Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 204469 times)

drew · « **Reply #285 on:** March 29, 2018, 12:02:54 AM »

Quote from: drew on March 27, 2018, 07:12:01 PM

Amazing, you make the allegation of lying and produce no evidence other than your arguments (for what they are worth) have not convinced me? You think everyone reading these posts are fools? When I call you a liar, I produce a specific allegation. The charge is based upon evidence so that you can address the specific charge. Liars always have problems with their memory so let me refresh yours.

To "prove" your claim that the "magisterium is the rule of faith," you pasted the article from the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia that argued that the rule of faith must be "extrinsic" to the faith.
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #94 on: January 03, 2018, 09:27:31 PM »

From this you argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to the faith, and that it is not part of divine revelation. We had several exchanges on this question to which you replied:

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #358 on: March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM »

After Cantarella posted a dogmatic teaching that the magisterium is from divine revelation, she was asked whether she believed the dogma or you.

The reply did not come from Cantarella but from you. And now we move on to your lying efforts to "prove" that you never argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to divine revelation.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #363 on: March 23, 2018, 08:23:17 PM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM

"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?"

And the equivocations keeps on flowing. You are a liar.

But your claim that the magisterium is not part of divine revelation is just one of many stupid things that you have posted. You are a phony pretending a competency that you do not possess.

Several years ago you denied that supernatural faith was believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.

SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2015, 08:08:35 AM »

Then you demonstrated that you in fact did not know the definition of supernatural faith when you proposed driving a wedge between these two necessary attributes and thereby, dissolving the definition.
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #245 on: January 08, 2018, 11:25:03 AM »

So in this thread we have you arguing the magisterium is the rule of faith when you clearly do not know what the faith is or what the magisterium is. No wonder you do not know what the rule of faith is!

But you plod on tracking dirt where ever you go. Sedeprivationism presupposes the dissolution of the form and matter of the papal office and you are so ignorant that you do not even know that this presupposition necessarily produces a substantial change destroying the office!

You possess some knowledge but without wisdom or understanding. The habit of the first principles is wholly lacking with you. And what makes everything so destructive, you have no moral sense and your too immature to take responsibility for what you post or the damage you may do.

Drew

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #291 on: March 20, 2018, 10:11:04 PM »

Just an additional post where Ladislaus claimed that the Magisterium was NOT part of God's revelation. It deserves to be added to the others already referenced in the post above:

Quote

"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."
Ladislaus

He actually did not retracted this error, he just claimed he never said it. This is an incredible error the implications of which would overturn the entire Magisterium. The point of bringing this to everyone's attention is for several reasons:

1) Ladislaus denied having said this,
2) this displays a remarkable ignorance of fundamental first principles of the Catholic faith,
3) Ladislaus claims that the magisterium is his rule of faith and did not even know that it is part of revelation that has been dogmatically defined,
4) he has accused others of being Protestants for holding dogma as the rule of faith while he held this fundamental Protestant doctrine that the magisterium is not part of divine revelation.
5) Supernatural Faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God the revealer. This is another example of dividing the Revelation of God from the Authority of God which in the end corrupts the very definition of supernatural faith.

This matter demonstrated an ignorance of the Magisterium and an ignorance of what supernatural faith actually is from a person who has posted repeatedly on this thread posing as an expert on these two questions.

Drew

Stubborn · « **Reply #286 on:** March 29, 2018, 06:27:19 AM »

It seems obvious that in gaining sedeism, Lad cannot not see his own great bitterness and lack of charity, to say nothing of the spiritual disorder that he once saw.

Quote

Ladislaus:

"I myself had once been a Sedevacantist. Only in retrospect can I honestly see the great bitterness and lack of charity that this led to on my part. I have found nothing but spiritual disorder – to one extent or another – in all the Sedevacantists I have ever met (myself included and foremost among them). It would be best to leave out the numerous downfalls – in scandalous fashion – of bitter Sedevacantists."

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #287 on:** March 29, 2018, 08:30:48 AM »

Quote

Cantarella, there's no need to keep debating these heretics.

