be worshipped,” he says, “by faith, hope and charity.”[44] In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly, not only by the celebration of the mysteries, and by offering the holy sacrifice and administering the sacraments, but also by saying or singing the credo or Symbol of the faith — it is indeed the sign and badge, as it were, of the Christian — along with other texts, and likewise by the reading of holy scripture, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 18, 2018, 12:42:05 AM
Can you think of any instance prior to V2 where the Magisterium led the Church into error (even in some doctrine which was non-infallible)?


Now we're talking. Where has the Church given us evil, even in non-infallible circuмstances? There is no precedent.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 18, 2018, 08:32:29 AM
Quote
Upon confirmation by the Pope, a General Council's decrees are binding on all Catholics.
So what?  Doesn't mean they are infallible.

Quote
It is true that discipline is man-made and can be changed. However, and this is very important, the Authority to enact discipline is not man-made, but given by God.
Irrelevant.

Quote
Pope Gregory XVI, Quo graviora of 1833:
Irrelevant.
Quote
Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII, 1947
Irrelevant.


Infallibility ONLY covers TEACHINGS.  It only covers ARTICLES of FAITH.  This is specificially and precisely explained by V1.  You guys are taking a simple doctrine, infallibility, and complicating it.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: cassini on May 18, 2018, 09:22:19 AM

Now we're talking. Where has the Church given us evil, even in non-infallible circuмstances? There is no precedent.

You must be joking. The Church led the flock into error in 1616 by defining a heliocentric reading of the Bible was formal heresy,

or

the Church led the flock into error in 1835 when popes allowed the flock to read and believe in a heliocentrism and that the Bible can be read with an interpretation contrary to the unanimous opinion of all the Fathers.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 18, 2018, 09:45:59 AM
Quote
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif)  Pax declares Papal Teaching that the Church cannot permit anything to the detriment of souls "Irrelevant".   (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh2.gif)
It's irrelevant to the question at hand.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 18, 2018, 09:52:30 AM
Quote
So whenever someone resists or disobeys the Pope in matters of faith and discipline, they deny this Dogma.
Agree.  But V2 was not a formal discipline because 1) it's not binding under pain of sin, 2) not required for salvation.

And your point is off-topic, because we're talking about whether or not discipline is infallible, which it can never be.  Discipline is related to law; infallibility is related to doctrine.  The mass is part law and part doctrine because it's part Divine origin and part human origin.  Something reformable, by definition, is not perfect.  Infallibility, by definition, is a perfect teaching.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on May 18, 2018, 11:28:39 AM
lad:
Quote
You need to stop blowing smoke out of your posterior and learn the terms involved here before posting again.

Ladislaus is one of the gentler and more refined pharisees on CI.  Note how he spares the reader from that crude and vulgar word which begins with an 'a' and ends with an 's.'  In order, I'm sure, not to offend the sensitivities of other inferior pharisees and scribes who make frequent contributions to this shameless thread, he substitutes the less offensive word "posterior."  Thank you, Lad, for helping to preserve the integrity of this multi-topical atrocity, one which, however, became quite meaningless and dull thousands of comments ago.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 18, 2018, 12:56:50 PM
General Church discipline is different from UNIVERSAL discipline.  V2 was not a matter of UNIVERSAL discipline because 1) it doesn't not have to believed with certainty of faith 2) under pain of sin, 3) everywhere and by all.

Secondly, Per V1, unless such a discipline is related to faith/morals, then it can't be infallible.  Infallibility is used to teach truth; not govern the Church.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: cassini on May 18, 2018, 01:15:03 PM
or
there's an aspect of the condemnation of 1616 that you don't understand.
Like what?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 18, 2018, 02:33:20 PM
Can something be universal and still be temporary? I think so. Universal simply means "of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases". The element of permanency in time is not what makes something "universal", but the element of affecting everyone.  

An Ecunemical Council is ecunemical because the Bishops from the whole world are convoked under the presidency of the Pope, and the decrees of which, having received Papal confirmation, bind all Christians of the whole world.

Again, read Scheeben's article on the CE.

Cantarella,

You do not know what a universal is.  The definition you offer is the product of modern empiricism which traces its roots to the nominalism of William of Occam who denied that universal have real existence.  Without the attribute of time, there is no such thing as a universal. Your definition is nominalistic.

The purpose of this post is not to educate you on this question but rather to say that anyone who does not know what a universal is has no business making any comment on this question whatsoever any more than a blind person has driving a car.  You are ignorant of one of the most fundamental truths of philosophy which is necessary for the proper comprehension of anything worth knowing.  You are just like Ladislaus in that you make inexcusable errors of fundamental truths and then launch off drawing one erroneous conclusion after another.

You claim that the magisterium is your rule of faith and then when provided with a direct Magisterial quote from Pope Agatho addressing an ecuмenical council on the dogma proposed by Pope Adrian demanding that the assembled "Fathers could not discuss the dogma, but must simply subscribe it as a rule of faith," you do not accept it and correct your error.  The appeal to divine authority has no greater effect that the appeal to reason.  Dogma as the proximate rule of faith is necessarily proven by the very canonical definition of heresy.  You cannot see or will not see that this necessarily follows.  Both reason and divine authority have no influence on you.

Your posts have been loaded with contradictions.  When these have been made known to you, you never retract anything but in minor modifications to gloss over obvious absurdities.  You call the magisterium the rule of faith then you say that the magisterium erred at Vatican II so it cannot be the magisterium and the pope cannot be the pope.  How do you know the magisterium erred at Vatican II?  You with Ladislaus have denied any appeal to Dogma as "private interpretation" and therefore, "Protestantism."  You have no means by which to judge the magisterium of error.  So how can you possible know?  You have no means by which to accuse even Pope Francis of heresy.  You cannot appeal to Dogma because Dogma condemns yourself as much as it condemns Francis.

The heresy of Modernism and Neo-modernism are nominalistic.  They deny universal. The end of both these heresies is the destruction of Dogma.  You like the Modernists have a common enemy in Dogma.  Since you do not know what a universal is you end up denying Dogma because S&Sers have to throw Dogma aside.  They have no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, no moral compass, and what is worse, no material or instrumental means to ever get them.

St. Ignatius Loyola said in his Rules for the Discernment of Spirits, "The enemy conducts himself as a woman.... He is a weakling before a show of strength, and a tyrant if he has his will. It is characteristic of a woman in a quarrel with a man to lose courage and take to flight if the man shows that he is determined and fearless.  However, if the man loses courage and begins to flee, the anger, the vindictiveness, and rage of the woman surge up and know no bounds." The internet affords a false sense of intellectual complacency with anonymity. The only thing I discern in your posts is a simmering "anger, vindictiveness and rage" because truth is getting in your way.

Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: cassini on May 18, 2018, 02:52:41 PM
Oh, so you found one instance from a non-irreformable decree of the Holy Office.  People argue that heliocentrism vs. geocentrism has no bearing on the good of souls.  So, then, how does this harm souls?  In addition, while it may have been true that Heliocentrism would pose a danger and a scandal to souls in 1616, perhaps by 1835 it posed no such threat.

In any case, we're not talking here about a verdict here or there by the Holy Office, or some offhand comment in a Papal Allocution.  What's protected by the Holy Spirit is the UNIVERSAL Magisterium, when the Pope teaches and addresses the entire Church or promulgates discipline to the entire Church.

My post was in answer to 'Now we're talking. Where has the Church given us evil, even in non-infallible circuмstances? There is no precedent.'

The 1616 decree was an irreversible decree. A 'non-irreformable' decree is reformable. How in God's name can formal heresy become reformable?

'People argue'... I thought we were talking about the Church here, not 'people's opinions... 'that heliocentrism vs. geocentrism has no bearing on the good of souls.' It harms souls in that the Church decreed the Bible, the word of God, said the sun moves, and to deny what God has revealed is what the danger was/is. Moreover, For hundreds of years the Fathers had fought the Pythagorean heresies attached to the heliocentric heresy. These heresies entered the Church once again when that infamous U-turn by popes occurred. Once indulged, Modernism followed as a direct result of the heliocentric heresy. The first evolutionary theory was the Nebular theory, how a heliocentric solar system evolved WITHOUT GOD. There followed Darwin Evolution, when MILLIONS OF SOULS ceased to believe in God. With the backing of both CHURCH and STATE, heliocentrism eliminated God from His creation for most. Why even trad Catholics today believe in theistic evolution, no different to atheistic evolution in that both reject direct creation by God.

