Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 228

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 440868 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #120 on: March 15, 2018, 02:57:05 PM »
Actually the Conciliar church is recognizable.  It appears to be a branch of the Anglican Church.
Logged

Offline Centroamerica

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #121 on: March 17, 2018, 11:56:05 AM »
Quote from: 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.
I find this comment very interesting. I've never heard anyone else put it like that.
Logged

Offline Wessex

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #122 on: March 17, 2018, 01:38:34 PM »
Quote from: 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.
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!
Logged

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #123 on: March 17, 2018, 02:55:17 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 15, 2018, 03:26:35 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 / SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« 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 / Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy  
« on: January 08, 2018, 07:54:26 PM »
 
Quote from: Ladislaus 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.

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 what. What 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
Logged

Offline Centroamerica

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #124 on: March 17, 2018, 03:45:56 PM »
Quote from: Meg on March 11, 2018, 11:35:13 AM
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!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 228
« previous next »