Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 204853 times)

cathman7 · « **Reply #165 on:** March 22, 2018, 06:47:33 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 22, 2018, 06:38:08 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.

cathman7 · « **Reply #166 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?

cathman7 · « **Reply #167 on:** March 22, 2018, 07:21:58 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 22, 2018, 07:09:55 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.

cathman7 · « **Reply #168 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.

drew · « **Reply #169 on:** March 22, 2018, 08:09:22 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 22, 2018, 06:38:08 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

cathman7 · « **Reply #170 on:** March 22, 2018, 08:14:44 PM »

Quote from: drew on March 22, 2018, 08:09:22 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"

Stubborn · « **Reply #171 on:** March 22, 2018, 08:19:28 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 22, 2018, 06:38:08 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, #25, especially the second paragraph - you are almost repeating LG word for word.

cathman7 · « **Reply #172 on:** March 22, 2018, 08:32:54 PM »

From Fr. Gleize (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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #173 on:** March 23, 2018, 04:38:17 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 23, 2018, 01:50:19 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.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #174 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.

drew · « **Reply #175 on:** March 23, 2018, 02:13:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 23, 2018, 08:48:21 AM

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

drew · « **Reply #176 on:** March 23, 2018, 02:57:09 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 22, 2018, 11:47:40 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

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #177 on:** March 23, 2018, 03:45:13 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 23, 2018, 02:38:05 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.

cathman7 · « **Reply #178 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.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #179 on:** March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 23, 2018, 11:19:07 AM

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?
« 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?