There is another way in which the HvG hasd a bearing on souls. Once conceded to biblical and physical heliocentrism, you cannot have one without the other, the Church allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to decide what was or is a teaching of the Church. In 1820, the Holy Office admitted the 1616 decree was papal, was infallible, and remained a heresy. Here the Holy Ghost put His foot down making sure that the universal magisterium of Pope Paul V was protected. But the heliocentrists found a way around this so as to have their infallible decree defining heliocentrism as formal heresy AND AN ORTHODOX HELIOCENTRISM FROM 1835 ONWARDS. 

It surprises me not one bit now when I find post after post, quoting pope after pope, saint after saint, theologian after theologian, contradicting one another on so many things to do with Catholicism. One pope says this cannot be alterted, Vatican I said no pope can alter what a previous pope said, yet popes since 1835 have been doing this, especially since Vatican II, and then posters quote where someone said it can in this case or that case be alterted, giving another reason for it.

 There has been so many contradictions in Church history since 1835 that a Catholic today would find it hard to know exactly how the Church works any more. When no answer can be found we get the likes of the post I got above 'or there's an aspect of the condemnation of 1616 that you don't understand.' Well tell us then, I thought we were supposed to know how out faith works?

Its a while now since I bothered to listen to ten theologians differ on any aspect of the Catholic faith. I read Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger deny Original Sin was as a result of Adam and Eve in his Big Bang heliocentric book In the Beginning, that it is a 'collective sin' and the next pope Francis saying he would baptise a Martian if he arrived on Earth, as though a Martian needed baptism. That is what Catholicism has become since that harmless heliocentrism was brought into the womb of the Church, as Church with a MILLION OPINIONS. Just look at this thread.

They say geocentrism has no bearing on the individual soul. Well it has on mine, for I have come to really appreciate the FIRST DOGMA OF THE CHURCH found in OTT's history of Catholic dogmas, namely GOD CAN BE KNOWN FROM THE THINGS THAT HE MADE. It was that heliocentrism brought into the Church from 1835 that led to the elimination of this dogma.  I now find God in every beautiful thing in nature and the universe. Every cloud or star reminds me of His creation, every flower reminds me of His infinite beauty. And then I read for the last 200 years Toms, Dicks and Harrys tellingus geocentrism is not true or has no spiritual value.

Thank God, I know my faith, what I must believe in, what I must do if I am to have any chance of heaven.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 18, 2018, 03:08:34 PM
There is no such thing as a non-infallible doctrine.

Church discipline is man-made, it has nothing to do with doctrine, hence it is never perfect and can change based on the time period or needs of the faithful.  For example, the communion fast used to start at midnight the night before mass.  Since mass times are not 'normal' due to the shortage of priests, the church changed the communion fast to 3 hrs then to 1, because She realized people could not fast all day if they were going to a noon mass or an evening one.  Is that wrong or right?  It's neither.
Quote
The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . . If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.
(Rev. Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1 [4th ed., Rome, 1908], p. 258;
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: TKGS on May 18, 2018, 03:13:06 PM
The other day I looked at the most recent 5 pages of that thread and it seemed to be a poster named "poche" talking to himself. I figured it was similar to a "graceseeker " thread and moved on.
Poche is a very frequent poster to the forum, but he seldom contributes anything.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 18, 2018, 04:06:53 PM
Quote
Do you think that two of the Council’s constitutions are expressly described  as "dogmatic" just because they "felt" like adding a meaningless title? ( See Lumen Gentium, and Dei Verbum)

If a "pastoral" Council teaches on Faith and Morals then it is teaching doctrinally. I do not think you even know what "Faith and Morals" mean. If you have read the docuмents then explain how is it that you think they are not appertaining to "Faith and Morals".
Ha ha.  So when V2 taught A and non-A at the same time, which is doctrine and which isn't?

When V2 said that latin is the official language of the Church, but then said the vernacular is to be used, which "discipline" is infallible?

Christ said we must become as little children to enter heaven; but He didn't say we should understand/explain our religion as children do.  Your understanding of infallibility is immature, generalized and without distinguishment.   
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 18, 2018, 04:17:23 PM
My post was in answer to 'Now we're talking. Where has the Church given us evil, even in non-infallible circuмstances? There is no precedent.'

The 1616 decree was an irreversible decree. A 'non-irreformable' decree is reformable. How in God's name can formal heresy become reformable?

'People argue'... I thought we were talking about the Church here, not 'people's opinions... 'that heliocentrism vs. geocentrism has no bearing on the good of souls.' It harms souls in that the Church decreed the Bible, the word of God, said the sun moves, and to deny what God has revealed is what the danger was/is. Moreover, For hundreds of years the Fathers had fought the Pythagorean heresies attached to the heliocentric heresy. These heresies entered the Church once again when that infamous U-turn by popes occurred. Once indulged, Modernism followed as a direct result of the heliocentric heresy. The first evolutionary theory was the Nebular theory, how a heliocentric solar system evolved WITHOUT GOD. There followed Darwin Evolution, when MILLIONS OF SOULS ceased to believe in God. With the backing of both CHURCH and STATE, heliocentrism eliminated God from His creation for most. Why even trad Catholics today believe in theistic evolution, no different to atheistic evolution in that both reject direct creation by God.

There is another way in which the HvG hasd a bearing on souls. Once conceded to biblical and physical heliocentrism, you cannot have one without the other, the Church allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to decide what was or is a teaching of the Church. In 1820, the Holy Office admitted the 1616 decree was papal, was infallible, and remained a heresy. Here the Holy Ghost put His foot down making sure that the universal magisterium of Pope Paul V was protected. But the heliocentrists found a way around this so as to have their infallible decree defining heliocentrism as formal heresy AND AN ORTHODOX HELIOCENTRISM FROM 1835 ONWARDS.

It surprises me not one bit now when I find post after post, quoting pope after pope, saint after saint, theologian after theologian, contradicting one another on so many things to do with Catholicism. One pope says this cannot be alterted, Vatican I said no pope can alter what a previous pope said, yet popes since 1835 have been doing this, especially since Vatican II, and then posters quote where someone said it can in this case or that case be alterted, giving another reason for it.

 There has been so many contradictions in Church history since 1835 that a Catholic today would find it hard to know exactly how the Church works any more. When no answer can be found we get the likes of the post I got above 'or there's an aspect of the condemnation of 1616 that you don't understand.' Well tell us then, I thought we were supposed to know how out faith works?

Its a while now since I bothered to listen to ten theologians differ on any aspect of the Catholic faith. I read Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger deny Original Sin was as a result of Adam and Eve in his Big Bang heliocentric book In the Beginning, that it is a 'collective sin' and the next pope Francis saying he would baptise a Martian if he arrived on Earth, as though a Martian needed baptism. That is what Catholicism has become since that harmless heliocentrism was brought into the womb of the Church, as Church with a MILLION OPINIONS. Just look at this thread.

They say geocentrism has no bearing on the individual soul. Well it has on mine, for I have come to really appreciate the FIRST DOGMA OF THE CHURCH found in OTT's history of Catholic dogmas, namely GOD CAN BE KNOWN FROM THE THINGS THAT HE MADE. It was that heliocentrism brought into the Church from 1835 that led to the elimination of this dogma.  I now find God in every beautiful thing in nature and the universe. Every cloud or star reminds me of His creation, every flower reminds me of His infinite beauty. And then I read for the last 200 years Toms, Dicks and Harrys tellingus geocentrism is not true or has no spiritual value.

Thank God, I know my faith, what I must believe in, what I must do if I am to have any chance of heaven.

Cassini,

Enjoyed your post and your point it well taken.  Those that keep Dogma in its proper order of reference will have the last and only laugh.

