Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 319206 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #315 on:** March 29, 2018, 03:01:11 PM »

I have concluded that CI has become little more than a dumping ground for frustrated and semi-informed trads to hyperventilate and call attention to themselves. Who bothers to read lengthy screeds from uncredentialed forum members? Some of you turn a legitimate topic into an 'omnibus bill,' which includes all of your little pet liturgical and theological peeves. You generate more heat than light. ;D

drew · « **Reply #316 on:** March 29, 2018, 03:06:27 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 28, 2018, 07:56:54 AM

And now you shamelessly mock the solemn teaching of Vatican I. It was not Cantarella but Vatican I which taught about the Pope's "never-failing faith". But, then, what's the difference? If you can excoriate the teaching of one Ecuмenical Council (Vatican II), then why not the other Vatican Council also?

You're a complete disgrace, and the more you post the less Catholic you seem.

Then AGAIN you repeat that lie that we consider the Pope the rule of faith. We are not talking about the Pope but about the Papal Magisterium. And, yes, Vatican I DOES IN FACT TEACH that the Papal Magisterium (to the Universal Church) IS IN FACT THE RULE OF FAITH. In fact, it's explicitly laid out.

I'm absolutely appalled by your posting.

My initial post was directed to Cantarella. She is old enough to answer for herself. But since Cantarella has not replied, I will assume that you agree with her post and she is satisfied with your response. And I therefore will attribute Catarella's post to both of you and the reply is directed as such. After all you use the plural pronoun "we" in your reply to my post.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #497 on: Yesterday at 06:20:09 AM »

Cantarella said:

Quote

"Mmmmm....Pastor Aeternus is telling us explicitly that the Pope enjoys the Divine promise of never-failing Faith.

"What does that say about the belief that all the conciliar "popes" have become heretics one after the other?"
Cantarella

So you agree with this common error that attributes a personal "never-failing faith" as an attribute of the pope. This necessarily makes the pope your rule of faith. Now I know that logical connection is lost on you but others may appreciate why it happens and what are its consequences.

If anyone believes that the "gift ... of never-failing faith" is a personal possession of the pope, it follows that he must be free from all heresy both formal or material. This necessarily follows because Pastor Aeternus gives the reason for the gift:

Quote

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away from the poisonous food of error by them, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of Hell.
Pastor Aeternus

If the gift of never-failing faith is a personal attribute of the pope for the purpose of keeping the "whole flock of Christ.. away from the poisonous food of error" then it is his personal faith that forms the rule and must preserve him from all heresy personally, both formal and material, in everything he says and does, because even a good willed material heretic would lead the "flock of Christ... to the poisonous food of error."

Now those who hold dogma as the rule of faith can examine the dogma itself and conclude what the "gift of never-failing faith" actually entails because they use the infallible dogma to properly understand the non-infallible narrative. The dogma details under what specific conditions are required for the pope, in the exercise of the Magisterium (i.e.: teaching authority) to engage the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority Jesus Christ endowed His Church. Since the Dogma is grounded upon the "gift of never-failing faith," the gift itself, as an attribute of the papal office ("successors in this Chair... might perform their high office"), means that the pope can never bind the faithful Catholic to doctrinal or moral error.

So what are we to make of your charge that I :

Quote

"You shamelessly mock the solemn teaching of Vatican I."
Ladislaus

This charge is made without evidence of fact or reasoned arguments. It's at the level of a children's playground taunt. The equating of a Vatican I, which engaged the Church's Attribute of Infallibility, with Vatican II, which did not, is false because they are different in kind and not just degree. The former teaches the revealed truth of God on the authority of God, the latter is teaching the opinions of churchmen based upon their grace of state and their own authority. But, as I recall, in the past you have had problems seeing this fundamental distinction.

