Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 204772 times)

drew · « **Reply #345 on:** April 01, 2018, 02:54:53 PM »

Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on March 31, 2018, 11:37:40 PM

Excellent.

My disagreement with you is best represented by the juxtaposition of these two quotes of yours:

I agree with both statements, and because I do I disagree with an implication that I see in the paragraph from which the first quote is taken:

I read that as you saying that it is only Traditional Catholics, who attend the Latin Mass, who continue to carry the faith of the Church in these times. I disagree. In addition to the impossibility of a pope "engag[ing] the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal or moral error," I also think it impossible for a pope to promulgate or foist a Mass upon the Church that fails to perpetuate the Lord's presence in the Church and deliver the sacramental grace of the Eucharist, the center of our faith. Perhaps, however, that is included in your formulation.

True Catholics who hold to the true faith have followed Our Lord into the "captivity" of the Novus Ordo and post-Vatican 2 reality. This has been willed by God on the Church for her past abominations and the "heresies" by prior popes with regard to bowing to Mammon and the Money Powers, most evidenced with regard to usury, and the practical gutting of God's law against it.

On the whole in coming to understand what we are going through I recommend that Jeremiah 29 and the "70 years of captivity" for God's people be deeply and prayerfully studied. That punishment came upon the Church of the Old Covenant for its past abominations, and those who followed God's will and went into captivity were the ones to receive the future blessing.

In any event, within the NO are numerous elect of God, receiving Our Lord in maimed but salvific rites while in "captivity" in a foreign land, humbly enduring His just scourge upon His people, praying, confessing, saying their Rosaries, standing outside abortion clinics, decrying sodomy and adultery, maintaining the truth of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

But again, I agree with you, perhaps in total, and misunderstood and read some implications into your excellent post that weren't there.

Have a Blessed Easter, brother.

You may be right, but maybe not. I think Jeremiah 29 applies perfectly in a different sense. Maybe it is the traditional Catholics faithful to dogma, like Fr. Feeney, who are and have been suffering the Babylon captivity while the Novus Ordo Catholics who have stayed in Rome (the new Jerusalem) who spiritually have and "shall perish by the sword, famine and pestilence."

I last attended a Novus Ordo liturgy more than 45 years ago. I have seen what became of the families of conservative Catholics a generation older than myself, my own generation, and now a generation of my own children. I know that our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not and cannot be matters merely of Church discipline. I know this because I understand fully that it is by these traditions whereby the Faith is known and communicated to others. They thereby are necessary attributes of the Faith. By their association with the Faith they take on the quality of the dogmas they signify and they themselves become irrevocably associated with these truths. Just as in this thread, I have discussed the Aristotelian philosophical concept of hylomorphism which has been perfectly associated with sacramental theology and the dogmas on the sacraments, so that the philosophical concept itself has the same quality of infallible truth.

This explains why our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions have become the subject of dogma such as in the Tridentine profession of faith and the dogmas on the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments." It explains why those who would destroy images of our faith (iconoclasts) were called heretics. The immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are types of icons and their destruction at the hands of the Novus Ordo philistines, the Neo-iconoclasts, is also heresy. Those Catholics trying to keep the faith in the Novus Ordo structures have by that fact alone made compromise with dogmatic truths of our faith.

And, I do know of individuals in the Novus Ordo who are doing their best to keep their Catholic faith but typically they are alone in this struggle and have become isolated from their families. The numbers of families that I have known who have remained in the Novus Ordo and successfully kept their children in the faith is a very rare exception. If they have been somewhat successful it is because they have maintained some traditional elements such as a good catechism, the Rosary and other traditional devotions, home schooled their children, etc. But these are exceptions because every image projected from the Novus Ordo opposes the true faith individually and collectively. Just one example, the baptistery in a traditional Church was outside the Church symbolizing the necessity of the sacrament to enter the Church. Most Novus Ordo churches have moved the baptistery into the destroyed sanctuary. This image overturns the doctrine of original sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation without saying a word. When a child's faith is formed in the Novus Ordo, it is the accuмulation of these false images that make an indelible impression on their souls which can only be reformed by a miracle of grace. My own individual impressions are supported by every objective collection of statistical evidence. The general apostasy is far worse today than it was only ten to twenty years ago.

The priest who has served our Mission over the last eight years had his priestly formation under Cardinal Krol in Philadelphia, probably the most conservative prelate in the United States at the time, and attended Novus Ordo Catholic primary and secondary schools. When he moved to tradition, he spent two years with the SSPX before coming to our Mission. Even now, hardly a week goes by when he does not discover some new fundamental truth of our Catholic heritage that he had never heard of before. The priests that have been formed in the Novus Ordo are, as a whole, know nothing about the Church before 1965 or adopt its fundamental presuppositions when examining the history of the Church. They almost uniformly do not hold dogma as their proximate rule of faith.