I hope you have not pushed some S&Sers to think we have had no pope since 1835.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 18, 2018, 04:24:48 PM
(https://staticv3.972mag.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/07/181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg)

Ladislaus,
 
The truth is that I have suspected that you have the same problem as Cantarella with universals ever since you posted that the office and the power of the papacy was the "form," and the person of the pope the "matter," creating an identity between the pope and the office.  This error necessarily creates all sorts of problems, such as, it makes the pope the personal possessor of the divine Attributes of the Church turning him into a god. 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg608026/#msg608026)
« Reply #1847 on: May 07, 2018, 10:11:08 PM »
 
Then you made the comparison between the death of a pope and a heretical pope.  Not an analogy, but a direct identity claiming that the "form" (i.e. the office) separated from a heretical pope just as it does from a dead pope.  This of course is an impossible claim because it cannot be known. 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg608052/#msg608052)
« Reply #1850 on: May 08, 2018, 08:15:03 AM »
 
Cantarella, not knowing anything about universals, supported your claim and asked a question to which a reply to both of your claims offering proof that there is a real, not just logical, but real distinction between the pope and the office.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg608557/#msg608557)
« Reply #1929 on: May 11, 2018, 06:20:42 PM »
 
I just might have to add this to the list of you other Ladislausisms previously addressed with appropriate links, that you really do not know what universals are.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg608787/#msg608787)
« Reply #1981 on: May 13, 2018, 03:07:08 PM »
 
This would help explain why you reject Dogma as your rule of faith because nothing is more universal than divinely revealed truth.  When you become the pope of your new church, make sure to straighten this out.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: cassini on May 18, 2018, 04:40:15 PM
Cassini,

Enjoyed your post and your point it well taken.  Those that keep Dogma in its proper order of reference will have the last and only laugh.

I hope you have not pushed some S&Sers to think we have had no pope since 1835.

Drew

That is why most sedevacantists like Daly, are terrified to recognise the 1616 decree as an irreformable papal decree. For them sedevacantism began with Vatican II popes. If they had to cope with no real pope since 1835 their sedevacantism is lost or becomes absurd.
But they have no need to worry, if any of the helio popes did commit heresy, it was 100% material, with no sin or blame attached, all of them convinced helio was proven by science. Not one of them challenged the authority of the 1616 decree in an official capacity, merely went along unknowingly with the fraud thought up by members of the 1820 Holy Office to convince the pope he could allow helio books to be read and believed by the flock. Note their decrees of 1835 always said 'heliocentrism - as understood by modern astronomers' (as distinct from the heretical heliocentrism of Galileo).

I for one am not sedevacantist, purely because I believe I do not have the right to make such a choice, but have no problems with those who are. I suppose many of us would like to be svs, for it would explain how the Church could have ended up with such popes since Vatican II.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 18, 2018, 06:15:40 PM
When you introduce a time element, what you're essentially saying is that the Church can defect at any given time.
No, that is your NO thinking, but that is not what he is saying.

Reference St. Vincent of Lerins who says that the true faith is that which has been believed by all the people all the time. He is speaking about all the faithful, all those who are in the Church -  which is to say that any idea that has not been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic.

Which is to say that at any given time an idea can be widely held even by the vast majority of the people as is liberalism among Catholics today.  Also a heretical idea can be shown to have been held by a small group within the Church all through history or during a number of generations of history - as is sedeism.

But the true doctrine of the Church is that which has been held always by everyone - which in and of itself destroys sedeism.


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 18, 2018, 07:14:32 PM
Drew, nominalist "universals" have absolutely no relation whatsoever to Universal in the Church ... other than a similar etymology.

When you introduce a time element, what you're essentially saying is that the Church can defect at any given time.

Ladislaus,
 
This may be your biggest error yet.  It is such a colossal error in epistemology that I am not sure where to begin.
 
The entire assertion is bogus.  Nominalists deny the reality of universals.  That is why they called nominalists.  They assert that universals are only "names" and nothing more.  To even say, "nominalist 'universals,'" is an oxymoron.  Of course, since they do not exist, they have "no relation whatsoever to Universal in the Church."  But who ever said they did?  This is just a bunch of your tripe.
 
Time is an attribute of universals in that universals are for all time without exception.  They are in fact eternal.  To limit any universal to a specific time is to destroy it as a universal.  Your second sentence is just mindless.
 
Man is made in the image of God.  To understand a universal is to participate in the knowledge of God.  That is what the prologue of the Gospel of St. John means: "That (Jesus) was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world."  All men are "enlightened" by Christ through their intellectual participation in universals.  It is through the participation of the common understanding between man and God that man can know that there is a God and He is One as a certain philosophical truth.  This is why St. Thomas says: “All knowers know God implicitly in all they know.”
 
I am posting an introductory excerpt from the James Larsen's critique on the Epistemology of Cardinal Newman.  This is a brief exposition of Catholic epistemology that is absolutely necessary for every Catholic to understand.  This is where it begins for all modern philosophy and theology is grounded upon a false epistemology that itself ultimately comes from nominalism.  This short excerpt will pay in dividends to those who take the time to read and understand. 
 
Quote
Foundational to this question concerning God’s love for us is another. Does this love of God for man entail that He endowed man with the ability and faculties to know Him and to come to Him? Did God create us in such a way as to make knowledge of Him something that is fully natural to the human mind and heart? If not, then it would seem that man has some justification for not knowing and loving God, and that any judgment of God upon us for not knowing and worshipping Him in spirit and truth would be the act of a capricious and unjust tyrant. Implicitly responding to this question, St. Paul writes:
 


“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.” (Rom 1:18-20).
 
St. Thomas writes, “all knowers know God implicitly in all they know.” (De Veritate, Q. 22, a.2). Thomas rightly teaches, of course, that all of our knowledge, barring a direct infusion from God, comes through the senses. We come into this world with no innate ideas or knowledge, and this includes no knowledge of God. The “natural” knowledge of God of which Thomas speaks is therefore acquired through the encounter of man’s mind with the world, and through sense experience. It is, in other words, natural, but not innate.
 
But there is a very important truth involved here which I think is often missed. The human mind, in order to posses such “natural knowledge” of God, must be in possession of an innate, intellectual light which is structured in such a manner as to know, in a finite and analogical manner, as God knows. St. Thomas writes:

“And thus we must needs say that the human soul knows all things in the eternal types, since by participation of these types we know all things. For the intellectual light itself which is in us, is nothing else than a participated likeness of the uncreated light, in which are contained the eternal types.” (I, 84, 5).

This created participation by the human intellect in the uncreated intellectual light of God operates in response to both areas of human knowledge – natural and supernatural. The passage from St. Thomas quoted immediately above speaks of this light as specifically related to our knowledge of created things. Simply put, God sees the substance known as man and man sees likewise; God sees a tree, man sees a tree. Man, in other words, does not just know the “units” of individual sense data, but his intellect is so constituted by God so as to immediately abstract to the knowledge of the substantial nature of things. Man naturally knows “universals,” which are the “eternal types” (the “kinds” of Genesis) of God’s creation. The very foundation of all intellectual sanity, therefore, is man’s knowledge of “abstractions” which the modern-day empiricist dismisses as mere human fabrications.
 
But what about God and the supernatural truths which constitute His very Being? Does the created structure of the intellectual light within us also possess a structure which “naturally” responds to supernatural truths? Did God so constitute a relationship between Himself and our own minds as to make it a fully natural thing for us to “hear” the voice of Revelation, even though the truths involved may be quite abstract and even appear to involve things that are contradictory to previous experience and thought?
 
A remarkable explanation of this relationship is available to us in the writings of Newman’s contemporary and alleged arch-rival, Cardinal Henry Edward Manning. His work, The Glories of the Sacred Heart, contains a chapter titled “Dogma the Source of Devotion.” After quoting Our Lord’s words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” Cardinal Manning offers the following analysis (selected quotes):
 
“He (Jesus) declared that all truth was contained in Himself; and when the Apostle said that he judged himself to ‘know nothing save Jesus Christ and Him crucified,” he meant the same thing, namely, that he who knows Jesus Christ aright knows the whole Revelation of God, the radiance which flows from the Person of Jesus Christ.”

