Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440726 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #100 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #101 on:** March 13, 2018, 04:23:14 PM »

Quote

Unlikely.

Ok, but why is it unlikely?

drew · « **Reply #102 on:** March 13, 2018, 06:57:53 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 12, 2018, 08:28:34 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

drew · « **Reply #103 on:** March 13, 2018, 07:53:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 13, 2018, 09:55:59 AM

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

drew · « **Reply #104 on:** March 13, 2018, 08:09:00 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 13, 2018, 10:33:34 AM

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

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440726 times)

Pax Vobis

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

Pax Vobis

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

drew

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

drew

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

drew

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