Rome will suffer a cleansing far worse than what occurred under the mercenary army of Charles V that left the entire city desolate stripped of its wealth and reduced to a small fraction of its earlier population. This cleansing was necessary to for the ground work of reforming of the Church with the Council of Trent. And in a like manner, it will be traditional Catholics returning from their Babylonian captivity that will rebuild.

I wish you a blessed Easter.

Drew

Centroamerica · « **Reply #346 on:** April 01, 2018, 07:01:29 PM »

Conversely, I have no problem attending the non una cuм Masses because I do have positive doubt. Frankly (no pun intended), I don’t see how anyone could not have positive doubt. The man is a manifest heretic. Unless you are an Ecclesia Dei devotee, it would seem that you would be compelled to doubt.

My only issue would be with those who try to impose the sede vacante position. I was told that I must resolve my doubt. How does one resolve one’s doubt about having a legitimate pope? Board the next plane for the Vatican and request a hearing? This is where sedevacantists go off the deep end.

cathman7 · « **Reply #347 on:** April 01, 2018, 07:34:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 01, 2018, 06:48:50 PM

Hogwash. If you recognize his authority and avoid him, then you are in schism. Period. No, there's no strict obligation to be a sedevacantist or a sedeprivationist. But one must at least have positive doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 popes to avoid the sin of formal schism. If you want to argue that he stays in office until removed by the Church, that's a theological opinion.

However you want to eventually resolve the pope question in isoluation, I could hardly care less. What I care about is how you're butchering the indefectibility of the Church, the holiness of the Church ... smearing the Magisterium as having taught heresy, etc. That is what I find repugnant. As to whether you think Bergoglio is the pope, I could hardly care less about that in isolation. I have no problem attending Mass una cuм Francisco. I have a problem with Protestant and non-Catholic principles that usually end up manifesting themselves with R&R.

Wow, you certainly are over-analyzing the issue. I am only saying that I am not going to say that the See is Vacant. I recognize he has been given authority but that he is misusing his authority. He holds the office but should not have the office. Who decides that he should be deposed? In fact, who will depose him? Or the local diocesan bishop? Me? You? My obligation is to keep the faith in its simplicity.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #348 on:** April 01, 2018, 09:13:29 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 01, 2018, 06:43:18 PM

Submissive and in submission to are completely different things. No, this is not a question of simple disobedience. You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it. You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope. So a son might be "submissive", i.e., pay lip service about how in theory he should submit to his father, but then he leaves the home in defiance of his own father and instead of helping with the father's business, he opens a shop down the street that is trying to steal customers from his own father. That's what you're doing ... if these guys are legitimate popes. You can TALK all you want about how you wish to submit to your father, but in fact you are NOT in submission to him.

Stop it with the "obey God rather than man" nonsense already. This isn't about simple obedience, but about submission to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline. When you put YOUR interpretation of Tradition/dogma over that of the Magisterium, you're not actually obeying God ... but rather your private judgment, i.e. yourself. That's Protestantism in a nutshell.

"HOGWASH".

drew · « **Reply #349 on:** April 01, 2018, 10:35:15 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 01, 2018, 06:43:18 PM

Submissive and in submission to are completely different things. No, this is not a question of simple disobedience. You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it. You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope. So a son might be "submissive", i.e., pay lip service about how in theory he should submit to his father, but then he leaves the home in defiance of his own father and instead of helping with the father's business, he opens a shop down the street that is trying to steal customers from his own father. That's what you're doing ... if these guys are legitimate popes. You can TALK all you want about how you wish to submit to your father, but in fact you are NOT in submission to him.

Stop it with the "obey God rather than man" nonsense already. This isn't about simple obedience, but about submission to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline. When you put YOUR interpretation of Tradition/dogma over that of the Magisterium, you're not actually obeying God ... but rather your private judgment, i.e. yourself. That's Protestantism in a nutshell.

Once again you are answering for Cantarella. Why? She can answer for herself.

Yet when you get asked a direct question to provide evidence for one of your assertions, no reply:

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #672 on: Yesterday at 09:07:10 PM »

Quote

“Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide.”
Ladislaus

You have a habit of saying things that are indefensible.

Your claim is only possible if the theological theory of mere ecclesiastical faith is true. Your problem is that the theory is just theological, well to borrow your terminology, “hogwash.” The question of mere ecclesiastical faith was discussed in detail in an earlier thread. While the discussion was not directly with you, you were repeatedly posting your two-cents worth of comments in support of those I was arguing with.

SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« Reply #49 on: August 18, 2015, 05:25:37 PM »

I invite anyone to read the thread if interested in this question because the implications of mere ecclesiastical faith are important in the current crisis. Suffice to say, the article by Fr. Fenton from AER completely destroys the myth of mere ecclesiastical faith. He admits it’s a common and popular opinion, but a myth nonetheless. The thread also discusses the implications of accepting the theory of mere ecclesiastical faith.

The problem with you Ladislaus is that you are incapable of learning anything because you already know everything. Your claim that “Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide,” is impossible.

If Cantarella looks to you for direction she will have no one to blame but herself.

Drew

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #350 on:** April 02, 2018, 09:58:24 AM »

Quote

Your claim that “Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide,” is impossible.

Yep, still waiting on Ladislaus to clear this up. I've typed many things too fast and made a mistake. I'm not trying to "trap" you in an error. If you need to re-clarify, then do so.

The fact is that V2 does NOT require anyone, anywhere to believe its docuмents with 'certainty of faith' shows that it's a ecuмenical anomoly. Its docuмents are not matters of salvation, nor matters of sin. All previous ecuмenical councils DID teach with certainty of faith, under pain of sin, because the pope made use of his infallibility and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. If the pope does not intend to teach infallibly, he has no special guidance from the Holy Ghost, anymore than you or I do if we say a prayer. Outside of infallibility, the pope is only teaching as a private theologian, in his capacity as Bishop of Rome and he can err and err bigly. Vatican 1 explained this when it outlined the 4 requirements.

The Universal Disciplines of the Church don't apply here, because V2 imposed no discipline on anyone; we only have to accept its docuмents with 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.

Finally, "de fide" means "of the faith". All things which are infallible are "of the faith" because they MUST be believed. All non-infallible things either 1) only require 'religious CONDITIONAL assent' or they aren't matters of faith/morals, so the term "of the faith" is not applicable (example: the eucharistic fast is not a matter "of faith" because its a liturgical/human law which the pope can change.)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #351 on:** April 02, 2018, 02:52:55 PM »

Quote

That's tantamount to a defection of the Magisterium.

If the pope is not engaging his FULL magisterium, then his errors are not a defection, because his errors do not come from the OFFICIAL PAPACY but from his private office as theologian/bishop. You are making an illogical and erroneous connection between the fallible magisterium and indefectibility. There is not ONE V2 official who has claimed that V2 was free from error. You and Catarella however disagree and try to impose YOUR INTERPRETATION of a council and you HAVE NO OFFICIAL CHURCH AUTHORITY TO DO SO, nor any facts to support your thesis. (You've yet to show one quote or fact which proves that V2 must be accepted as a matter of salvation, yet you falsely assert that it is part of the infallible magisterium. So ridiculous.)

If the pope is not BINDING the faithful to believe WITH CERTAINTY OF FAITH, under PAIN OF SIN, as a MATTER OF SALVATION, a matter of faith and morals, then the Church's official magisterium is not in use, so a "defection" of the faith is possible, since the magisterium is not teaching, but only fallible bishops, and there is nothing to stop fallible bishops (including the pope) to lose the faith and corrupt the laity. Which is why Christ warned us to "beware of wolves in sheeps clothing" and why St Paul warned that "even if an angel from heaven preach a new doctrine, let him be anathema."

Samuel · « **Reply #352 on:** April 02, 2018, 03:19:07 PM »

Cantarella, I remember not too long ago you were a firm opponent of sedevacantism, with well balanced and sensible posts. It is sad to see that you too have now fallen for their errors. As they say "The corruption of the best is the worst".

On the other hand, I am pleased to see that there are others who have taken the place of those who have fallen. It is encouraging to see!!!

Thank you drew, Pax Vobis, Stubborn, Obscurus, etc (I'm not a regular patron here, so I'm sure I must have missed some, maybe even many). May I ask you, PLEASE, organize yourselves and write some decent articles for the benefit of others. There are still people who are tempted by the snares of sedevacantists, and they would greatly benefit from your combined knowledge, wisdom and understanding. This is what Catholic Action is all about. Don't risk one day having to give Our Lord the same answer as Cain: "am I my brother's keeper?".

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #353 on:** April 02, 2018, 03:20:36 PM »

Quote

You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it.

Here you go again, Ladislaus, slinging around rash generalizations, like a 2-bit chef slings around day-old hashbrowns at a waffle house. You're like a politician who makes himself look good by giving a great 10 second "sound bite" but when asked for an in depth-interview, he can't explain his ideas with any substance.

1. These mass centers are legally valid, since they are allowed by Quo Primum. All novus ordo masses are illegal and sinful because they violate Quo Primum. Therefore, mass centers which avoid the novus ordo are the only moral and legal and salvific choice.