“Now our Divine Lord, speaking to the woman of Samaria, said, ‘You adore that which you know not,’ because they were an idolatrous people, of mixed race…and they had a sort of fragmentary knowledge of the old revelation; but they did not rightly know the True God; and so much as they did know of the True God, they did not know truly. Therefore they could not worship Him ‘in spirit and in truth.’”

“From these words I draw one conclusion, namely, that knowledge is the first and vital condition of all true worship.”
 
“My purpose, then, will be to trace out the connection between what the world scornfully calls dogma and devotion, or the worship of God ‘in spirit and in truth.’”
 
“Now, first of all, let us see what is dogma….It means the precise enunciation of a divine truth, of a divine fact, or of a divine reality fully known, so far as it is the will of God to reveal it, adequately defined in words chosen and sanctioned by a divine authority.”
 
“Every divine truth or reality, so far as God has been pleased to reveal it to us, casts its perfect outline and image upon the human intelligence. His own mind, in which dwells all truth in all fullness and in all perfection, so far as He has revealed of His truth, is cast upon the surface of our mind, in the same way as the sun casts its own image upon the surface of the water, and the disc of the sun is perfectly reflected from its surface.”
 
Dogmas or doctrines, in other words, are not in any way to be regarded as weak and humanly fabricated “notions” (the word used by Cardinal Newman for such intellectual formulations), but rather as a powerful divine radiance cast upon our intellectual light, a radiance which finds a natural response in the soul of one who sincerely seeks the truth. This is why, in Cardinal Manning’s words:
 
“If when a divine truth is declared to us, our hearts do not turn to it, as the eye turns to the light; if there be not is us an instinctive yearning, which makes us promptly turn to the sound of the divine voice, the fault is in our hearts; for just in proportion as we know the truth we shall be drawn towards it.”
 
Finally, I cannot resist offering one more marvelous passage taken from Manning’s work, The Four Great
 
Evils of Our Day:
“God, who is the perfect and infinite intelligence – that is, the infinite and perfect reason – created man to His own likeness, and gave him a reasonable intelligence, like His own. As the face in the mirror answers to the face of the beholder, so the intelligence of man answers to the intelligence of God. It is His own likeness.”
 
Cardinal Manning’s words constitute a beautiful elaboration of Our Lord’s simple declaration, “Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice.” (John 18:37). It should be added that the Gospel of John is replete with teachings concerning the nature of Christ as the light of truth, and of man’s response, or lack of response to this light and truth: “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” I would highly recommend to all readers that they reread the entire Gospel of St. John with the specific intent of noting all of this imagery concerning the power of the light and truth of Christ which finds a fully natural response in the created intellectual light of man, and a corresponding rejection in those who have of their own free will obscured this light: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” And further:

“For everyone that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.” (John 3:20-21).
 
It is no wonder, therefore, that the Gospel of John is a premier object for deconstruction by Modernists. It firmly establishes Dogma and the Divine Deposit of Faith (the “radiance” emanating from Christ) as the absolute and vital foundation of our entire Faith, as being the light of truth which is the very life of the soul, and to which the human soul naturally responds. God’s love is thus fully justified. All the blame for man’s turning away from the light of God’s truth lies within the will of each individual man who does so. As Cardinal Manning said, “the fault is within our hearts.”
 
It must also be added that Christ’s words are for all men at all times. The light of Christ’s truth is not something that must wait upon the growth and maturation of man’s experience and intellectual and religious evolution. It is there to be received and assented to by any human heart, at any time and in any culture, which has not betrayed its own inherent, God-given light.
 
Dogmas, in other words, are not simply abstract formulations which comprise a “notional” faith. They are not merely confessions of Faith designed to bind us together in a unity of belief and worship. They are the very vitality of the entire spiritual life. St. Thomas saw fit to treat of the “Nature of Sacred Doctrine” in the very first Question of his Summa. There, he writes:
 
“On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. Xiv, 1), to this science [Sacred Doctrine] alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened.”
 
This begetting, nourishing, protecting, and strengthening of our faith is, of course, intimately incarnated into all our other faculties. Sensations, life experiences, and the imagining and memory faculties all play very important parts. But it is the intellectual light in man which is created with the structure – this structure involving abstraction at its most sublime level – to transform all these experiences into true knowledge of God and of His revealed truth. Here lies the real vitality of man, even of the most simple and unlearned of men, and here is where man “hears” the voice of God.
 
Such is true Catholic epistemology. To undermine it in any way is to enter upon a path of decay involving all things human.


All universals share a common essence whether natural or supernatural.  Dogma is the rule of faith because it is the most perfect participatory sharing in the knowledge of God with God's own knowledge.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 18, 2018, 07:26:32 PM
I'm glad that you find corruption of the Church's Magisterium so amusing.  And the devil is laughing right there with you, enjoying every heretical post.

Ladislaus,

You just cannot get anything right.  The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Authority and Infallibility.  It can never err.  It can never be corrupted.   Because these Attributes are Attributes of God and God cannot error and He cannot be corrupted.  Churchmen may err.  Churchmen may be corrupted but that does not touch God, and it does not touch those who keep Dogma as their rule of faith.

After all these exchanges you still do not have this right.  Those that do not hold Dogma as the proximate rule of faith cannot call anyone a heretic because you do not even know what a heretic is.  In the last exchange on this question, you confused the definition of heresy with apostasy.  Do I need to re-post the definition of heresy again?

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 18, 2018, 07:57:34 PM
Quote
Now Vatican II is not only not infallible, but it's not even Magisterium.
V2 is not infallible.  It’s also not part of the CONSTANT/UNIVERSAL magisterium (because its teachings are not consistent with Tradition, thus are not Universally held, by all, everywhere...meaning they are not Apostolic in origin).  

At this point, V2 is part of the fallible/ordinary magisterium, unless and until they can show their teachings agree with Tradition (which they’ve yet to do).  

Ladislaus, you REFUSE to distinguish between the fallible/ordinary magisterium and the Universal/Constant magisterium.  You use the term ‘magisterium’ too generally.  Can you explain why?  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 18, 2018, 08:03:02 PM
You really need to go back and study the Penny Catechism before attempting theology and making a fool of yourself.

You and Stubborn and Pax simply make up definitions on the fly that suit your narrative but have no grasp of even the most basic theological concepts involved here.

Ladislaus,

You have a short term memory problem so I will re-post the exchange where you mess up the definition of heresy conflating it with apostasy.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg609566/#msg609566)
« Reply #2037 on: May 16, 2018, 08:58:01 PM »

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 18, 2018, 08:22:16 PM
V2 is not infallible.  It’s also not part of the CONSTANT/UNIVERSAL magisterium (because its teachings are not consistent with Tradition, thus are not Universally held, by all, everywhere...meaning they are not Apostolic in origin).  

At this point, V2 is part of the fallible/ordinary magisterium, unless and until they can show their teachings agree with Tradition (which they’ve yet to do).  

Ladislaus, you REFUSE to distinguish between the fallible/ordinary magisterium and the Universal/Constant magisterium.  You use the term ‘magisterium’ too generally.  Can you explain why?  

Pax,

Thanks for the post. You saved me the trouble.  It is amazing that the errors of the S&Sers can be reduced to corrupted definitions and erroneous conceptions on the most fundamental philosophical and theological truths.  Ultimately their system of belief is a bag of dust.  I doubt that S&S is the cause but rather the result of these errors.  And the same thing would hold for conservative Catholics like columnist and author Emmett O'Regan who would follow the pope to hell and think he was in heaven.  The only difference between Ladislaus and O'Regan is a question of temperament.  Their arguments are just about the same in every essential. 

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: cassini on May 19, 2018, 05:02:37 AM
Decrees of the Holy Office are not irreformable or infallible.  This has been demonstrated many times already.

Bravo, you found one decree of the Holy Office that was lifted.  Any more?

Maybe it was the teaching of Pius IX that the Church is not capable of allowing discipline that is harmful to souls.

