Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 204759 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #195 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.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #196 on:** March 25, 2018, 04:41:23 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 24, 2018, 10:18:00 PM

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #197 on:** March 25, 2018, 04:47:45 AM »

^^^^^Well said.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #198 on:** March 25, 2018, 10:18:26 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on March 25, 2018, 08:49:20 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.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #199 on:** March 25, 2018, 01:07:27 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven on March 25, 2018, 12:20:50 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?

drew · « **Reply #200 on:** March 25, 2018, 04:54:05 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 23, 2018, 10:31:16 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

drew · « **Reply #201 on:** March 25, 2018, 05:00:22 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 24, 2018, 05:19:55 AM

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

drew · « **Reply #202 on:** March 25, 2018, 05:10:00 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 24, 2018, 01:01:36 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

drew · « **Reply #203 on:** March 25, 2018, 05:35:22 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 23, 2018, 10:05:28 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

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #204 on:** March 25, 2018, 10:33:36 PM »

Quote from: drew on March 25, 2018, 04:54:05 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

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #205 on:** March 25, 2018, 10:35:15 PM »

Quote from: drew on March 25, 2018, 05:10:00 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

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #206 on:** March 25, 2018, 10:38:38 PM »

Quote from: drew on March 25, 2018, 05:35:22 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

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #207 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #208 on:** March 26, 2018, 05:25:47 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 25, 2018, 09:06:24 PM

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 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #209 on:** March 26, 2018, 06:12:04 AM »

Quote from: drew on March 25, 2018, 05:00:22 PM

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.

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 204759 times)

Stubborn

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

Jeremiah2v8

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

Stubborn

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

Jeremiah2v8

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

Jeremiah2v8

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?

drew

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

Maria Auxiliadora

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

Maria Auxiliadora

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

Maria Auxiliadora

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

Pax Vobis

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

Stubborn

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

Stubborn

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