I'm coming to the same conclusion about you two. Both of you continue to post your personal interpretation of general V1 excerpts. How about you post some good research? How about you post some FACTS? The closest thing you have to supporting your view is 1-2 Fenton quotes about a weird, modernist view that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility (which is a contradiction), which leads to the false idea that the pope can never make a mistake and is an oracle.

The key problem with this view is that indefectibility and infallibility are intertwined, as the Baltimore Catechism clearly shows. Indefectibility means that the Church will last til the end of time and Her doctrines will be preserved pure for the duration. It does NOT mean that a non-doctrine will be preserved from error, as Fenton wrongly theorizes. A fallible magisterial teaching (i.e. V2) is not doctrine, therefore it's not protected from error, therefore indefectibility (just like infallibility) aren't engaged! You want to put ALL magisterial acts under the protection of the indefectibility umbrella - No! Only infallible doctrine, only those teachings which have a 'certainty of faith', which are required to be believed, are protected.

If you want to post some other quotes to support this modernist ideal, I'm all ears. I'm open to the fact I could be wrong or misunderstanding.

Meanwhile I'm posting quote after quote from experts, all of whom disagree with Fenton, 1) who talk about a fallible magisterium, 2) who explain why only canons are infallible and not 90% of the rest of the docuмent and 3) which is why V2 is not infallible and therefore can err, because the fallible magisterium is NOT part of the teaching church authority. We owe it religious CONDITIONAL assent but we do not owe it blind faith, which is what is DEMANDED by all other ecuмenical councils. This fact, that V2 is different in teaching authority and intent from all other ecuмenical councils, you refuse to admit, which shows your lack of integrity.

I pray for you both to be less attached to your views and more open to possible truth. Let the facts lead where they may.

Stubborn · « **Reply #288 on:** March 29, 2018, 09:03:11 AM »

If you believe that all Councils are infallible, then V2 was infallible.

If you say you believe all Councils are infallible, but V2 was not, then you do not believe all Councils are infallible.
If you say it is dogma that all councils are infallible but V2 was not, then you have no faith in that dogma.

All they are doing is creating an argument based on a NO doctrine (the "totality doctrine") in an attempt to justify their sedeism. It is an an entirely iniquitous argument whose ultimate accomplishment is the condemnation of what they themselves say they believe - but really do not.

All this iniquity is due to their attempt to justify their sedewhateverism, that's what it's all about.

Meg · « **Reply #289 on:** March 29, 2018, 10:03:17 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 29, 2018, 09:37:51 AM

This is a SSPX priest. That someone would think that an ecuмenical Council whose decrees have been approved by a Pope is heretical should tell us a priori that such a person cannot do good theology. The SSPX also exercises poor theology in others matters; but that is another topic. That is why I had asked for a non-SSPX resource.

Anyway, this author is wrong and here is proof. He says: "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".

In the scriptural annotations for the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15, which recounts the First Council of Jerusalem, is taught very explicitly that a General Council represents the whole Church, and therefore cannot err. Here is the most relevant parts from the textual annotation:

The Holy Ghost is the assistant of all lawful Councils, to the world's end, and that by Christ's promise.

At Vatican ll, there was never any intention of doing what the Church had always done in regard to previous Councils. There was no condemnation of error or heresies or schisms or the like. Do you understand why that's important?

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #290 on:** March 29, 2018, 10:26:23 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 29, 2018, 09:48:19 AM

I've pointed out this insanely idiotic "begging the question" logic about 100 times to you already. What we're saying is that V2 was NOT an legitimate Ecuмenical Council and therefore not infallible. That's the very POINT of sedevacantism/sedeplenism.

You've never offered a definition of the indefectible and errorlessly teaching "Magisterium." You avoid my posts bringing up the apparent contradiction of how a Magisterium which is, to quote the popes you quoted, "unable to be mistaken, "without danger of error," and which "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching," could in fact actually teach the erroneous doctrine of BoD in a universal catechism approved by the pope and drafted at the request of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent.