2. Canon law makes it very clear that "the salvation of souls is the highest law". Canon law allows AND COMMANDS the priests to provide the faithful with the mass and sacraments, even providing for cases where jurisdiction is lacking.

3. Quo Primum is clear that no priest can be forced (in any way) to say a mass that is not using the rite of Pope St Pius V. It also allows a priest to say mass using this rite for all time, without permission from any authority, since THE AUTHORITY COMES DIRECLY FROM THE PAPACY. So, in a sense, Quo Primum is a universal jurisdictional allowance for mass and ANY PART of the latin rite (even confessions and marriages, because the novus ordo's new rites, including confession/marriage, are new and thus, illegal).

(Sedevacantists, on the other hand, say that jurisdiction is non-existent for everyone, since there's no pope, so they don't have jurisdiction either, just in a different sense.)

Quote

You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope.

We reject the fallible magisterium, since it is in error in some cases, which we are allowed to do since it only requires 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.

The fallible magisterium is not part of the Universal Discipline of the Pope/Church, because a discipline requires a 'certainly of faith' and a command 'under pain of sin', which the post-conciliar popes had admitted does not exist.

Samuel · « **Reply #354 on:** April 02, 2018, 03:55:58 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 02, 2018, 03:47:52 PM

So basically a legitimate successor of St. Peter, the very foundation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, has turned to be an enemy of Jesus Christ?

Then you wonder why the Protestants laugh at us.

Every Catholic (and non Catholic) without Sanctifying Grace is an enemy of Jesus Christ. And that includes many popes, bishops .. and sedevacantists. Did you not know that?

Samuel · « **Reply #355 on:** April 02, 2018, 03:58:04 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on April 02, 2018, 03:53:08 PM

An excellent point...

Pitting pope against pope and Council against Council is exactly what R&R leads to...

Pitting Catholic against Catholic is exactly what sedevacantism leads to..

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #356 on:** April 02, 2018, 04:34:45 PM »

Quote

So the Vicar of Christ on earth himself has been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in an illegal and sinful rite for decades now?

Does a bear shat in the woods? Does a pig like mud? Can a pope go to hell?

Answers are all “yes”.

Your question presupposes the pope is some kind of spiritual Oracle or saintly-diety. So weird and uncatholic. Any pope can lose his faith just like Martin Luther did.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #357 on:** April 02, 2018, 04:41:20 PM »

Quote

So basically a legitimate successor of St. Peter, the very foundation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, has turned indeed to be an enemy of Jesus Christ?

How many theologians have addressed this possibility? Many, over the course of many centuries. Even St Bellarmine said it was possible.

So one the one hand, you argue that the pope could never fall into heresy, so the post-conciliar Church popes were never valid to begin with.

On the other hand you constantly appeal to St Bellarmine, who talks about what to do with a HERETICAL pope AFTER he’s been elected. Yet, above, you deny that St Bellarmine’s situation is possible.

You are a walking and confused contradiction.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #358 on:** April 02, 2018, 06:04:23 PM »

Quote

What is completely foreign to Roman Catholicism is the disdain and contemptuousness towards the Pope of Rome, the legitimate successor of St. Peter, by those who call themselves Catholic.

You mean the same disdain and contempt that St Bellarmine showed towards the (imaginary) pope whom he argued could fall into heresy? I guess St Robert was in error and his ideals are COMPLETELY FOREIGN to the faith, as you state. (sarcasm alert).

St Robert Bellarmine, as well as the many theologians who studied this situation, all use the same phrase "a heretic pope". This means that the pope was pope, then becomes a heretic. Which completely DESTROYS your argument that a heretic pope is not possible. If they were arguing that a heretic could never become pope, then they wouldn't call him a heretic pope, but a heretic non-pope, or anti-pope. But no, they do not describe him thus, because they take into account that a pope could turn to heresy DURING his pontificate.

Again, you have a reading comprehension problem. You should not be discussing these matters at all.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #359 on:** April 02, 2018, 06:09:55 PM »

Quote

It is believed that Popes can indeed fall into error in private writings or even have sinful lives.

It is argued by MANY theologians (and even St Bellarmine admits that while he disagrees with the idea, that it's a valid argument) that a pope can fall into heresy.

Quote

But NOT promulgate error in Ecunemical Councils, though.

V2 did not OFFICIALLY and AUTHORITATIVELY (i.e. under pain of sin, as a matter of salvation) force ANYONE to accept their novelties. You have not proven your above statement in any capacity and EVERY V2 theologian, including Pope Paul VI says the COMPLETE opposite of what you said. Your view has no factual backing. It is worse than a theory, it is wishful thinking. At worse, it's a lie.