Finally, your claim that the "magisterium is your rule of faith" and not the pope deserves another look in light of Pastor Aeternus. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. It can engage the Attribute of Infallibility which Jesus Christ endowed His Church only by the pope. It is only the pope who stands in potentia with the Attribute of Infallibility. Without a pope you have no one in potentia to the Magisterium and therefore, no possibility of the Magisterium in actu. Without the pope, no Magisterium. So, as a rule of faith, the pope and the Magisterium stand or fall together. Your distinction between the two as a rule of faith is meaningless.

Contrary to your claim, Vatican I did not teach as you claim:

Quote

"And, yes, Vatican I DOES IN FACT TEACH that the Papal Magisterium (to the Universal Church) IS IN FACT THE RULE OF FAITH."
Ladislaus

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4 entitled, the "The Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff" in the first paragraph says:

Quote

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith."
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

What is the "true faith"? It is the "Infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff." What do we call the "infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff"? Dogma. At baptism the ceremony begins with the priest asking what they ask from the Church? The answer, "Faith." That is the grace to believe what God has revealed on the authority of God. And just before the entrance of the baptistery, the candidate recites the Credo, that is, he recites the rule of faith for a creed is a litany of dogmas, it is the "infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff." And if in life the Catholic falls into heresy and denies a rule of faith, to be restored to the Church he must repent, renounce the heresy and make a profession of "the rule of the true faith," that is, he must recite the Credo, a litany of dogmas.

Pastor Aeternus details the authority of the Apostolic See of Rome and says:

Quote

"Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment."
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

What do call a question of faith regarding doctrine that is "defined by its judgment"? This is definition of DOGMA. And again:

Quote

And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circuмstances, sometimes assembling Ecuмenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which, with the help of God, they had recognized as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

When the "Roman Pontiffs..... defined as to be held those things which, with the help of God, they had recognized as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions," what is the "definition" called? DOGMA. What do we call it when the "successors of Peter... inviolably keep and faithfully expound Revelation"? DOGMA

The magisterium is the process. The produce of this process is DOGMA. The produce is the object of divine and Catholic faith, it is the DOGMA itself, and it is the object that forms the rule because it is the failure to keep DOGMA the makes one a heretic. The failure to keep the rule of DOGMA is the definition of heresy!

Quote

But since, in this very age in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the supreme pastoral office.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

The "prerogative" of engaging the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority is "joined with the supreme pastoral office." It is primarily an attribute of the office and secondarily and accidentally the attribute of the pope who occupies the office. Without a pope there is no access to the Attribute of Infallibility Christ endowed His Church for without a pope, the office is not in potentia to the Attribute. Your claim that you follow the Magisterium as your rule of faith and not the pope as your rule of faith is immaterial because Jesus Christ has bound the two together. The Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church is nothing without the pope to engage it. In the end, Pastor Aeternus is saying the same thing as the Fourth Council of Constantinople affirmed by Pope Adrian II and the regional council approved Pope Zosimus that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.

It is entirely appropriate that you have destroyed the papal office with your theory of sedeprivationism which fractures the form and the matter of the office thus causing it to undergo a substantial change. Just as the separation of the form and matter of a person causes a substantial change leaving you with a corpse, you have killed the papal office at the same time you have deposed the pope. Whatever name you want to call your "rule of faith," either way there is no practical difference. It is dead and gone.

You have no pope, you have no access to the magisterium, you have no rule of faith, and you have no understanding regarding Pastor Aeternus. But what should we expect. You are the guy who did not know that the Magisterium of the Church is part of divine revelation. You are the guy who did not know the definition of supernatural faith and destroyed it by splitting its two necessary attributes.

Stubborn was right when he said you embrace the process over the product. This is common to Modernists who embrace evolution and prefer becoming to being, the pursuit of truth over its possession. That is what Vatican II did with its elimination of the necessary attribute of time in its definition of the universal magisterium. It gives precedent to the process over the product, and that is what you do by rejecting dogmatic truth as your rule of faith in favor of the process that never ends, never reaches its term.

Drew

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #317 on:** March 29, 2018, 03:15:10 PM »

Quote

It's not "sifting" if she believes that the NO is a false church.