Is your indefectible Magisterium limited to ecuмenical councils and infallible, solemn papal utterances like the bull of Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus? If not, where else does it reach?

We do need to know this when confronted with a teaching of the Magisterium, don't we? It would help us immensely in dealing with an issue like, e.g. "BoD" . . . wouldn't you say? The popes and bishops are teaching all the time, writing encyclicals, issuing catechisms, etc. And apparently Our Lord's design - according to you - includes a usurpation by men masquerading as the Magisterium, issuing these teachings in abundance.

And I say, "what do we believe, Ladislaus? Where is the indefectible Magisterium?"

And you say, "these guys aren't it, they're masqueraders." And I say, "on what basis do you say this?" And you say . . . ?

You refer to what in proving your point? Past Magisterial statements? How do you judge the "masqueraders" without stepping away from your "rule of faith" to some other rule and becoming the "heretic" that you say Drew, Stubborn etc. are or may be?

I could tell you to go ask John Henry and he'll tell you what you need to know without any chance of being wrong, but if you don't know who John Henry is and couldn't identify him if you saw him . . . what the hell good is it?

Are you the CI Court Jester? This is very amusing.

And as to your blathering about Drew and Stubborn going against "all the Catholic theologians," I'm still waiting for the Catholic theologian that agrees with you that "the Catechism of Trent didn't teach BoD" - the only weak response I got from your "BoD is error" and "my rule of faith is the errorless Magisterium" contradiction.

It's a wonder anyone around here takes you seriously.

Meg · « **Reply #291 on:** March 29, 2018, 10:39:39 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 29, 2018, 10:01:01 AM

If Vatican II was "different" as we all seem to agree, must be because a true Pope did not promulgated it. The only difference that could be defended from a theological point of view in saying that Vatican II was not a true Ecuмenical Council of the Church, is that the authority which promulgated it is illegitimate, basically that Paul VI was an impostor, so there was not a Papal approbation, which is what makes the Councils infallible. It is either that; or accepting that Vatican II did not teach heresy; and hat therefore, we ought to be applying the "Hermeneutic of continuity".

The resolutions of a General Council are infallible. Part of the long scriptural annotations following the mentioned chapter of Acts of the Apostle from my Rheims Bible dated 1582 reads as follows:

But don't you take the view of Des Lauriers, in that the conciliar popes are popes and yet not popes at the same time?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #292 on:** March 29, 2018, 10:54:14 AM »

Quote

That someone would think that an ecuмenical Council whose decrees have been approved by a Pope is heretical should tell us a priori that such a person cannot do good theology

First of all, V2's "decrees" do not carry the same weight as ALL PREVIOUS EcuмENICAL COUNCILS. Apples vs oranges comparison. ALL previous ecuмenical councils REQUIRED, under PAIN OF SIN, with CERTAINTY OF FAITH, as a MATTER OF SALVATION, that their infallible canons had to be believed. V2 DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SUCH BELIEF. Therefore, your comparison is WRONG. You are the one with faulty theology.

Quote

Do you know what distinguished the anti-Councils? precisely the lack of PAPAL APPROBATION.

This is a good point and I agree. The quote was an interesting one, but we'll throw it out as its irrelevant. My bad.

Quote

What we're saying is that V2 was NOT an legitimate Ecuмenical Council and therefore not infallible.

Agree. But it has nothing to do with sedevacantism. It wasn't infallible because 1) it didn't follow V1's infallibility requirements and 2) it never intended to be infallible.

Quote

The resolutions of a General Council are infallible.

Of course they are. But V2 HAD NO RESOLUTIONS/CANONS. A teaching of a council, whereby the Church issues a statement, with an anathema, IS REQUIRED TO BE BELIEVED OR WE GO TO HELL. V2 had no such statements/resolutions/canons. Therefore, it's not infallible.

Quote

If Vatican II was "different" as we all seem to agree, must be because a true Pope did not promulgated it.

THANK YOU for admitting that V2 was not like ANY OTHER ecuмenical council in church history. But it has nothing to do with the status of the pope! It has to do with the language used (or lack of it), the intention of the council and the lack of MORAL WEIGHT of its docuмents, which do not bind anyone to believe its drivel.

