Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 205335 times)

klasG4e · « **Reply #360 on:** April 02, 2018, 07:17:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 02, 2018, 06:53:47 PM

Again, they pretend that V2 were just the private musings of one Giovanni Battista Montini. He and the bishops were officially teaching the Church, exercising the Magisterium.

Alas, only if they had been exorcising the Magisterium instead!

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #361 on:** April 02, 2018, 07:17:40 PM »

Quote

It was an act of the fallible Magisterium.

There. Fixed it for you. You refuse to admit that the magisterium can be fallible and err.

Quote

Paul VI simply stated that V2 did not SOLEMNLY define anything.

Yes and they said much more. Not only did Paul VI fail to SOLEMNLY define anything he also failed to non-solemnly define anything. The magisterium can be infallible solemnly and non-solemnly. V2 was neither.

V2 was of the 3rd and lowest level of magisterial “teaching” (to use that term liberally): a non-solemn, fallible teaching, where faith/morals are not defined, nor clarified, but only explained how they should apply at the pastoral level. This fact has been admitted by Paul VI, and many noted V2 theologians, bishops, cardinals and intellectuals. And I’ve quoted many of them.

Your view of V2 is not based on facts.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #362 on:** April 02, 2018, 08:59:56 PM »

Quote

The Fifth Lateran Council defines infallibly the necessity of being subject to the Pope of Rome for salvation, so if you know who the Pope of Rome is, then why don't you submit?

Quote

Pope Innocent III († 1216) :

“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:1) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men." (Sermo 4)

Quote

Pope Adrian VI († 1523) :
“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).”

Quote

Venerable Pope Pius IX :
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

Quote

Pope Adrian II († 872) :
“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”.

Quote

St. Thomas Aquinas:
“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)

Quote

Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P:

“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5)

Quote

From Galatians 2:11
“But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11)

Quote

The theologian Juan Cardinal De Torquemada O.P. († 1468)
“Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.” (Summa de Ecclesia)

drew · « **Reply #363 on:** April 02, 2018, 09:33:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 02, 2018, 10:56:06 AM

You have a habit of classifying anything as "theory" or "speculation" if it hasn't been formally or solemnly defined. So, for instance, you claimed this of the Church's disciplinary infallibility and overall indefectibility ... even though the propositions related to both disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility flow directly from Catholic teaching and have a much higher theological note than "speculative". For you there seem to be only two categories, de fide and speculation. That's in line with your limiting of infallibility to solemn definitions. As with the different ramifications of indefectibility which are denied by no theologian, the notion of fides ecclesiastica is very widely held. This distinction appears in every listing of the "theological notes" that I have ever seen.

But for people of your mindset, anything short of things defined solemnly by the Church are optional.

The term “speculation” has as its primary meaning the contemplative consideration of a subject. Its modern sense to conjecture or surmise unrelated to known facts is the fourth or fifth meaning of the word depending on your dictionary reference used. The Church Fathers at Nicaea speculated on the divine revelation of the Trinity before formulating the dogma that the Father and the Son are consubstantial.

Fr. Fenton has a nice article in AER on half dozen or more speculations on the nature of the Communion of Saints, a formal object of divine revelation. The Indefectibility of the Church is a matter of divine revelation as well but its exact nature and its method of operation have not been dogmatically defined and are open to further speculation.

It is grossly absurd mischaracterization to claim that I have “two categories, de fide and speculation….. limiting of infallibility to solemn definitions” making “anything short of things defined solemnly by the Church are optional.” I have made many post posts in the past and several posts directly to you that demonstrate this as calumny. Furthermore, since I obviously adhere to the Catholic principle that dogma is the proximate rule of faith, it would be corruption of the dogma:

Quote

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. Vatican I

It is not clear to me what you are trying to say in this post. So what are claiming? That there is such a thing as "mere ecclesiastical faith"? And that my denial of its existence represents a "habit of classifying anything as 'theory' or 'speculation' if it has not been formally or solemnly defined?" This question has been considered in detail before and you have contributed to the posts in that thread. If you need to be reminded of the details, they can be covered again.