The Holy Office

 So, what was the Holy Office of 1616? Well in the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up in 1542. The function of this body was specifically to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines by way of the censorship of books etc., but most of all to combat heresy at the highest level.
     The Congregation of the Index, otherwise known as the Index, was finally established in 1572. It was the section placed by Supreme Sacred Congregation in charge of heretical and offensive book censorship, a practice that had been ongoing since the Council of Trent. Made up of ten cardinals, its decrees were normally signed only by its chief officers.
     Later, in 1588; Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave the Holy Office even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God who cannot be encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such formal papal authority.

‘I found it laid down by such distinguished repre­sentatives of the Ultramontane school as Cardenas, La Croix, Zaccaria, and Bouix, that Congregational decrees, confirmed by the Pope and published by his express order, emanate from the Pontiff in his capacity of Head of the Church, and are ex cathedrâ in such sense as to make it infallibly certain that doctrines so propounded as true, are true.’ --- Fr W. Roberts.

The 1616 decree, unlike every other decree of the Holy Office recorded in Denzinger's History of dogmas, was the only one that DEFINED an opinion as formal heresy. If it was not a HERESY then why did the Church of 1633 put Galileo on trial for heresy? According to you this is your Catholic Church:

1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.

2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be not only scientifically false, but theologically considered, danger­ous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit com­mitted to the Church’s keeping. In other words, the Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, deci­sions that are false and perilous to the faith.

3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Con­gregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science. [Condemned by Pius IX in his Syllabus]

4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.

5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunica­tion, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.

6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that it is not true and sound.

7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.

8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has con­firmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.

If any of the above were true, Catholicism as a divinely guided religion is false.

To finish Ladislaus, it is not the likes of you who determine what laws of the Church one should follow and what we can discard, well not for me anyway. The Holy Office confirmed in 1820 that the 1616 decree was not reformable so it was never reformed.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 19, 2018, 09:17:48 AM
Quote
That an Ecuмenical Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm) which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is endowed with infallible doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) authority.

I've already pointed this out on previous threads, but I will do so again (though I don't think many of you will accept it).  The phrase "organ of infallibility" means that an ecuмenical council has the "potential" to be infallible; it does not mean that it AUTOMATICALLY is, or that everything in a council is infallible.
The phrase "organ of" means that an ecuмenical council is a good vehicle, method or circuмstance by which the pope makes use of his teaching authority.
 
You are falsely interpreting this to mean that an ecuмenical council is infallible just because its ecuмenical.  WRONG!

If you read further down the article, it goes on to explain the 4 conditions required for papal infallibility from Vatican I (which you over-complicate and misunderstand to further your agenda), and after explaining these 4 conditions, it says:

Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.


So the above explains that if a teaching does not fulfill the 4 conditions laid out by Vatican I, then it's not infallible.  It's that simple.  V2 did not contain any ex Cathedra statements, therefore it's not infallible.  Case closed.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: JPaul on May 19, 2018, 09:57:31 AM
Pax Vobis,

Quote
So the above explains that if a teaching does not fulfill the 4 conditions laid out by Vatican I, then it's not infallible.  It's that simple.  V2 did not contain any ex Cathedra statements, therefore it's not infallible.  Case closed.
That is not to say that it does not contain error and heresy which has been diseminated throughout the whole Church to the harm of souls as well as promulgating disciplines which are harmful to Tradition and the Faith. Do you believe Vatican II to be a valid council of the Church?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 19, 2018, 01:08:03 PM
If a council:
1) does not agree with Tradition
2) is not taught with certainty of Faith
3) is not binding under pain of sin
4) is not infallible
5) is ambiguous, novel and contradictory
6) is described in a new way (ie pastoral)
7) is different from ALL PREVIOUS EcuмENICAL COUNCILS in history

...what should that tell us?  That it’s not part of the Faith!  Or at least, we treat it with hesitation and accept it conditionally (which is EXACTLY what V2 officials have said.)

You all falsely give V2 authority and protection from error it did not have, did not claim to have and did not express in its docuмents.  

Any of the faithful that accepted V2 did so of their own accord.  The warning signs are all over the place.  Those that had/have a heart open to the Truth will see its errors and God will lead them to Tradition.  Those that accept Modernism will be guilty of abandoning the Faith in God’s eyes.  Woe to them.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 19, 2018, 01:09:25 PM

Quote
If an Ecuмenical Council teaches against the Faith 
V2 did not teach with the same level of authority that ALL PREVIOUS councils did.  You’re comparing apples-oranges.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 19, 2018, 01:15:10 PM
Quote
And I am going to say again, that even when Ecuмenical Councils do not define infallible dogmas as an organ, they still CANNOT teach heresy to the Faithful or contradict the Faith in any of its decrees or constitutions, because they represent the UNIVERSAL Church and are binding therefore to all Christians.
You are not the Church.  You are not a Roman official.  You are not authorized to say what V2 binds or doesn’t bind.  Your contention that V2 is binding on the faithful is a misapplication of many “high level” principles with an erroneous conclusion that is directly at odds with EVERY MAJOR V2 explanation by Roman officials. Your view is not based on facts, but incorrect logic and emotion.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: cassini on May 19, 2018, 01:16:57 PM
Let's read St. Robert Bellarmine on the subject:

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the Earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the Earth but the Earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the Earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the Earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers

So, basically, what they were condemning is the assertion that Sacred Scripture was false implicit in Galileo's theories ... and the fact that his theories did not have any real proof.  So, reading the above, there was clearly no absolute ruling regarding the truth or falsehood of heliocentrism, and what was being condemned was the implicit allegation that Sacred Scripture was wrong.  And indeed the competence of the Magisterium has for its primary object matters of faith and morals, rather than natural science.  So the primary object of this condemnation was a matter of faith and morals, that Sacred Scripture might be in error, rather than the teaching of any particular scientific matter.

You could say that if Bellarmine's letter came AFTER the 1616 decree. However it was written in 1615 one year before the Pope gave his definition of formal heresy. Even if Bellarmine meant what the Galileans make him say, it became REDUNDANT one year later in 1616.

Interestingly Ladislaus the above passage is nearly always used by the Galileans to dismiss the decree as soon as they believed proof was found. They all used it, John Paul II and all. This letter was origionally written to dismiss the idea that Galileo had proof, and is in the present tense. The Heliocentrists actually write it up in this way: 'If there were EVER proof for a moving earth...' They always take it out of context to make it apply to any time in the future and not the present time Bellarmine wrote it. They never repeat Bellarmine's belief that there is no proof and that no proof will ever be found.

Finally, I have grave problems myself with this sort of theology if we can call it that conjured up by the helios, even JPII. What if we were to apply that thinking (if there were ever proof then) to any other dogmas of the Catholic faith? You could EQUALLY say that 'IF EVER THERE WAS PROOF THAT ADAM AND EVE NEVER EXISTED WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONSIDER THE DOGMA OF ORIGINAL SIN' or 'IF EVER PROOF THAT JESUS NEVER ACTUALLY DIED ON THE CROSS, WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONSIDER THAT DOGMA.'

See what I mean?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: TKGS on May 19, 2018, 01:53:14 PM
You are not the Church.  You are not a Roman official.  You are not authorized to say what V2 binds or doesn’t bind.  Your contention that V2 is binding on the faithful is a misapplication of many “high level” principles with an erroneous conclusion that is directly at odds with EVERY MAJOR V2 explanation by Roman officials. Your view is not based on facts, but incorrect logic and emotion.
Of course, if you look at what the Conciliar Church says, what the Roman officials say, what laws and docuмents the Vatican has promulgated since Vatican 2, and the teaching of all the Conciliar bishops throughout the world, you will note that it is actually your view that is based solely on wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 19, 2018, 03:53:48 PM
Paul VI

https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/docuмents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html

Using Google Translate


Quote
a) On the one hand, here are those who, on the pretext of greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically reject the teachings of the Council itself, its application and the resulting reforms, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and of the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, desired by Christ. The discredit on the authority of the Church is cast in the name of a Tradition, of which only respectfully and verbally attest; the faithful depart from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter as to their legitimate Bishops; today's authority is rejected, in the name of yesterday's. And the fact is all the more serious, since the opposition we are talking about is not only encouraged by some priests, but led by a Bishop, however always venerated by Us, Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre.

It is so painful to notice it: but how can we fail to see in such an attitude - whatever may be the intentions of these people - to put oneself outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore of the Church?

