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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 76

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 204763 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 13823
  • Reputation: +5568/-865
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #300 on: March 29, 2018, 12:40:38 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 29, 2018, 12:26:05 PM
    If you have no acuмen for theology, then you need to stop drawing absurd theological conclusions (out of ignorance) and then falsely attributing your nonsensical conclusions to others.  You were claiming that Cantarella no longer believed in dogma because her rule of faith isn't dogma.
    What you call absurd "theological conclusions (out of ignorance)" are principles simple, basic and fundamental to the Catholic faith.
    Logged
    "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: 10304
    • Reputation: +6214/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #301 on: March 29, 2018, 12:45:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    So according to Pax Vobis' logic, the Nicene Creed emerging from the Council of Nicea (Ecunemical I) must be a fallible teaching subject to error because it does not happen to be enclosed in a "Canon".
    Trick question.  The Nicean creed, as we know it today, was formulated at Nicea, but revised at the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon.
    Logged

    Offline Jeremiah2v8

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 51
    • Reputation: +44/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #302 on: March 29, 2018, 12:47:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Bellator Dei on March 29, 2018, 11:51:35 AM
    Right??  According to Pax, we can't know for sure, so we have to pit Council against Council, and Pope against Pope...this is lunacy and at a minimum, proximate to heresy.  

    No "pitting" is necessary in stable times. It is only necessary when heresies raise their head, like the Arian and the mixed bag of heresies we see now.  

    The Holy Father and the bishops are believed to be true; that is the default position. Hitherto (prior to V2) that has served well, for the most part. 

    If someone is on this forum I take it as the default position that they all are serious about the most important thing on earth, the Catholic faith. Most of us study it, practice it and devote our inner being to it. With the assistance of the Holy Ghost and divine revelation as handed down to us through the Church, we have a sensus Catholicus. 

    Sometimes the default position, the assumption of true teaching and assent, gets disturbed; bells go off. This happened with that gentleman who objected at Mass to hearing the preaching of the Arian heresy.

    Here's the point: what triggers the bells, and how does Ladislaus, Stubborn, Drew, Bellator Dei, Cantarella, know they've just heard heresy? How do they know this with a false, "masquerading magisterium" at the very top?

    They have an infallible, true guide: the Church's teachings with the protection of the Holy Ghost, committed to writing in its dogma. 

    This is true for Ladislaus, Stubborn, etc. 

    You can dance around in these silly arguments about "rule of faith," etc. Even those who reject Laddie's version of the "rule of faith" give deference, respect and assent to the lawful authority as the default position. They act with the Catholic assumption, the Catholic default position . . . so nix this "Protestant" accusation. 

    Ladislaus tosses his "rule of faith" to determine that the current hierarchy is full of masqueraders. How else does he do it? He takes infallible teachings from past Magisterium on, for example, religious liberty, or EENS, etc., and he judges that what he's hearing is either heresy or plainly wrong in any event. This is what Stubborn, etc. does. 

    The "problem" is the inflated, pompous, "we are God's chosen and can do (teach) no wrong" attitude that has corrupted Churchmen and warped theologians into thinking they are beyond reproach and harm - for all intents and purposes whenever they open their mouths and speak. 

    The truth is they only speak with the infallibility of God when He wills them to do so, for the revelation of what He wants us to know, and then He leaves them to their faithfulness, wisdom and freedom. 

    Their wisdom hasn't been so wise and their freedom has been abused. God is not mocked, and so here we are. 

    The Sedes promote this pompous, inflated idea of "indefectibility," the same ideas that brought us to this pass and promoted the vanity of Churchmen who can "interpret" and "update" God's Word as his spokesman who cannot "err." 

    Kudos to Stubborn, Drew, Pax and those who are consistent and faithful, and don't avoid the contradiction that plagues others such as Ladislaus as to their holding to a "rule of faith" to an "errorless" Magisterium without correctly defining that term, "Magisterium." They depart from their own rule of faith at will - as they sometimes have to to be faithful to the truth. 

    Sure, Laddie, you can quote tons of "theologians" who will chime "we can say no evil, we are the Temple of the Lord" (cf. Jeremiah 7:4) - as I said, that's how we got here. 

    But prithee, where is that one theologian who teaches that the Catechism of Trent did not teach Bod? LOL (an inside joke if you're new to the thread) 
    Logged
    I will do to this house, in which my name is called upon, and in which you trust, and to the places which I have given you and your fathers, as I did to Silo.

    Jeremias 7:14

    Online Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #303 on: March 29, 2018, 12:49:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Bellator Dei on March 29, 2018, 12:37:39 PM
    Quote
    Those who reject the Magisterium as this proximate rule must replace this proximate rule with something.  If it isn't the Church presenting dogma to our minds with authority as worthy of supernatural faith, then it's something else, a fallible rule that ultimately reduces in every case to private judgment.