The article by Fr. Fenton demonstrates an example where popular theological speculation has proved to be utterly useless and even harmful to the Church. My argument was essentially a detailed review of Fr. Fenton's article which buries the theological absurdity of mere ecclesiastical faith ultimately denying that it even exists. The discussion in the thread went beyond what Fr. Fenton presented and addressed some of the theological consequences of believing this myth.

If Fr. Fenton did not convince you I can guess at the reason. Fr. Fenton uses dogma as his rule of faith from which he draws necessary and certain theological conclusions. From these derived truths, he agrees with the theologians who concluded that mere ecclesiastical faith has no basis in reality. It is true the mere ecclesiastical faith was a common error at the time of Fr. Fenton's article and in fact is even more common today because it makes the pope the rule of faith. But popular as it is, it is still an absurd myth and I am grateful to Fr. Fenton for having addressed it.

Indefectibility is essentially the power the Church possesses to offer true worship to God and sanctify the faithful. This first and fundamental truth cannot be forgotten in any consideration of the nature of Indefectibility and how it is preserved in the Church.

One of the first things that need to be grasped is that “disciplinary infallibility” is an oxymoron. Discipline is in the order of Authority-Obedience and Infallibility is in the order of Truth-Falsehood. Once this idea is dumped it is possible to move toward understanding the nature of immemorial ecclesiastical traditions.

I have made a repeated claim to you and others that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not matters of mere discipline, but rather, necessary attributes of the faith. The iconoclasts were condemned as heretics for rejecting images of the faith. Every immemorial ecclesiastical tradition is an image of the faith by which is can be known and communicated to others. Dogma is expressed in words. Those words are images of specific concepts that are joined in categorically judgments that are infalliblely true. The words of a dogmatic definition and the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are analogous. They are both the work of the Holy Ghost. Immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not mere matters of discipline; they possess elements of discipline, but are essentially direct properties of Catholic truth. They are the incarnational manifestation of truth. This explains why immemorial ecclesiastical traditions have been the object of dogmatic definitions and therefore cannot be a matters of simple discipline, i.e.: objects mere ecclesiastical faith.

Clarity on this matter begins with holding Dogma as the proximate rule of faith. This should be evident to everyone reading this thread by this one fact alone: the definition of heresy is the rejection of Dogma, that is, heresy is failure to keep Dogma as the proximate rule of faith.

Once you understand this you can clearly see that the overturning of any immemorial ecclesiastical tradition is an attack on the faith itself and the virtue of Religion. No human person regardless of their authority can legitimately command anything against the virtue of Religion and no Catholic can be obedient to such a command without sin. This is fundamental principle of Catholic moral theology. That holds true whether the authority is father and son or the Pope and a faithful Catholic.

A heretical pope does not possess any authority by his grace of state to command any attack against the faith and it does not require removing him from his office or destroying the office to correct the problem both of which lead to the overturning of Catholic dogma. And, as I have already said, it is absurd for sedevacantists or sedeprivationists to accuse R & R Catholics of problems regarding the Attribute of Indefectibility especially when they end up on a church of their own making that is without a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and without any material or instrumental cause to ever correct the problem. Whatever church this is, it is not the Catholic Church. It cannot worship God or sanctify the faithful. It is therefore a most defective church.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #364 on:** April 02, 2018, 09:52:00 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 02, 2018, 11:32:31 AM

I am not aware of any reputable Catholic source which gives this (rather childish) explanation of the doctrine of submission to the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pope of Rome. I have only heard this rhetoric in SSPX circles. Furthermore, you did not answer what is your understanding of the dogma, what it entails, and its implications in the regular lives of Catholics. You briefly touched the point of the legitimacy of general disobedience. Do you become a subject to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of Baptism alone? What are your obligations as a Roman Catholic in this respect?

I rather believe the words of Pope Leo XIII in Epistola Tua, 1885:

Cantarella,

I think its better to just take one point at time with you and work it to its resolution.