Since this is, unfortunately, the logical consequence, when it is claimed to be preferable to disobey under the pretext of keeping intact one's own faith, to work in its own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time denying effective obedience. And it is said openly! It is denied to state that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that faith would also be in danger because of the Post-Council reforms and guidelines, which one has to disobey to preserve certain traditions. Which traditions? It is this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not the Ecuмenical Council, which determines which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, venerable Brothers, this attitude stands as a judge of that divine will, which has placed Peter and His legitimate successors as Head of the Church to confirm the brothers in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (Cf. 32, Io . 21, 15 ff.), Which established him as guarantor and custodian of the deposit of the Faith.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 19, 2018, 04:32:10 PM
O'Regan had it basically right ... and you only made a fool of yourself in that exchange.

Ladislaus,

Thanks for this admission of agreement with an eminent spokesman for Conservative Catholicism who unabashedly believes and promotes the pope as his rule of faith.  Papolatry is just another form of idolatry.  There really is not a dime's worth of difference between the presuppositions and logical conclusions of Conservative Catholics and the S&Sers.
 
But there is a moral difference. I will make a prediction.  Far greater percentage of Conservative Catholics will come to the recognition of their error and turn to the immutable truth of Catholic Dogma as their rule of faith than will S&Sers.  For even now, Conservative Catholics are questioning these erroneous assumptions to rethink the problem of making the pope the rule of faith.  They are open to the consideration of necessity of grounding their faith upon the immutable revealed truthd of Catholic Dogma.  The S&Sers on the other hand have hardened into an obstinacy of spirit that willfully turns against Dogma because it condemns what they have done.

You are in a church of your own making the lacks necessary attributes of the Catholic Church, and the longer this goes on, the less you will care. 

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 19, 2018, 04:51:05 PM
Paul VI

https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/docuмents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html

Using Google Translate

trad123,

There were two serious problems with Archbishop Lefebvre that made the defense of the Catholic faith impossible and have contributed to the demise of the SSPX as a voice for Catholic tradition:  One, he did not hold Dogma as the rule of faith, and Two, he regarded all immemorial ecclesiastical traditions as matters of mere discipline.  Thus Paul VI could claim that he was opposing his version of discipline against the the new version which the Church is at liberty to bind and loose.   

If the resistance is to have any success whatsoever, it has to recognize these errors and structure opposition on the immutable truths of Catholic Dogma.  Truth is the only weapon the faithful possess against the abuse and perversion of authority. 

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: forlorn on May 19, 2018, 06:28:55 PM
trad123,

There were two serious problems with Archbishop Lefebvre that made the defense of the Catholic faith impossible and have contributed to the demise of the SSPX as a voice for Catholic tradition:  One, he did not hold Dogma as the rule of faith, and Two, he regarded all immemorial ecclesiastical traditions as matters of mere discipline.  Thus Paul VI could claim that he was opposing his version of discipline against the the new version which the Church is at liberty to bind and loose.    

If the resistance is to have any success whatsoever, it has to recognize these errors and structure opposition on the immutable truths of Catholic Dogma.  Truth is the only weapon the faithful possess against the abuse and perversion of authority.  

Drew
The Pope does have the authority to bind and loose new disciplines and rites, and Catholics cannot call anything the Church does in its masses as calls to impiety. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: trad123 on May 19, 2018, 07:16:33 PM
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/events/event.dir.html/content/vaticanevents/en/2018/5/19/concistoro-ordinariopubblico.html


Quote
At 10.00 this morning, in the Consistory Hall of the Vatican Apostolic Palace, during the celebration of Terce, the Holy Father Francis held an Ordinary Public Consistory for the Canonization of the Blesseds:

- Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini), Supreme Pontiff;
- Oscar Arnulfo Romero Galdámez, archbishop of San Salvador, martyr;
- Francesco Spinelli, diocesan priest, founder of the Institute of the Sisters Adorers of the Blessed Sacrament;
- Vincenzo Romano, diocesan priest;
- Maria Katharina Kasper, virgin, founder of the Institute of the Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ;
- Nazaria Ignacia of Saint Teresa of Jesus (née: Nazaria Ignacia March Mesa), virgin, founder of the Congregation of the Missionary Crusaders of the Church.

During the Consistory, the Pope decreed that the Blesseds be inscribed in the Book of Saints on Sunday 14 October 2018.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 20, 2018, 02:34:58 PM
I've put (a version of) this matrix out there before.  Formatting is difficult in a forum post, but I think you can get the picture.


                                                                    Vatican II Catholic        |     Vatican II Not Catholic

Magisterium Must Be Accepted                     Conservative NO                 Sedevacantists
----------
Magisterium Need Not be Accepted                  Liberal NO                             R&R

Ladislaus,  
 
Yes, we "get the picture."  You are the guy that did not know that the Magisterium is part of divine revelation and your are just trying to prove that you really do not know what you are talking about.
 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg608787/#msg608787)
« Reply #1981 on: May 13, 2018, 03:07:08 PM »
 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg610011/#msg610011)
« Reply #2107 on: May 18, 2018, 07:57:24 PM »
 
You use the word "Magisterium" equivocally again which is an error that routinely occurs in your posts.  This is just further evidence that you do not even know what the Magisterium is.  You are unable to distinguish the Magisterium grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority and the magisterium of churchmen grounded upon their grace of state.
 
One thing that everyone should take away this post of yours is that Conservative Catholics, who are buried in the errors of Neo-modernism, and S&Sers have a great deal in common.  You both deny Dogma is the rule of faith.  You both hold that the pope is the rule of faith and dogma is open to constant development never reaching its term.  Conservative Catholics would agree with your claim that anyone who takes Dogma literally is guilty of "private interpretation" and is therefore a "Protestant."
 
I have already proved, not only be reasonable a priori arguments that force necessary conclusions, but by the Magisterium grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Authority and Infallibility  in the Letter of Pope Agatho, that Dogma is the Rule of faith.  You deny this truth just like all Neo-modenists.  The end of all Neo-modernist and Modernist activity is the destruction of Dogma.
 
Your church has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, no moral compass and will never get them.  It is not now and can never be the Catholic Church.  The only difference at this point is the Conservative Catholics still have a pope as their rule of faith and you only have yourself.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 20, 2018, 03:05:01 PM
What's wrong, nay, more than wrong, heretical, is your assertion that an Ecuмenical Council can do grave harm to the faith and that the Magisterium can become this corrupt.  It's one thing to say that not everything is, strictly speaking, protected by infallibility, and quite another to say what you're saying.

Ladislaus,
 
All this is based upon your conception of the Attribute of Indefectibility.

You maintain that Indefectibility is just a negative form of Infallibility that constitutes what you like to call "Infallible Security" where the pope possesses an infallible infallibility and a fallible infallibility at the same time.
 
And since you believe that the "office" is the "form" and the person of the pope the "matter" creating one and only one substance uniting the person of the pope and the office, these "infallibilities" become the personal possession of the pope.
 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg608026/#msg608026)
« Reply #1824 on: May 07, 2018, 10:11:08 PM »
 
That is why the pope is necessarily your rule of faith.  And it is the same for Conservative Catholics with whom you hold this error in common.
 
But is Indefectibility just a negative Infallibility?  No, it is not and this has been said many time before, but once again won't hurt. 
 
The Attributes of the Church are Infallibility, Indefectibility and Authority.  They correspond to the three functions of the Church that were identified by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that is: to teach, to worship God and sanctify the faithful, and to govern.  These Attributes belong primarily and necessarily to the Church.  They are divine Attributes, and are Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution.  They belong to the pope only secondarily and accidentally.  There is a real formal, and not just logical, distinction between the pope and the office.  Therefore, there Attributes are not the personal possession of the pope.  He and he alone has the authority to engage these Attributes but they always remain primarily Attributes of the Church.
 
The Attributes have overlapping areas of operation but also they have their individual focuses of operation.  The primary focus of Indefectibility is the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful.  It is NOT a negative infallibility attending the person of the pope for his "Infallible Security."  In spite of the great apostasy since Vatican II, the true worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful has never been absent from the Church.  This is the proof of the Indefectibility of the Church.  Indefectibility is not as you believe a theological lollipop called "Infallible Security."
 
Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 21, 2018, 03:56:07 AM
Please explain how that is N.O. thinking.
Poor lad's NO thinking:-------->"When you introduce a time element, what you're essentially saying is that the [Novus Ordo] Church can defect at any given time."
 

It is NO thinking because Universality, i.e. the element of time, has always been the avowed enemy of the Novus Ordo Church - which is why to introduce a time element would destroy the NO church. Were it otherwise, the entirety of the NO structure as we know it would not exist because there is no Universality whatsoever to it. So to say what he said, is in fact absolutely true if he is referring to the NO church, but heretical or at least grave error if he is referring to Christ’s Church.

Look at it this way: without the Church's Universality, i.e. the element of time, all your papal quotes from 100s or 1000s of years ago trying to prove what the truth is and always will be, all your quotes from Church Fathers, and all thinking the least bit traditionally Catholic, are altogether useless since the only purpose they serve, are merely useless and inconsequential, historical proofs of how things used to be but are now useless – you know, NO thinking.

This is foundational, NO mentality - the elimination of the element of time to all things is wholly necessary to the NO lest it self-destruct, i.e. “defect”. It's not called "Modernism" for nothing.  

The NO’s very existence is altogether dependent upon the absolute elimination of the time element from all of its doctrines, laws and practices – this has always been the case and is nothing new to trads, the same as the element of time, i.e. "Universal", has always been present and completely saturated in all of the Church's doctrines, laws and practices. Being universal is how we know truth from error, orthodoxy from heresy. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 21, 2018, 04:14:37 PM
So you open every post by repeating this lie.  This is getting really pathetic.

As I've explained probably twenty times by now.

That the Magisterium is part of Revelation in the sense that it's revealed, concedo.

That the Magisterium is part of Revelation in the sense that it is part of God's act of revealing, nego.

My denial of the second is based on the dogma, which you admitted, that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, and the persistent papal teaching (including Vatican I), that the role of the Magisterium is to safeguard and explain the Deposit of Revelation, and not to reveal new doctrine (cf. Vatican I).

Yes Lad,

You are the guy that did not even know that the Magisterium is part of 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/msg606156/#msg606156)
« Reply #1510 on: April 27, 2018, 01:25:21 PM »

Here you are again denying that the Magisterium is part of God act of revelation.  The Magisterium is just as much a part of the act of God's revelation and it is a part of content of God's revelation.  God's act of revelation, as explained before about twenty times now, is an action.  To reveal is a transitive verb requiring a receiver.  God's act of revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle but is ongoing and will continue until the last person receives the revelation.

And who is the liar?  You initially denied that the Magisterium was part of the content of divine revelation.  This is proven by the fact that you claimed that the Magisterium was "extrinsic" to divine revelation so that it could judge the content of divine revelation.  This idiot idea you lifted from the Catholic Encyclopedia and repeated several times before you tried to shift the assertion to being extrinsic to the act of revelation.  That did not work any better than your first error.

This is just another of your grave errors you refuse to correct. Until you do, I will keep letting everyone know.  And this is just one error on a growing list that will make evident that you do not know what you are talking about.   

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 21, 2018, 04:40:23 PM
Before addressing this, I need to understand your terms.

You distinguish between Magisterium (capital M) and magisterium (lowercase).

So an Encyclical like, say, Mortalium Animos, which Magisterium do you categorize it as and why?

Ladislaus,

I have made clear to you in several posts which I can reference that I distinguish between the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Authority and Infallibility which can never err, and the magisterium, the teaching authority of churchmen grounded upon their grace of state which always has the possibility of error.

The Magisterium, can be engaged in two modes of operation: Extra-ordinary and the Ordinary & Universal.

Mortalium Animos is an example of Magisterium being engaged in its Ordinary & Universal mode of operation for at Pope Pius XI says in his encyclical, "for here there is a question of defending revealed truth."

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 21, 2018, 04:48:13 PM
This is yet another example of your general dishonesty.

So, here, you try to chartacterize this as something I made up, using the phrase "what you like to call".  I did not come up with this notion.  Msgr. Fenton explained this position and cited the theologians who also taught this ... as something that is intrinsically related to the indefectibility of the Magisterium.

Lad,

I can reference, if you like, the discussion where you defended the notion "Infallible Security."  I have not attribute this notion to you as its author but as its defender.  It is the grounds for the non-sense 'fallible infallibility' attributed to the pope.

It furthermore ignores that the primary act of the power of Indefectibility which is to preserve the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 21, 2018, 06:30:18 PM
And the thing that everyone should take away is that Liberal Novus Ordo Catholics and R&R have a great deal in common.

As for the last part, it's another lying straw-man distortion.  Because the Magisterium is the rule of faith, this does not mean that it is "open to constant development".  This is prevented by the Holy Spirit ... whom you malign with every post.

Then I guess you consider John of St. Thomas an idiot for saying precisely that the Pope is the rule of faith.  In fact, every theologian, many of whom have been cited on this thread, who teaches that the Magisterium is the rule of faith, is just a blithering idiot ... according to the great and powerful Drew, The Decider and Judge of all that is Catholic vs. all that is not Catholic.  Drew, Doctor of the Church, also denounces Bishop Guerard des Laurier as a moron who doesn't know Philosophy 101.  Give us a beak.  Your hubris knows no bounds.  But that's only inevitable when one sets himself up as the ultimate rule of faith as you do.


Lad,
 
"Lying straw-man distortion?"  The Magisterium is the necessary means by which Dogma is produced.  Dogma is the end.  The end is always primary in practical matters.  When you make the "means" the rule of faith rather than the "end" then you are exchanging being for becoming and truth never reaches its term.  This is a standard error of Neo-modernism. 
 
I have already proven that dogma is the rule of faith.  I have proven it by an appeal to reason that dogma as the rule of faith is necessarily derived from the definition of heresy.  Why this necessarily follows may be over your head but that does not change that fact that it does.
 
It is also proven by the appeal to authority from the letter of Pope Agatho to the ecuмenical council that they must accept the dogma defined by Pope Adrian without discussion as their "rule of faith."  The letter was formally accepted by the council along with the dogma defined by Pope Adrian.  It is therefore a Magisterial act that dogma is the rule of faith. 
 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg609556/#msg609556)
« Reply #2000 on: May 16, 2018, 08:13:11 PM »
 
Bishop des Laurier's thesis of sedeprivationism postulates the separation of the form and matter of the papal office that would necessarily cause a substantial change in what we know by divine and Catholic faith, that is, Dogma, will last until the end of the world with perpetual successors.  Apparently, des Laurier like you did not hold dogma as his rule of faith. 
 
Now you have no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, and no rule of faith.  You like to accuse others of heresy but you have no rule of faith by which to make any such judgment excepting your own wits.  So let's call the "Wit of Lad your rule of faith?"
 
But as I recall, you are the guy that did not know the definition of supernatural faith.  And then you postulated the division of the necessary attributes supernatural faith corrupting its definition.  So maybe you don't need a rule at all.
 
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 »

SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/secret-special-chapter-of-neo-fsspx/msg463249/#msg463249)
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2015, 01:17:43 PM »
 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600102/#msg600102)
« Reply #214 on: March 17, 2018, 02:55:17 PM »
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 21, 2018, 07:23:56 PM
:laugh1:

I guess that your proof must have escaped the notice of every Catholic theologian before you.  No doubt you'd be declared a Doctor of the Church were it not for the fact that Luther came up with the idea before you did.

Lad, 
 
"Every Catholic theologian?"  Hardly.  I have already produced quotes from several Catholic theologians that support dogma as the rule of faith.  If you like, I will repost the links.  They were not cited it the previous post because as an argument they are the least in authority.  They are in fact not an argument at all but an excuse for not giving one.  The letter of Pope Agatho is a Magisterial letter.  It rests on the authority of God, the strongest of all arguments.  You do not find this convincing because the Magisterium is not really your rule of faith either.
 
The belief that Luther held dogma as the rule of faith is so stupid that I will add it to my list of Ladislausisms.
 
