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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 228

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 443258 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #145 on: March 20, 2018, 09:34:40 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2018, 01:24:59 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!
Logged

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #146 on: March 20, 2018, 10:11:04 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2018, 08:26:09 AM
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}. Once the Holy Spirit, speaking through the supreme magisterium{2} of the Church, defines a doctrine as de fide{3} the dogma in question remains, both in se{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} Ecclesia docens -- i.e., 'the teaching Church.'
{2} Magisterium = 'teaching authority.'
{3} De fide = 'what is of faith.'
{4} 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
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #147 on: March 21, 2018, 08:52:41 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 21, 2018, 08:35:49 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.
Logged

Offline King Wenceslas

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #148 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.
Logged

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #149 on: March 21, 2018, 08:44:44 PM »
Quote from: Cantarella on March 21, 2018, 01:19:38 AM
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
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 228
« previous next »