You apparently think that Catholic morality is situational, that a Catholic moral principle is differently applied by the accidental property of 'maturity'. Would you now demonstrate how the Catholic moral principle that obedience to any human authority which is governed by the virtue of Religion is applied in a "childish" relationship between a father and his son, and the relationship between a ruler and his people, and the relationship between a pope and the faithful. Also explain how and why a child's disobedience to the unjust command of his father, the disobedience of a citizen to the unjust command of his ruler, and the disobedience of a faithful Catholic to the unjust command of a pope are categorically different in the application of this Catholic moral principle. Explain how the moral principle changes, or how its application is situationally different. Explain how and why in these different circuмstances the obligation of submission is, or is not, destroyed.

Drew

Samuel · « **Reply #365 on:** April 03, 2018, 04:51:55 AM »

This whole thread, and the other long winded thread (The Heretical Pope Fallacy, 28 pages) could have been reduced to a few posts IF ONLY sedevacantists would know how to distinguish between the Authentic Magisterium and the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary). For some reason, they CAN NOT and WILL NOT make a distinction between the two.

This is the one and only dogma of sedevacantists: "Thou shalt not distinguish between the Authentic and the Infallible Magisterium"

And those who fail to distinguish between the two can only go two ways:

1. Either they HAVE TO reject the whole Magisterium on account of the erring of the Authentic Magisterium, and thus arrive at sedevacantism.

2. Or they HAVE TO accept the errors of the Authentic Magisterium on account of the Infallibility which they mistakenly think belongs to the Authentic Magisterium as well, and thus arrive in the Novus Ordo.

The same underlying error leads to two different erroneous positions.

Once you understand and accept the distinction between Authentic and Infallible Magisterium, you simply Recognize the Infallible Magisterium as Infallible and the Authentic Magisterium as Authentic, and so you accept the teaching of the Infallible Magisterium while you Resist the errors of the Authentic Magisterium. In other words, Recognize and Resist.

The rule of Faith is the Infallible Magisterium (Teaching Authority), expressed in the dogmas it proclaims.

Since the Authentic Magisterium is not infallible, it does NOT belong to the rule of Faith, i.e. it can and does at times err.

Vatican II was a council of the Authentic Magisterium, it was NOT a council of the Infallible Magisterium.

What is so hard about all this?

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #366 on:** April 03, 2018, 05:48:22 AM »

Dear Cantarella,

Thank you for your kind words. The feeling is mutual. Regarding the quotes, I was looking for one of them I saw in the Fr. Hesse videos and came across the rest. I had never seen them. I'm open to any comments, please enlighten us, they are not our rule of faith.

Quote

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
[Galatians 1:8]

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #367 on:** April 03, 2018, 08:46:21 AM »

Pius IX first used the word magisterium in 1863. Pope Leo XIII's quote below was written in 1896, roughly 30 years later. At the time, when the word magisterium was used, it meant the infallible type only.

It is only in the 1900s that modernists started using the word too generally, to apply to any teaching of the church (fallible and non-fallible), so theologians had to construct the 3 levels to explain the differences and to attach the different labels - solemn, authentic, ordinary. It's still confusing, because modernists are still everywhere and like to confuse, but at least there is more consistancy than 70 years ago.

Stubborn · « **Reply #368 on:** April 03, 2018, 09:59:45 AM »

Quote from: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 04:51:55 AM

This whole thread, and the other long winded thread (The Heretical Pope Fallacy, 28 pages) could have been reduced to a few posts IF ONLY sedevacantists would know how to distinguish between the Authentic Magisterium and the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary). For some reason, they CAN NOT and WILL NOT make a distinction between the two.

One of the main problems is that the sedes' very definition of "magisterium", which they say is their rule of faith, is the same as the Novus Ordo definition of "magisterium". Which is to say the sedes' adhere to the NO "totality of bishops doctrine". They believe this NO doctrine, quoted from a sede bishop, to be "a dogma of faith" - "The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful." - Bishop Pivarunas, CMRI

This NO doctrine is adopted from - and backed up by teachings from some of the 19/20th century theologians like Van Noort, who teaches that being bound to the magisterium as your rule of faith "implies a corresponding duty to believe whatever the successors of the Apostles teach".