Ahhh, but what is the evidence that the Church is false, according to her? The V2 docuмents that she "sifted". CIRCULAR LOGIC!

drew · « **Reply #318 on:** March 29, 2018, 03:19:09 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 29, 2018, 02:18:33 PM

Because of the Catholic principle of non-Contradiction in dogmatic teachings as those emerging from Ecunemical Councils. In particular 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. I also see a contradiction in Nostra Aetate and the Church radical change on Her timeless approach towards the perfidious Jews. This false Magisterium of the Church has become radically Judaized.

Cantarella,

When you say that you judge heretical teaching by the "principle of non-Contradiction in dogmatic teachings as those emerging from Ecunemical Councils," you are using Dogma as your "rule of faith" to judge the magisterial teachings from Vatican II and the conciliar popes that 'contradict' this formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Dogma is not just the proximate rule of faith to be orthodox, but it is also the breaking of this rule that defines what is heresy. Heresy is the rejection of divine and Catholic faith, that is, the rejection of one or more dogmas as their rule of faith.

Drew

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #319 on:** March 29, 2018, 03:21:05 PM »

Quote

Without the pope, no Magisterium. So, as a rule of faith, the pope and the Magisterium stand or fall together. Your distinction between the two as a rule of faith is meaningless.

Exactly! If the pope has lost his spiritual office through heresy, then there is no magisterium, therefore the rule of faith is non-existent.

So you need to come up with a new sede term which combines sedeprivationist/sedevacant with the above. How about - "magis-sede-terium-vacant"?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #320 on:** March 29, 2018, 03:24:20 PM »

Quote

She throws them all out as being without authority.

She (the new authority) throws them all out as being without authority. Very humble.
I'll ask again, at what definite, precise point in time did Paul VI lose his spiritual authority? This is important for all to know. And by whose authority (I hope not your own) did you make this determination?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #321 on:** March 29, 2018, 03:30:56 PM »

Quote

Now you could claim that private judgment is the starting point for any rejection of Vatican II.

He who calls everyone protestant is now promoting protestant private interpretation.

Quote

But the rejection of the Conciliar Church has more to do with the fact that it lacks the elements required for the motives of credibility in general.

Here's what Vatican I says about 'motives of credibility', which it says the Church always posesses. Nice try.

But, even the Church itself by itself, because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission. (Vatican I, Session 3, chapter 3)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #322 on:** March 29, 2018, 03:45:11 PM »

Quote

That's why St. Robert spoke of MANIFEST heresy (vs. formal heresy or any other kind of heresy) ...

Speaking of St. Robert Bellarmine, who said that, "Only by the words of the general Council do we know whether the fathers of that council intended to engage their prerogative infallibility"

drew · « **Reply #323 on:** March 29, 2018, 03:52:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 29, 2018, 03:21:26 PM

Now you could claim that private judgment is the starting point for any rejection of Vatican II. But the rejection of the Conciliar Church has more to do with the fact that it lacks the elements required for the motives of credibility in general. If you look at that abomination as a whole, it does not resemble the Church Church in its essential marks. Those "motives of credibility" are the natural precursors before the acceptance of the Church's authority as a whole.

SSPX Resistance News / SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« on: August 15, 2015, 07:00:59 PM »

In this exchange with you nearly three years ago you were critical of "private judgment."

Quote

So how do we know that Pius IX and Gregory XVI weren't in fact WRONG in their condemnation of religious liberty while Vatican II was right? Ah, you say, it's because Pius IX and Gregory XVI followed Tradition while Vatican II did not. Says who, Drew? Your private judgment?
Ladislaus

My reply was:

Quote

We know they are wrong because their teaching is in accord with the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Of course any judgment anyone makes on anything can rightfully be called “private judgment.” Even making a profession of Catholic faith by the submission of mind and will to the revelation of God is a “private judgment.” Vatican I’s article on the faith says that, “the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind.” That is, it requires a “private judgment” regarding the motives of credibility. What I said before concerning conscience applies here. Every Catholic must do his best before any act or judgment to insure a conscience that is both true and certain. He is then required to follow that conscience even if it is shown subsequently to be erroneous....
Drew

It takes awhile but I am glad to see you are making progress and perhaps the current postings in this thread will bear fruit some day.

