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

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 205556 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline King Wenceslas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 344
  • Reputation: +100/-136
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #270 on: March 28, 2018, 02:50:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Bellermine should have gotten his act together before stating this:


    Quote
    It is proved ab eventu. For to this point no [Pontiff] has been a heretic, or certainly it cannot be proven that any of them were heretics; therefore it is a sign that such a thing cannot be


    Quote
    The Form and Minister of Baptism *

    [From the responses to the decrees of the Bulgars, Nov., 866, Pope St. Nicholas the Great]

    Denzinger 335 Chap. 104. You assert that in your fatherland many have been baptized by a certain Jєω, you do not know whether Christian or pagan, and you consult us as to what should be done about them. If indeed they have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles [cf.Acts 2:38;19:5], (surely it is one and the same, as Saint Ambrose * sets forth) it is established that they should not be baptized again.

    If that is not heresy then nothing is.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #271 on: March 28, 2018, 03:15:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    When one comes to the realization that the Magisterium (extraordinary and ordinary) is in fact infallible, everything becomes more clear.
    When a Bishop gives a homily at mass, that is an act of the magisterium.  Is that infallible?  It could be; it could not be.
    When the pope gives an "off the cuff" sermon or interview, that is an act of the magisterium.  Is that infallible?  It could be, it could not be.  Depends how precise he is.

    You have no idea what you're talking about.  Distinctions must be made.  Your mentality is binary; theology is not.  


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #272 on: March 28, 2018, 03:42:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Drew, Stubborn, Pax ... I don't even recognize you as Catholics.
    Emotional overreaction. 

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #273 on: March 28, 2018, 03:51:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The homily of a Bishop and an "off the cuff" sermon or interview by the pope are acts of the Magisterium??
    If the Bishop is giving a sermon on a doctrinal matter, he is using his teaching authority and this is an act of the magisterium.  If the pope is giving an interview and he is speaking of faith/morals, yes, this is an act of the magisterium.  Depending on what they say, if it agrees with Tradition, it could be infallible or not.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #274 on: March 28, 2018, 04:04:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From this article:
    http://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium

    ...Before you write it off because it comes from the sspx, just ignore that and concentrate on the quotes, which come from people who were talking BEFORE the sspx even existed...

    The Ordinary Magisterium is ONLY infallible when it teaches "that which has always been taught".  Christ gave the Apostles the "fullness of Truth" therefore, there is nothing new to add to the Faith.  Therefore, the 1st century Christians had the full Faith, just like we do.  This is why we can point to "what has always been taught" as a litmus test for the Faith - because it never changes!

    --------

    The point of the question
    The infallible guarantee of divine assistance is not limited solely to the acts of the Solemn Magisterium; it also extends to the Ordinary Magisterium, although it does not cover and assure all the latter’s acts in the same way. (Fr. Labourdette, O.P., Revue Thomiste, 1950, p.38)
    Thus, the assent due to the Ordinary Magisterium "can range from simple respect right up to a true act of faith." (Archbishop Guerry, La Doctrine Sociale de l’Eglise, Paris, Bonne Presse, 1957, p.172). It is most important, therefore, to know precisely when the Roman pope’s Ordinary Magisterium is endowed with the charism of infallibility.

    Since the pope alone possesses the same infallibility conferred by Jesus Christ upon his Church [i.e., the pope plus the bishops in communion with him, cf. Denzinger [Dz.]1839), we must conclude that only the pope, in his Ordinary Magisterium, is infallible in the same degree and under the same conditions as the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is.
    Quote
    Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted in the Church, or attested by the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians as being a Catholic truth [which is therefore] strictly obligatory for all the faithful." ("Infaillibilite du Pape", DTC, vol. VII, col. 1705)

    This condition was recalled by Cardinal Felici in the context of Humanae Vitae:
    Quote
    On this problem we must remember that a truth may be sure and certain, and hence it may be obligatory, even without the sanction of an ex cathedra definition. So it is with the encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which the pope, the supreme pontiff of the Church, utters a truth which has been constantly taught by the Church’s Magisterium and which accords with the precepts of Revelation." (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 19, 1968, p.3)

    No one, in fact, can refuse to believe what has certainly been revealed by God. And it is not only those things that have been defined as such that have certainly been revealed by God; the latter also include whatever has been always and everywhere taught by the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium as having been revealed by God. More recently, Archbishop Bertone reminded us that the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive [emphasis in original] in virtue of the fact that it has been constantly preserved and held by Tradition.

