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 514450 times)

0 Members and 20 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #335 on: March 31, 2018, 08:45:30 AM »

Quote
But while there could theoretically be some small mistakes, for an Ecuмenical Council to teach heresy or even grave substantial error to the Universal Church? 
Your use of the word “teach” is in error.  That’s your problem.  A teaching of the Church MUST be believed by all the faithful, with certainty of faith, under pain of sin, as a matter of salvation.  V2 DID NOT “TEACH” ON MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS like all other ecuмenical councils.  There is NOTHING in V2 that we MUST accept with a “certainty of faith” therefore your use of the word “teach” is absolutely wrong because you fail to distinguish the different levels of thr magisterium, some only requiring CONDITIONAL assent, which fact you continue to dodge like a snake on a road dodges cars.  

You refuse to accept that ‘fallible’ means ‘can err’ (big or small). 

You refuse to accept that V2 only requires CONDITIONAL assent, and not certainty of faith. 

You refuse to accept that only DOGMATIC decrees, judgements, canons, or definitions are infallible. 

You have no integrity.  

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #336 on: March 31, 2018, 08:56:41 AM »

Quote
No, Pax Vobis. Of course we do not have to memorize all Ecunemical Councils by heart
Of course we don’t, because only the dogmatic decrees, judgments, canons or definitions are MATTERS OF FAITH.  All else is theological reasons and intentions, which aren’t infallible. 

If everything were infallible, according to your logic, then the REASONS for Trent’s definitions/canons are JUST AS important as the definition itself.  So why isn’t the whole council, WORD FOR WORD, in the catechism?  Why don’t you have it memorized?  

According to you, we have to believe the reasons and intention behind the dogma with “certainty of faith”.  Ergo, we HAVE to know the whole council or else we can’t get to heaven.



Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #337 on: March 31, 2018, 12:11:17 PM »

Quote
There are many teachings of the Church that fall short of being de fide. 
True, but these non-de fide teachings are not required to be held with 'certainty of faith'.  They are to be held with CONDITIONAL assent, just like V2.  Ergo, they are not required for salvation...just like V2 is not required.

Instead of you continuing to call everyone names, like a 5th grader, why don't you go prove that V2 is REQUIRED to be believed with CERTAINTY OF FAITH, since it is infallible, as you say.  I'll wait...

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #338 on: March 31, 2018, 05:43:51 PM »
Is it possible that in an expository passage in an Ecuмenical Council there could be a small mistake?  Theoretically, yes, although even this is unlikely as Catholics have always believed that Ecuмenical Councils have been under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.  But while there could theoretically be some small mistakes, for an Ecuмenical Council to teach heresy or even grave substantial error to the Universal Church?  That would mean a defection of the Church.  I reiterate without any hesitation or shadow of doubt that people who believe as Pax does are heretics and are not Catholic.

I disagree.  The problem with sedevacatism and sedeprivationism is that they lead to theological and philosophical teachings that overturn dogma. 
 
Why cannot an fallible council approved by a pope, churchmen teaching by their grace of state, teach heresy? The reply is typically that the Indefectibility of the Church would not permit this.  But here is the problem.  The Attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically defined as has been the Attribute of Infallibility.  Much of what is believed concerning this Attribute of the Church is the product of theological speculation and Catholics are free to speculate how this Attribute is exercised and preserved in the Church. 
 
Dogma establishes the limits of theological speculation and as long as a Catholic does not offer any conclusions that oppose revealed truth, he is free to consider other possible explanations.  It is from theological speculation that we have the common opinion the Indefectibility serves as a personal non-infallible infallibility of the pope protecting him from error in doctrine and morals in the exercise of the authentic ordinary magisterium based upon his grace of state.  This theory has a number of problems that are not just evident since Vatican II but can be seen throughout difficult times in Church history.
 