    It is only by the authority of the Church that we know what has been revealed by God.
    Excellent post.  

    This is what separates the Catholic Church from the reformists. 
    What did he replace the magisterium with?
    Logged
    "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: 10304
    • Reputation: +6214/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #304 on: March 29, 2018, 12:53:21 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    He's making it up.
    Yes, I made up all those quotes from theologians and Bishops about how V2 is a fallible council.  I also made up the theological commentary where it explains the 3 levels of the magisterium and how the papal office is only infallible in specific, and precise circuмstances, as Vatican I lays out.

    Meanwhile, your only source is Fenton.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10304
    • Reputation: +6214/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #305 on: March 29, 2018, 01:01:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    So how can we know that what the Church previously taught was true before such infallibility "requirements" were defined in Vatican I? This is, 19 Ecunemical Councils prior that one.
    Because the requirements for infallibility are part of the Faith, which has existed since Apostolic times.  Vatican 1 only RE-TAUGHT what had always been believed.  Do you think it is a coincidence that all previous dogmatic statements at ALL ecuмencial councils and ALL 'stand alone' dogmatic statements (i.e. immaculate conception in a papal bull) used the same formula to define these truths?  No it's not coincidence because it is FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES.  Who do you think the Apostles learned it from?  Christ, of course.

    It goes to show how warped your thinking is on this topic that you would presume to think that infallibility didn't exist before Vatican 1.  Protestants believe that we're like the mormons and when we define something, that means it's a "new" teaching.  Of course it's not new - the truths of our Faith have been around SINCE DAY 1.
    Logged

    Online Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #306 on: March 29, 2018, 01:07:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Bellator Dei on March 29, 2018, 12:57:58 PM
    I'm not following, Stubborn...take me down the rabbit hole a bit and maybe I'll figure it out.  
    In a nutshell, the magisterium, his (previous?) rule of faith, is NO, but presumably he is not. This means he rejects the magisterium as his rule of faith.

    So I asked, what did he replace his rule of faith, i.e. the magisterium, with. 
    Logged
    "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: 10304
    • Reputation: +6214/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #307 on: March 29, 2018, 01:13:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Link to Council of Chalcedon, translated.  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html

    Notes from the website:
    The Creed is preceded in the acts of the Council by an express confirmation of the Nicene Creed in both forms, 'the Creed of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers of Nicæa,' and 'the Creed of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers who were assembled at Constantinople.' The Fathers of Chalcedon declare that 'this wise and saving Creed [of Nicæa] would be sufficient for the full acknowledgment and confirmation of the true religion; for it teaches completely the perfect doctrine concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and fully explains the Incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it faithfully.'

    The addition of a new Creed is justified by the subsequent Christological heresies (Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism). After stating it, the Synod solemnly prohibits, on pain of deposisition 64and excommunication, the setting forth of any other Creed for those 'who are desirous of turning to the acknowledgment of the truth from Heathenism and Judaism.'

    ----

    The bolded part, the express prohibition and penalty of excommunication, is non-existent in V2 (as is the use of apostolic authority).  Ergo, there is no penalty for challenging V2's docuмents, when they contradict each other and tradition.  Ergo, they are not required to be believed for salvation.  Ergo, they are fallible.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #308 on: March 29, 2018, 01:29:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Bellator Dei on March 29, 2018, 12:51:44 PM
    I don't think there's exactly a "Rainbow Coalition of Sedevacantists" (although when I read that, it made me laugh pretty good).  If that were the case you'd have to include the "sede plenists" as part of that Coalition.    

    Personally, I don't care for all of the labels, but it becomes somewhat necessary in order to distinguish all of the particular points of view.  I view myself as a Catholic who believes the sede vacante position is the most logical explanation of the Vatican II revolution, and I view you as a fellow Catholic who disagrees with me.


    Condemn is a strong word...I don't believe I've ever condemned anyone.  

    Condemning aside, don't you do the same to Catholics who hold a position different than yours?

    I said that you condemn the STANCE of those who believe that the pope is the pope, but do not follow him into error. 

    I do condemn sedevacantism in all of its various forms. I'm not sure about condemning sedes themselves. Sedes can't agree on much of anything. When they aren't arguing among themselves, they argue with non-sedes. 

    To me, the sedeplenists and sedeprivationists would necessarily be a part of the Coalition. But they themselves might not like that idea - I don't know. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10304
    • Reputation: +6214/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #309 on: March 29, 2018, 02:00:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Pax, post a source that teaches the sermon of a bishop or an interview by the pope is an act of the Magisterium...  That's what I'm asking


    I'm sorry, I misspoke.  I meant to say 'magisterial act' (a term for teaching) and not 'act of the magisterium' (which has an official meaning).  Magisterium means "the Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion".  This was given to all the Apostles (i.e. Bishops), not just to St Peter, though only St Peter has the power of infallibility.  Bishops do have an authority to teach (which is why each diocesan bishop has an official chair, which symbolizes his authority).  This authority is part of the magisterium, but it can never be infallible.  So, the example I gave of the Bishop's sermon was a bad one.  Mea culpa.