    Such is the case with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis when it repeats the invalidity of the priestly ordination of women, which has always been held by the Church with "unanimity and stability" (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 20, 1996).
    Cardinal Siri, still speaking of Humanae Vitae in the issue of the review Renovatio to which we have referred, explains as follows:
    Quote
    The question, therefore, must be put objectively thus: given that [Humanae Vitae] is not an act of the Infallible Magisterium and that it therefore does not of itself provide the guarantee of ‘irreformability’ and certitude, would not its substance be nonetheless guaranteed by the Ordinary Magisterium under the conditions under which the Ordinary Magisterium is itself known to be infallible?"

    After giving a summary of the Church’s continuous tradition on contraception, from the Didache to the encyclical Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Siri concludes:
    Quote
    This encyclical recapitulated the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today. This means that we can say that the conditions for the Ordinary irreformable [i.e., infallible—Ed.] Magisterium were met. The period of widespread turbulence is a very recent fact and has nothing to do with the serene possession [of the Magisterium—Ed.] over many centuries." (Renovatio, op.cit.)

    It is an error, therefore, to extend infallibility unconditionally to the whole of the Ordinary Magisterium of the pope, whether he is speaking urbi et orbi or just addressing pilgrims. It is true that the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium is not enough for the Church; the Extraordinary Magisterium is a rare event, whereas "faith needs infallibility and it needs it every day," as Cardinal Siri himself said (Renovatio, op.cit.). But Cardinal Siri is too good a theologian to forget that even the pope’s infallibility has conditions attached to it. If the Ordinary Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional (cf. Salaverri, loc. cit.). If it breaks with Tradition, the Ordinary Magisterium cannot claim any infallibility. Here we see very clearly the very special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, to which we must devote some attention.

    The special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium
    As we have seen, Cardinal Siri observes that the Humanae Vitae, even if it is not an act of the ex cathedra Magisterium, would still furnish the guarantee of infallibility, not "of itself," but insofar as it recapitulates "the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today" (Renovatio, op. cit.). In fact, in contrast to the Extraordinary Magisterium or the Solemn Judgment, the Ordinary Magisterium does not consist in an isolated proposition, pronouncing irrevocably on the Faith and containing its own guarantees of truth, but in a collection of acts which can concur in communicating a teaching.
    Quote
    This is the normal procedure by which Tradition, in the fullest sense of that term, is handed down;..." (Pope or Church?, op. cit. p.10)


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #275 on: March 28, 2018, 05:33:40 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • I'm sorry but the fact that you agree with Stubborn's inane and incoherent ramblings is enough to completely discredit you in my mind.

    His idiotic comments are all predicated on the fact that he doesn't understand that this error does not actually come from the Magisterium.  He repeatedly assumes that the V2 Popes are legitimate as a premise for proving that the V2 Popes are legitimate.  That's the ultimate begging of the question.
    The truth is always idiotic and incoherent to those without faith, to liars and to workers of iniquity. Again, nothing complicated about it.

    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #276 on: March 28, 2018, 05:40:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    For to what other See was it ever said I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy Faith do not fail? so say the Fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing, but that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protected them therein for conformation of their Brethren.

    I think it does not come any clearer than this. This is a dogmatic decree from Vatican I Council which denial constitutes heresy. This teaching is infallible.

    And yet, rejecting your own rule of faith, you deny it. So does poor, confused Ladislaus.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #277 on: March 28, 2018, 07:00:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I would just like to see a teaching of the Magisterium that teaches that it is fallible in any form/type/mode whatsoever. I have never seen such a teaching and until you produce one, no one will consider your arguments legit.

    Ask and ye shall receive...