Drew

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #324 on:** March 30, 2018, 08:40:20 AM »

Knock yourself out. "De Conciliis, I, 17"

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #325 on:** March 30, 2018, 09:02:41 AM »

Further proof that V2 was not infallible, did not intend to be, and thus is not a matter of salvation, because it only requires 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.

1) The Announcement written by the Secretary General of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, that precedes the Preliminary Explanatory Note (known as the Nota praevia) to Lumen gentium says:

Taking into account conciliar custom and the pastoral aim of the present council, this holy synod defines as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it openly declares to be such. The other matters which the synod puts forward as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the Synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way in which it is said, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation.

2) One of the conditions for a magisterial statement to be infallible is that it is binding (for when the Church binds us to believe or assent, she guarantees with her charism of infallibility that she is right). And for her to bind us to believe, or assent to, something, she must explicitly propose her teaching as binding. This is the traditional doctrine and practice of the Church, specifically the practice of all twenty one ecuмenical councils, a doctrine that even Vatican II (in the well-known nota praeva to Lumen gentium) itself reiterates:

In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.

As a matter of fact, nowhere in the council docuмents does the Synod openly declare that such and such a doctrine is being defined.

3) From Sylvester Berry's The Church of Christ (1927), pp. 458-9.
"Bishops assembled in council are infallible only when exercising their supreme authority as teachers of faith or morals by a definite and irrevocable decree that a doctrine is revealed and, therefore, to be accepted by every member of the Church. (1) But since the bishops need not intend such an irrevocable decision at all times, it is necessary that an infallible definition be so worded as to indicate clearly its definitive character. For this purpose no set formula is necessary; it is sufficient to mention the doctrine as an article of faith, a dogma of faith, a Catholic dogma, a doctrine always believed in the Church, or a doctrine handed down by the Fathers. Anathema pronounced against those who deny a doctrine is also sufficient evidence of a dogmatic definition.

A large majority of the acts of councils are not infallible definitions, because they are not intended as such. "Neither the discussions which precede a dogmatic decree, nor the reasons alleged to prove and explain it, are to be accepted as infallibly true. Nothing but the actual decrees are of faith, and these only if they are intended as such." (2)

d) Since infallibility is due to mere assistance of the Holy Ghost, human agencies should be employed to discover and understand the truth to be defined, but the certitude of the definitiondoes not depend upon the previous investigation made by the bishops of the council, nor upon their skill and learning. Failure to make proper investigation would be sinful on the part of the bishops, but the Holy Ghost can and does prevent all error in the actual definition, even though all investigation has been neglected, or false reasons adduced to prove the doctrine."

(1) Other matters falling under the infallible authority of the Church will be considered elsewhere Cfr. pp. 503 sq.

- Italics above are from the original author.
- For a screen shot of this book excerpt: http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/08/berry-ecuмenical-councils-are-not.html

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #326 on:** March 30, 2018, 11:34:39 AM »

More quotes to prove that V2 did not require anything to be believed as a matter of faith, nor was it binding on the faithful, therefore it's fallible and can (and should be) questioned an/or anathema'ed..
(all bolded parts are from me)...

---

St. Robert Bellarmine on the Infallibility of General Councils of the Church.pdf
http://www.academia.edu/36244015/St._Robert_Bellarmine_on_the_Infallibility_of_General_Councils_of_the_Church.pdf

page 184:
The Object and Extent of the Infallible Authority of a Council

By the sixteenth century, councils had issued a large number of decrees of varying kinds, from Christological pronouncements to demands that priests and bishops tithe for the crusades. Not only were there varying kinds of decrees, but the Acta of councils contained various types of ac-tions, including speeches, letters, arguments, treatises, decrees, and defini-tions. With so many different types of actions undertaken by and at vari-ous councils, Bellarmine naturally had to address the object and extent of infallible teachings: On what can a council teach infallibly? And what parts of a council acta are to be considered infallible? For Bellarmine infallibility is restricted to the decrees of the councils that are proposed as such: The greater part of the acta of councils does not be-long to the faith. For the discussions which precede a decree are not of the faith, nor are the reasons adduced for them, nor are those things brought forward to illus-trate or explain them, but only those actual decrees, which are proposed as of the faith 53. (italics are a quote from Bellarmine)