Stubborn · « **Reply #293 on:** March 29, 2018, 11:27:30 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 29, 2018, 10:08:07 AM

Well, then be consistent, Stubborn. Your rule of Faith is "dogma", then have Faith in the infallible dogma that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Holy Father. If you recognize Pope Francis as such, then there is no other option for you but attending Mass next Sunday in your local FSSP, as unpleasant as may sound.

The dogma never states we must submit to him at all, it clearly state: "We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Since dogma, particularly this one, is no longer your rule of faith, you likely believe, or say you believe, that this no longer applies to you. As such, it is apparent that you are convinced that you are infallibly safe to claim the pope is no pope at all and entirely disregard this dogma in favor of your new found rule of faith, this magisterium. The thing is, this goes against the rule of faith you say you believe in since your magisterium is most assuredly not sede and condemns as schismatic those who are.

Your perplexities arise Cantarella because there is the consistent confusion you guys are in, between our obligation to remain faithful to truth / doctrine, and the requirement of authority, i.e. being subject to popes - popes who are either knowingly or unknowingly hell bent on destruction of souls and destroying the Church. In His great wisdom, God surely must have worded the dogma this way to end all confusion in the matter, as He most certainly knew this confusion would arise and be the ruin of many.

Rest assured that there is no doctrine that teaches we are to obey evil wishes, teachings, or commands of the pope alone, or the pope in unison with the bishops.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #294 on:** March 29, 2018, 11:37:12 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 29, 2018, 11:32:10 AM

Moron. She holds this dogma as an object of her faith based on (and motivated by) the rule that it has been defined by the Church. Idiot doesn't even know what "rule of faith" means and he's spouting nonsense as if he's some kind of theological authority.

And you are?

Did you flank seminary?

Stubborn · « **Reply #295 on:** March 29, 2018, 11:47:11 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 29, 2018, 11:32:10 AM

Moron. She holds this dogma as an object of her faith based on (and motivated by) the rule that it has been defined by the Church. Idiot doesn't even know what "rule of faith" means and he's spouting nonsense as if he's some kind of theological authority.

No, I am merely saying that which is the most basic and fundamental of truths of the Catholic faith, which is the authority.
I leave theological gymnastics out of it, that's your department. Well, that and insults.

Meg · « **Reply #296 on:** March 29, 2018, 12:05:12 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on March 29, 2018, 11:47:04 AM

Of course he is. R&R twists teachings of the Church to suit their narrative of the situation, and have been for a long time.

Yes, this sums it up nicely.

Well, it will be up to all of the adherents of the various versions of sedeism to set everyone straight, right?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #297 on:** March 29, 2018, 12:29:22 PM »

Quote

He's now trying to liken the teaching of an Ecuмenical Council to a random bishop giving a Sunday sermon or the Pope giving a radio interview.

Nope, nice try. You refuse to admit that an infallible statement IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION. V2 is not required, because it contradicts previously infallible/required statements, therefore it's anathema.

Meg · « **Reply #298 on:** March 29, 2018, 12:32:45 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on March 29, 2018, 12:29:57 PM

The Shepherd has been struck and the sheep are scattered...we all have to do our best in this situation, Meg. I believe most of us are trying to do our best to make sense out of everything.

I just happen to believe the most logical position is the sede vacante position and that's why I'll keep debating and arguing about it.

Okay, but the thing is, the Rainbow Coalition of Sedevacantists can't even agree among themselves as to what the truth of the situation really is. And yet they (you) condemn the stance of recognizing the pope, but resisting his errors.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #299 on:** March 29, 2018, 12:33:27 PM »

Quote

But these R&R Trad Catholics are in no way different, theologically speaking, from the Old Catholics who arose in the aftermath of Vatican I.

There you go again, making rash generalizations, like the liberal media, and you broad-brush everyone who disagrees with you as "R&R", which you've falsely defined as a narrow and specific viewpoint, when in reality, the term can include multiple mindsets. You fail to distinguish either through malice, laziness or lack of education.