    The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC—Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions:
    1.   there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699);
    2.   there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705);
    3.   there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

    Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:
    1.   Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
    2.   Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
    3.   Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff).


    Offline King Wenceslas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 344
    • Reputation: +100/-136
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #278 on: March 28, 2018, 07:22:12 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 3.   there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

    Amoris Laetitia

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #279 on: March 28, 2018, 07:31:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.

    First off, how are you arguing that the pope's faith cannot fail, yet this doesn't apply to his personal faith as well?  Does the pope have 2 faiths?  1 personal and 1 of his office?  Does he have 2 souls?  Can he get to heaven personally, but go to hell as a pope?  Can he go to hell personally, but go to heaven as pope?

    When did Pope Paul VI lose his personal faith?  We need a concrete example, with evidence, if you're going to make this accusation.  You can't use circular reasoning and say "Well, V2 is contrary to tradition, therefore I can't accept it, therefore a true pope couldn't have decreed it, therefore he's not pope."  That's so circular that it an intro high school logic class would laugh you out of the room.

    When did JP2 lose his?  Benedict and Francis too?

    My point is, the question of the pope is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the question of V2.  You want to mingle it all together, but that's just because you are treating theology like a sports team and you want people to be on "your side".  As I said earlier, this is either-or logic.  These types of theological questions have MULTIPLE layers, therefore there are MULTIPLE explanations and MULTIPLE viewpoints.  How many different theological opinions were there at the time of St Bellarmine?...multiple.  And there are multiple viewpoints on V2.  So what's multiple x multiple?  More than either-or.

    Quote
    This is a dogmatic decree from Vatican I Council which denial constitutes heresy. This teaching is infallible.
    The Point #6 which you quoted from Vatican 1 is not part of the dogmatic decree.  Point #6 is not infallible.  The below is the only infallible part:

    Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

    Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #280 on: March 28, 2018, 07:32:19 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    3.   there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

    Amoris Laetitia
    Exactly.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #281 on: March 28, 2018, 08:53:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Really Pax? Now you are going to compartmentalize Vatican I Council just like you do with Vatican II? What is the end of such madness? What about the other previous 19 Ecuмenical Councils? Must Catholics scrutinize the narrative of every single dogmatic docuмent, just in case there has been a grammatical error or linguistic differences?
    You're missing the point.  The faith is known by simple truths and simple sentences that a child can memorize by way of the catechism.  So, when the pope defines a doctrine solemnly, he does so in a simple sentence, because truth is simple, as is God.  The ARGUMENTS and REASONS why the pope issued the doctrine ARE NOT INFALLIBLE because they are not doctrine.  It really doesn't matter WHY the pope reaffirmed the dogma of the assumption, or WHAT he hopes will be accomplished through his action.  This isn't infallible because it's not directly related to faith and morals.  All that matters is the dogma.

    From the Baltimore Catechism.  Very succinct definition of infallibility, just like the doctrine was defined.

    Q. 530. When does the Church teach infallibly?
    A. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.
    Q. 531. What is necessary that the Pope may speak infallibly or ex-cathedra?
    A. That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra:
       1. He must speak on a subject of faith or morals;
       2. He must speak as the Vicar of Christ and to the whole Church;
       3. He must indicate by certain words, such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak infallibly.

    Q. 532. Is the Pope infallible in everything he says and does?
    A. The Pope is not infallible in everything he says and does, because the Holy Ghost was not promised to make him infallible in everything, but only in matters of faith and morals for the whole Church. Nevertheless, the Pope's opinion on any subject deserves our greatest respect on account of his learning, experience and dignity.


    Also, here are some quotes on infallibility.  I've posted these before...



    Quote
    All of the below quotes are from a lengthy article which you can find here:  http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/

    These conditions of course contract the range of his infallibility most materially. Hence Billuart speaking of the Pope says,

    “Neither in conversation, nor in discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope infallible,” t. ii. p. 110. And for this simple reason, because on these various occasions of speaking his mind, he is not in the chair of the universal doctor.