Bellarmine wishes to exclude every activity or docuмent of a coun-cil except those which are formally proposed as binding on the faithful. Once confirmed, these infallible decrees are immutable (immutabilia) and definitive (definitiva) and are not subject to revision or recession 54, even by the pope himself 55, although Bellarmine also recognizes that in some cases the wording of the decree could have been better 56. Not only must the decree be proposed as a matter of faith, it must per-tain either to faith (fides) or to morals (mores). The phrase ‘faith and morals’ was customary by the sixteenth century and admitted a wide range of meanings; however, Bellarmine’s usage of the phrase in De Conciliis seems to be relatively clear and straightforward. By the term ‘faith’ he includes a number of related but discrete matters, and throughout the fourth contro-versy, Bellarmine gives examples that explain to some extent what he has in mind.

Page 190:

The fourth basic distinction is the extent to which sacred scripture and conciliar acts are protected from error. Each and every word of sacred scripture is the Word of God; as Bellarmine puts it, There is not a word in scripture in vain or not rightly placed 77. This means that each and every word of the scriptures is free of all error and demands an act of faith. In contrast, there is little in the acta of a council that is actually proposed as part of the faith of the Church. Thus, neither the conciliar discussions, the arguments in support of a particular proposition, nor any accompanying explanation is of the faith. Only the council’s published decrees form part of the faith of the Church. This does not extend even to all decrees that relate to faith and morals but only to those decrees which are formally proposed as part of Catholic doctrine.

Bellarmine argues, however, that when a decree is proposed as de fide , it is clearly known from the words of the council, and councils make this clear in several ways. First, a council may state that a particular doctrinal proposition is part of the faith of the Church, or it may apply the theological censure of “heretic” to those who deny this teaching. More commonly, a council attaches the censure of ‘anathema’ to the condemned proposition and excludes those from the Church who continue to hold the heretical teaching 79. If none of these conditions are met, then it is not certain from the decree itself whether the matter is de fide.

Bellarmine cautions that while in most doctrinal decrees only the meaning of the decree pertains to the faith, and not the words, there are a few exceptions. The Council of Nicaea, for example, demanded the ac-ceptance of the word homoousion, and the Council of Ephesus the word The-otokos. Aside from certain exceptions, one does not incur the censure of heresy for arguing that conciliar formulae are poorly worded 80.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #327 on:** March 30, 2018, 02:25:41 PM »

I doubt someone would lie to make a point, but even if that particular quote is a fabrication, +Bellarmine says basically the same thing in the other quotes I posted.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #328 on:** March 30, 2018, 06:33:09 PM »

Quote

I asked for a Magisterial Teaching,

Well, the term “magisterium” has only been used for 150 years, so that’s a limitation on your request. I’ve posted stuff before and you rejected that too, so do your own research. The fact of the matter is, that since Vatican 1 defined the parameters of the papal magisterium’s infallibility, anything which falls OUTSIDE those parameters, by definition, is fallible.

You want it spelled out for you, because you are hard-headed, but only the “negative” conclusion exists. A positive definition about the limits of the magisterium has never been issued by Rome. Doesn’t mean the negative conclusion is wrong, just means it’s not to your liking.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #329 on:** March 30, 2018, 06:37:45 PM »

Quote

The bottom line is that Ecunemical Councils approved by the Pope cannot err. This is true, regardless of the Council issuing dogmatic canons or anathemas.

There are so many quotes from theologians all saying the same thing. And I could post a lot more. What’s the use? You can’t even follow St Bellarmine’s explanation. You either have a reading comprehension problem, or you’re not open to the truth.