We know that the Attributes of the Church are powers given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ, that enable the Church to do specific things.  But just as in man, where each individual sense power has its specific mode of operation and individual ends but still has considerable overlapping with other sense powers in many general perceptions, so do the powers of the Church. If each power is considered with respect to its individual end, they correspond to the three principles duties that God has imposed upon His Church: to teach, to worship God and sanctify the faithful, and to govern specifically enumerated by St. Pius X in Pascendi.  These duties are possible through the powers of Church given to her by God, that is, Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Authority. It is important to remember that these Attributes are firstly Attributes of God and only Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution.  The powers resided primarily and essentially in the Church.  They resided in churchmen only secondarily and accidentally.
 
The specific end of Indefectibility is to worship God and sanctify the faithful.  Common theological opinion holds that Indefectibility of the Church means that a council and pope could never impose doctrinal or moral error on the Church.  This leads to conservative Catholics. like Emmett O'Regan. who believe that the pope possess a personal never-failing faith and Indefectibility means there is no possibility of error from the Vatican II or concilar popes therefore we must accept them and all they teach.  It also leads to sedevacantism/sedeprivationism that agree in general principle with conservatives but therefore conclude that the pope cannot be the pope to preserve the Attribute of Indefectibility.  I contend that both of these conclusions are wrong and both lead to overturning of dogma.
 
If you consider Indefectibility as primarily an Attribute of the Church in light of the specific end of this power, that is, the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful, these ends have never been absent from the Church since Vatican II. Just as Noah building the Ark condemned a sinful world, so Catholics faithful to tradition and the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" condemn the conciliar Church. It is traditional Catholics that will not betray the faith that constitute the evidence of the Church's Indefectibility. 
 
This theory may not be correct but it does not overturn any Catholic dogma.
 
As far as the exercise of Authority, it is strictly addressed in Catholic moral theology.  The proper response to Authority is Obedience.  But the ultimate Authority is God and all Catholics are obligated firstly to obey God.  There are about a dozen subsidiary virtues under the virtue of Justice.  These subsidiary virtues are hierarchically related.  The first and most important virtue under Justice is the virtue of Religion. This virtue primarily concerns giving to God the things that are God's and typically can be quantified by specific acts.  It is the virtue of Religion that governs obedience. Obedience is only a virtue when it is properly regulated by the virtue of Religion.  When it is not, any act of obedience is sinful.  There has hardly been any imposition of Authority since Vatican II that does not directly offend the virtue of Religion and must therefore be opposed. 
 
R & R does no damage whatsoever to Catholic dogma or Catholic morality. Two things are necessary for any reconsideration: firstly, a conciliar pope will have to directly engage the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal and moral error, secondly, sedevacantists/sedeprivationists will have to produce a pope who is generally accepted by Catholics faithful to tradition. 
 
I do not think either one is going to happen.

Lastly, every faithful Catholic should remember that the two greatest tests by God, the angelic test in heaven and the person of Jesus Christ to the Jews, required His chosen faithful to reject the constituted authority established by God.  It should not surprise anyone if this should happen again.

Drew


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #339 on: March 31, 2018, 06:10:01 PM »

Quote
Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide
I don’t think the above is possible.  Infallibility only deals with faith/morals; it is PRECISELY the reason it exists - to define matters of faith.  Provide an example where an infallible statement is not de fide or “of the faith”.


Quote
Secondly, you're confusing indefectibility/infallible safety with infallibility in the strict sense.
Fenton is the only source which postulates this ideal.  It’s a theory at this point.  I’d like to see a strictly-orthodox theologian agree with him.  One theologian does not make it so.  


Quote
quite another for an Ecuмenical Council to teach HERESY to the Church, as you have claimed.
V2 is an ecuмenical anomaly.  This is what the masons wanted - to cause confusion.  To create an unprecedented situation.  They succeeded.  But those who know their faith, and the simple truths of the catechism, know that its errors are errors.  They also know that these errors are NOT binding as even the authors, theologians and post-conciliar popes have repeatedly said.  

You and Cantarella want to define V2 in your own strict way, while ignoring the facts and the REPEATED PUBLIC admissions of its theological limitations and the MANY DISCLAIMERS on its moral weight.  

You have decided the post-conciliar popes have no authority and THEN YOU GO FURTHER and you replace his authority with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the moral weight of a council.  You have an agenda and aren’t open to the truth.