    4. Nor is this all; the greater part of Billuart’s negatives refer to the Pope’s utterances when he is out of the Cathedra Petri, but even, when he is in it, his words do not necessarily proceed from his infallibility. He has no wider prerogative than a Council, and of a Council Perrone says,

    “Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492.

    Thus, if a Council has condemned a work of Origen or Theodoret, it did not in so condemning go beyond the work itself; it did not touch the persons of either. Since this holds of a Council, it also holds in the case of the Pope; therefore, supposing a Pope has quoted the so called works of the Areopagite as if really genuine, there is no call on us to believe him; nor again, if he condemned Galileo’s Copernicanism, unless the earth’s immobility has a “necessary connexion with some dogmatic truth,” which the present bearing of the Holy See towards that philosophy virtually denies.


    5. Nor is a Council infallible, even in the prefaces and introductions to its definitions. There are theologians of name, as Tournely and Amort, who contend that even those most instructive capitula passed in the Tridentine Council, from which the Canons with anathemas are drawn up, are not portions of the Church’s infallible teaching; and the parallel introductions prefixed to the Vatican anathemas have an authority not greater nor less than that of those capitula.

    7. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his Cathedra, of giving that very answer truly. “Nothing,” says Perrone, “but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons,”& c.—ibid.

    To sum up, let's re-read the Baltimore Catechism, which is direct, clear and childlike and see what it says about Indefectibility, which many of you have a garbled understanding of.  

    Q. 543. What do you mean by the indefectibility of the Church?
    A. By the indefectibility of the Church I mean that the Church, as Christ founded it, will last till the end of time.
    Q. 544. What is the difference between the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church?
    A. When we say the Church is infallible we mean that it can never teach error while it lasts; but when we say the Church is indefectible, we mean that it will last forever and be infallible forever; that it will always remain as Our Lord founded it and never change the doctrines He taught.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #282 on: March 28, 2018, 10:00:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Look, I know you are trying really hard but the reality is that Ecunemical Councils are infallible.
    They have the POTENTIAL to be infallible.  V2 was the first to not have been.  All other were infallible, in specific parts of the canons only.


    Quote
    There is absolutely nothing in Catholic theology that supports the notion that General Councils can promulgate heresy.
    I agree that history/theology does not support the idea that a council could err.  However, it never says it can't happen, either.  How many theologians argued that the pope could never become a heretic?  Yet here we are.  

    I believe V2 was a fallible council, which is to say it erred.  The question is not: Can a council promulgate heresy?  That's too general.  The question is: Can a council change doctrine which would bind catholics to believe in error?  No it cannot and V2 did not.  

    V2 proposed contradictions with truth and error mixed together but it did not OFFICIALLY teach these errors, or the contradictions, because there is no penalty of sin if we disregard such novelties.  V2 was not a fully authoritative council, as were the previous ecuмenical councils.  If it were, then the magisterium would've drawn a line in the sand and said "you must accept V2 or else you're a heretic."  The Church has yet to say this, or anything close to it.  All She has said is that we must give "religious (conditional) assent" to its docuмents.  There are NO OTHER ecuмencial councils which ONLY require CONDITIONAL assent.  None.  So if you won't admit that V2 is different than all other ecuмenical councils you have no integrity.

    Quote
    If an Ecuмenical Council has taught heresy to the Universal Church, then the Church has defected.
    A teaching of the Church implies that we MUST accept it under pain of sin, with certainty of faith, in order to be saved.  All other ecuмenical councils required this level of belief.  V2 did not (and still does not).  Therefore, V2 did not "teach" in the same manner, nor on the same level, as all other ecuмenical councils.  Again, if you won't admit this difference, you are of bad will and you have an agenda.