Luther denied the Magisterium and therefore all Dogma.  He held Scripture alone as the remote rule of faith and the individual believer as the proximate rule of faith.  You like Luther have no pope and no magisterium and no rule of faith so you, more than me, can sympathize with this dilemma.  Luther had to rely on the Wit of Luther for his rule of faith which is not any better than the Wit of Lad.
 
You can fix this all up when you become the S&Sers first pope.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 21, 2018, 07:53:53 PM
But Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X, in which the R&R position is explicitly condemned, isn't?

The condemned errors of Martin Luther are not quite infallible for Mr. Drew; but this Letter of Pope Agatho is indeed.

Cantarella,
 
You are immune to reason and Magisterial authority.  Your will is fixed, determined in entering a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no moral compass, no rule of faith and no material or instrumental means to ever get them.  Your church is not the Catholic Church.
 
This Letter of Pope Agatho concerns dogma, the rule of faith, and is addressed to an ecuмenical council which accepted the Letter.  It is a Magisterial docuмent.  The Magisterium is only your rule of faith as a means to turn your back on Dogma. 
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 21, 2018, 08:33:49 PM
Well...I guess then that your Church has manifestly defected in Her divine mission of preserving the Sacred worship of God, given the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass which the "Holy Father" himself has publicly said for decades, along with millions and millions of Catholics around the world.

Cantarella,
 
You are immune to reason and Magisterial authority therefore any exchange with you is a waste of time.  This little trite comment of yours has been addressed repeatedly.   Do you need specific references like Ladislaus to know which of your errors have already been corrected?
 
Indefectibility is a divine Attribute of the Church given to her by Jesus Christ that constitutes primarily a power to insure that His Church will always worship God and sanctify the faithful.  The Indefectibility of the Church is proven by the fact that this has never been absent from the Church despite the heresy of conciliar popes.  Those who keep Dogma as the rule of faith will always be able to negotiate these perilous times, but many will lose their souls because they believe the Church of Christ has "defected," they will look for a church of their own making to take its place.
 
The church to which you belong is of your own making.  It is permanently defective of necessary attributes of the Catholic Church.  Your church is not the Catholic Church.  You are at a dead end where the only comfort is to see that as many as possible share your despair because, it is true, misery loves company.  
 
Drew 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 21, 2018, 09:31:14 PM
But Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X, in which the R&R position is explicitly condemned, isn't?

The condemned errors of Martin Luther are not quite infallible for Mr. Drew; but this Letter of Pope Agatho is indeed.


Cantarella,



For the benefit of others, I'll post all the links were he has replied already regarding Exsurge Domine.
 

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606791/#msg606791

 

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606824/#msg606824

 

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606998/#msg606998

 

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607063/#msg607063

 

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607156/#msg607156

 

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607419/#msg607419

 

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607495/#msg607495
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on May 22, 2018, 05:41:04 AM
Lad,  
 
"Every Catholic theologian?"  Hardly.  I have already produced quotes from several Catholic theologians that support dogma as the rule of faith.  If you like, I will repost the links. 
Falsely claiming that all theologians support his NO opinions is typically poor lad's main defense and first response, he does the same when he falsely claims that +ABL, Fr. Chazal, and whoever, all actually agree with is dogmatic doubtism. Your quotes proving the contrary do not matter to him, he simply says those quotes are all mindless babble. Same o same o.

Poor lad reminds me of another NO theologian wannabe I ran into 20 years ago, except this other wannabe had actually taken all the classes and earned his coveted masters degree in NO theology, whereas poor lad's confusion demonstrates that he apparently missed the last few semesters.      


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on May 22, 2018, 06:45:52 AM
This is the end of the Letter. It confirms that the Pope of Rome is true successor of St. Peter and takes literally the place of Blessed Peter the Apostle Himself through living generations. As such, he will never lose the Roman Catholic Faith and become a heretic and a true enemy of the Church!.

Faith cannot contradict reason. If a true successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth appointed by God, can lose his Faith and lead the Universal Church into error, then Roman Catholicism is false.

Cantarella,


This post and the previous suggest that I question the universal jurisdiction of the pope and/or that the faith of Rome could ever fail in that the pope would ever engage the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind doctrinal and/or moral error on the faithful.  This I deny.

What you are demonstrating is that the Letter of Pope Agatho to the Ecuмenical Council is a Magisterial docuмent.  That is what I am affirming.  It is a Magisterial docuмent that imposes the Dogma defined by Pope Adrian on the universal Church.  In the Letter he informs the Fathers of the Council that they must accept without debate or question the Dogma defined by Pope Adrian and that they must make this Dogma their "Rule of Faith."  The Letter was formally accepted by the Council without question and incorporated into its docuмents.  Remember, the Magisterium is the necessary means by which Dogma is produced.  Dogma is the end.  "The end is always principle in practical matters" is a proven philosophical axiom.  When you make the "means" the rule of faith rather than the "end" then you are exchanging being for becoming and truth never reaches its term.  This is a standard method used by Neo-modernists.  This is how they employ the Nietzsche goal of the "transvaluation of all values" as recently explained by Peter Kwasniewski.
https://onepeterfive.com/the-new-synthesis-of-all-heresies-on-nietzschean-catholicism/

There is nothing in all this Letter that suggests that the pope possesses a personal never-failing faith and that he therefore cannot become a heretic.  There is nothing in this that suggests that a heretical pope may not lead others into heresy without faith of Rome failing.  All that is being affirmed is that he cannot make his heresy a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith.

A quote previously posted taken from this same source defends Church and the Faith of Rome against the charge that the heresies of Popes Liberius and Honorius prove the faith of Rome has failed.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg609436/#msg609436)
« Reply #1987 on: May 16, 2018, 11:51:45 AM »

This is an interesting quote because he outlines the burden of proof those making this charge must meet.  I will post the quote again because it is the same burden of proof S&Sers must meet to prove that the Faith of Rome has failed under the conciliar popes.  This is why S&Sers are repeatedly making claims that Vatican II was infallible, the pope  has a personal never-failing faith, etc., etc.  in an effort to prove the faith of Rome has failed.  It does not work.

Quote
Before answering the accusation (that Popes Liberius and Honorius were heretics and formally taught heresy), we must once more remind our opponents that, in order to overturn our thesis (of papal infallibility), they must prove not merely that Liberius or Honorius has spoken or written what is contrary to faith, or denied it, but that he did so as Pope, teaching in matters of faith or morals, and thereby binding the Universal Church.  If they cannot prove this, they prove nothing, for the fallibility would then be only personal and private, and would no more affect the infallibility of the Pope as Universal teacher, than the denial of Peter in the Court of the High Priest injured his infallibility as Prince of the Apostles.  They must, then, first produce good, historical evidence of the fact; secondly, they must prove that it was a definition or teaching contrary to truth in matters of faith; and, thirdly, that the Pope intended, by his teaching, to bind the Universal Church to believe it.
 Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope, when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a General Council

S&Sers end up in a dead-end and can contribute nothing to the defense of the faith because in the end they deny Dogma just as much as the conciliar popes and the rest of the Neo-modernists.  They end up being scandalized in Jesus Christ Himself.  According to the Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia;


Quote
Scandal is the movable stick or trigger in a trap, that is, any obstacle or snare designed to make another stumble or fall.  Thus, Christ is figuratively said to be a rock of scandal, because the Jєωs who expected a political Messias were scandalized and stumbled at the suffering and crucified Christ, and consequently failed to obtain justification.
Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia

The life of Jesus Christ is recapitulated in His Mystical Body.  "Blessed is he who in not scandalized in me" said Jesus Christ and I will add to this, "Blessed is he who is not scandalized in His Mystical Body."


You might find rereading this earlier post useful for a better understanding of Dogma.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606642/#msg606642)
« Reply #1555 on: April 29, 2018, 09:23:24 PM »
Reply to Obscurus

Drew



Moderator Edit:
This thread is going nowhere fast. Since it has devolved into personal insults, accusations of heresy, and the discussion equivalent of "Are not!" "Are too!" "Are not!" "Are too!"
I think it's time for this thread to be put to rest. So I'm locking the thread.