    The point I was trying to make with the "off the cuff" interview of the pope (which could be part of his papal fallible magisterium, if he intends to comment on doctrine) is to contrast this type of papal speech with a precise, prepared papal bull of Pius IX and the Immaculate Conception.  Words matter.  Precise words matter more.  Precision, intent and clarity are all necessary for something to be infallible, because if the pope makes use of infallibility to COMMAND that all catholics believe something as a matter of faith, for salvation, then it darn well better be certain what we have to believe and it better be as simple as possible so that little Mary Sue and Joe Plumber can understand it.

    If it's not precise, not clear, and not authoritative (i.e. V2) then it cannot bind us to believe it.



    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #310 on: March 29, 2018, 02:02:52 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Bellator Dei on March 29, 2018, 01:58:56 PM
    I suppose you could say that I condemn the R&R position...along with sede positions that aren't simple sede vacante.

    I would agree that most folks who hold the sede vacante position are in disagreement on other issues, but then again, the R&R have many disagreements with each other as well.

    Like I said, we're all trying to do our best and I'm happy to have a forum where we can have robust debate about all of it.      

    Yes, those who recognize the Pope but do not follow him in his errors do have disagreements. But it's not on the same level. The disagreements are more about whether or not the new mass is licit, or sinful to attend, whether or not high heels should be worn at Mass, that sort of thing. There's not the same level of disunity and verbal flogging that goes on when there are a lot of sedes and sedewhatevers on the forum. 

    The sedes and sedewhatevers cause extreme disunity. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10304
    • Reputation: +6214/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #311 on: March 29, 2018, 02:04:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    But these clowns here who assert that an Ecuмenical Council can teach heresy
    You've yet to respond to ANY of the quotes i've posted, from theological experts and Bishops.  These are not my opinion, but from people who study these things for a living.  Quit attacking me and let's debate ideas.  Find other sources besides Fenton.  Don't be a 1 trick pony.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #312 on: March 29, 2018, 02:07:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 29, 2018, 01:48:50 PM
    If it were a mere quibble about the legal status of a pope, I'd agree with you.

    But I have realized on this thread I that must distance myself from acknowledging those as Catholic who have basically a heretical view of the Magisterium.  You yourself called it "at least proximate to heresy".  I think it's more than just proximate.

    For those R&R who just say, "As for the pope, it's not my position to say."  or "I just give him the benefit of the doubt." or "It's up to the Church to depose these guys, and I don't have the authority to do it."  That kind of reasoning is all within the parameters of a disagreement among Catholics.  Cajetan vs. Bellarmine on the heretical pope issue, a disagreement among Catholics.

    But these clowns here who assert that an Ecuмenical Council can teach heresy or even grave error to the Universal Church, and that we must reject the teachings of an Ecuмenical Council by appealing to Tradition?  That's just downright heretical.  There's no other way to describe it.  St. Pius V would  have had them burned at the stake.  If these guys are Catholic, then the Church owes an apology to Luther and to the Old Catholics.

    Well, if you consider as heretics those who believe that the pope is the pope, and that they are therefore heretics who should be burned at the stake, then why do you post on a forum full of heretics? (What you consider to be heretics). Doesn't your strange theology include the idea that you shouldn't be dialoguing with heretics? Or is dialoguing with so-called heretics a part of your theology? Why do you spend SO much time on what you consider to be a heretic forum?
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Online Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #313 on: March 29, 2018, 02:29:36 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Bellator Dei on March 29, 2018, 01:32:23 PM
    From my point of view, I'd tell you that the NO is a false church, set up to deceive the masses and propagandize them in false doctrine that has some semblance of the Catholic Church.  The only teaching authority the NO possesses is from the devil.  
    We agree on this. The reason we even can agree on this, is because the magisterium is not our rule of faith.

    If it were our rule of faith, there is no possible way we could *honestly* say such a thing and at the same time claim the magisterium is our rule of faith.
    Logged
    "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: 10304
    • Reputation: +6214/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #314 on: March 29, 2018, 02:45:50 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    I see a contradiction occurring in Lumen Gentium; in that salvation is possible to those who are "ignorant" of the need to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, and therefore never join the Catholic Church, contradicting the thrice infallibly defined, EENS dogma.
    Ahhh, but see you are "sifting" the magisterium, as Ladislaus so often says.  You aren't allowed to do that.  If the magisterium is always infallbile and an ecuмenical council is always infallible, then this contradiction is only APPARENT and not real.  And you must use +Benedict's 'continuity' theory to bridge the gap.  You must wait for the Church to clear up the confusion.  This is your logical conclusion.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 76
    « previous next »