In order for the sedes to justify their unfaithfulness to their rule of faith, they must claim that their "magisterium" is full of illegitimate members, imposters because of the heresies that they all teach whether assembled in general council or scattered over the earth. Since their "magisterium" is full of imposters, this frees the sedes from their duty to believe whatever the "magisterium" teaches and ipso facto encourages them to the confusion we see them consistently post.

I think a step in the right direction is to agree with and use only Pope Pius IX's description of the Magisterium whenever referring to it:
"...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Tuas Libenter

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #369 on:** April 03, 2018, 10:13:03 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on April 03, 2018, 08:25:46 AM

How do you reconcile your post with this teaching from Pope Leo XIII?

Samuel is correct, he understand the "authentic magisterium", you don't.

The “authentic (or authorized) magisterium” refers only to the person who occupies the Church office to which the Magisterium is attached.

Fr. Joseph Fenton attributes the term “authentic (or authorized) magisterium" to the theological writings of the esteemed Fr. Joachim Salaverri who said:

Fr. Joachim Salaverri wrote:

Quote

“An internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See which have been authentically approved by the Roman Pontiff.” Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain, quote taken from article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953

Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility. (no.659ff). Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.)

The last paragraph of the Ratzinger "Profession of Faith" (Rejected by ABL) and which remains the Non-Negotiable Condition for the SSPX and all indult communities says

Quote

What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

I've said before the Amoris Laetitia is a "teaching" that "the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive."

Since the Modernists cannot use the attribute of Infallibility to bind error, the professio fidei comes handy.

The quotes are from an old thread saved here: http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Catholic%20Controversies/LG,X1989ProfessionFaith;AuthenticMagisterium.htm

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #370 on:** April 03, 2018, 11:21:09 AM »

Quote

Essentially what you're saying is that the non-infallible teachings of the Pope and bishops have no authority when they're not infallible, and Catholics can be free to disregard them.

You really are a person of extremes. If something is not infallible, we must give 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'. If you want to know what that means, go re-read the definitions i've posted multiple times.

Quote

So you're essentially denying the notion of authoritative teaching to anything short of infallible pronouncements.

I've posted theologians' explanations of the 3 tiers of magisterial authority numerous times. You refuse to make distinctions. You have no integrity.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #371 on:** April 03, 2018, 11:24:27 AM »

Quote

"At the time, when the word magisterium was used, it meant the infallible type only" Are you kidding me, Pax?? Where did you come up with this little gem? Source please...

You don't even believe that there IS a fallible magisterium, so how else can YOU interpret this, but that it's ALL infallible?
Go do a google search on the magisterium and there's plenty of history out there. I'm not re-posting it, as i've done so multiple times.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #372 on:** April 03, 2018, 11:29:55 AM »

Quote

I actually have a scriptural annotation ...

Cantarella, you need to stop with the scriptural annotation that you've posted like 1,000x. It's AN OPINION.
The weight you place on its importance is embarrassing.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #373 on:** April 03, 2018, 11:36:52 AM »

Quote

Same thing here. The "superiors" who are mentioned here (and may be disobeyed if they command something sinful), are NOT precisely the Pope of Rome.

A superior is a superior. The Pope is a superior. Principle applies. If St Thomas needed to make an exception, I think he's smart enough to remember to do so. Your exception is not valid.

Quote

St. Thomas explicitly taught in "Contra Errores Graecorum" that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. When we talk about the Holy Father himself then; then the submission to be given is completely different.

Right. We are only obligated to give 'religious CONDITIONAL assent' to the pope, unless he requires UNQUALIFIED assent, through a teaching that he, through infallibility (either solemn or non-solemn), binds us.
Also, if the pope sets a disciplinary rule (i.e. communion fast, or some liturgical rule), which is under pain of sin, so obedience is required and made clear.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #374 on:** April 03, 2018, 11:40:49 AM »

Cantarella,
You still haven't explained why you believe in the false generalization that the pope's "faith cannot fail" when St Robert Bellarmine, your personal hero, says otherwise multiple times and argues that the pope CAN fall into heresy.

I suspect you don't have an answer to this (one of your many) contradictions. You, like Ladislaus on this topic, have an agenda and a lack of integrity.

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 205335 times)

klasG4e

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

drew

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

drew

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Samuel

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Stubborn

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?