    Quote
    when we say the Church is indefectible, we mean that it will last forever and be infallible forever; that it will always remain as Our Lord founded it and never change the doctrines He taught.
    This means that the Church, in Her OFFICIAL teachings, will never change church doctrine and will forever remain the same, until the end of time.  V2 did not change church doctrine, (though it proposed (but did not require) "modern" ways of "re-understanding" certain doctrines).  The reason V2 did not change doctrine is because NO ONE IS FORCED TO ACCEPT THEIR NEW IDEAS.  If we are not force to accept it, under pain of sin, with certainty of faith, as a matter of salvation, then it's not part of the Faith.  It's as simple as that.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #283 on: March 28, 2018, 10:19:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Saying V2 is the same as all the other ecuмenical councils is like saying a corvette with a VW engine is the same as all other corvettes.  You can't judge a council by the body-style and who was there , nor can you judge it by the way it drives/operates, you have to look at the engine and the nuts-and-bolts of the conciliar docuмents.  Once you open up the hood and start poking around, you'll see it's not a real corvette, it's just an imitation, it's a ruse put on by freemasons who had no intention of changing church doctrine (and they didn't).   

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #284 on: March 28, 2018, 10:46:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • This Ecuмenical Council was the first to invite non-Catholic "observers" to participate in its proceedings, who took an active part in the proceedings behind the scenes as is well pointed out by Michael Davies in his work on " Pope John's Council". The very presence of these non Catholic observers must have had an inhibiting effect on the Council Fathers. 

    It was the first Ecuмenical Council to be declared "pastoral" rather than "dogmatic" if other councils, did have pastoral propositions, they were nevertheless dogmatic Councils. 

    It was the first Ecuмenical council that neither delimited Catholic doctrine from contemporary errors, nor issued disciplinary canons. When requested by hundreds of Council Fathers for the condemnation of Communism - certainly the principal error of the time, they were sidetracked by those in control - in clear violation of the Council's own rules of order - as reported by Father Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and others.


    Bishop Butler of England publicly stated that Vatican II was in no way infallible: 
    “Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecuмenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which is in itself infallible.” (The Tablet 26/11/1967)


    The same was affirmed by Bishop Rudolf Graber who wrote in his book:
    “Since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council.” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, 1974)


    The difference between doctrinal and pastoral teachings has great implications at Ecuмenical Councils. This is because the Church has never taught that all Church Councils are in and of themselves infallible. St. Robert Bellarmine, points out that, "Only by the words of the general Council do we know whether the fathers of that council intended to engage their prerogative infallibility" [17]



    What is more, is that Fr. Vincent McNabb O.P, rightly pointy out that "If there have been antipopes still more have there been anti-councils. If papal actions must be distinguished into official, semi-official, and personal, equally so must the acts of councils" - Infallibility (London, 1927), Sheed and Ward, Pg. 78.

    In the case of Vatican II it would be highly imprudent to give our assent without departing from the faith to a great number of its works. Archbishop Felici, the General Secretary of Vatican II did not hesitate to state that Catholics must "make reservations" on those declarations from the Council "which have a novel character" 

    Hence we can clearly comprehend why "these doctrines (of the Second Vatican Council) are not even part of the Church's authentic (i.e., ordinary, non-universal) teaching, because the bishops expressed no intention to hand down the Deposit of the Faith; on the contrary, their spokesmen (e.g., Paul VI) expressed their intention to come to terms with the modern world and its values, long condemned by true Catholic churchmen as being intrinsically un-Catholic. Therefore, the docuмents of Vatican II have only a Conciliar authority, the authority of that Council, but no Catholic authority at all, and no Catholic need take seriously anything Vatican II said, unless it was already Church doctrine beforehand."
    --Fr. Pierre Marie, editor of the French Traditional Dominicans' quarterly, Le Sel de la Terre

    "Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions. The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church's Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior... Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question"
    Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de l'Èglise, 1935, pp.153 -154, Cf. DTC "Église" in, vol.IV, col.2209.

    Pope Pius II already condemned Vatican II some 500 years before hand in his decree Exerabilis [27] which condemned anyone who would presume to call a council to alter any Catholic dogmatic teaching.

    Pope Clement XIII stipulated in his decree, Dominico Agro, of two centuries ago that none of the faithful should have "extraordinary opinions proposed to them, not even from Catholic doctors; instead, they should listen to those opinions which have the most certain criteria of Catholic truth: universality, antiquity, and unanimity."


    http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm