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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 76

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 318873 times)

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14645
  • Reputation: +6032/-903
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #435 on: April 06, 2018, 05:52:49 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Cantarella on April 06, 2018, 12:01:25 AM
    It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible. They do not contain error against the Faith.  This truth is part of the Apostolic Tradition and it means that your position is not really traditional, but quite a novelty, indeed.
    This is not true Cantarella because it is not the constant teaching of the Church that the resolutions of General Councils are infallible - what that is, is NO speak, not the teaching of the Church. That EXACT wrong thinking is what originally swayed many otherwise faithful Catholics to abandon their faith and join the NO. I saw it happen in real time with my own eyes.  

    As regards infallibility, there has only ever been one Council that spelled it out, i.e. infallibly defined the extent of the Church's infallibility - and that was The First Vatican Council, whose teachings, which entirely omit the above thinking, effectively and infallibly destroy the above belief.  



    Quote
    I ask then, why should I put in doubt all the resources I have clearly cited in this thread, from Pope St. Hormisdas, Bellarmine, Pope Leo the Great (who by the way, explicitly taught that those who reject Councils "cannot be numbered among Catholics"),...

    You gave a blatant misquote from Pope Leo the Great. The correct quote is: "whosoever resists the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics". I trust you see the error by omission in your above quote as well as it's inevitable repercussions.

    Please note that you will find this to always be the case whenever you come across papal encyclicals regarding the necessity of our submission to the decrees from Councils - they will *always* be referring to past councils - not to future councils. It is important for you to always make this distinction and always remember this.

    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: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #436 on: April 06, 2018, 09:05:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    On top of that he blends me and Cantarella together.
    You consistently answer for her, and you've never called her out on her numerous contradictions, so it's safe to presume you sympathize with some of her arguments.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #437 on: April 06, 2018, 09:19:28 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible.
    You have provided NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that V2 taught infallibly.  Not one.  You have no integrity.

    As V1 defined, all clear, authoritative, 'under pain of sin' and "of the faith" teachings are infallible (solemn or non-solemn).
    All pre-V2 ecuмenical councils fulfilled V1's requirements, therefore they contained infallible teachings.
    V2 did not fulfill V1's infallible requirements, and Paul VI and many theologians admitted this.
    Therefore, V2 did not contain any infallible teachings.

    It's that simple.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #438 on: April 06, 2018, 09:44:07 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 09:05:38 AM
    You consistently answer for her, and you've never called her out on her numerous contradictions, so it's safe to presume you sympathize with some of her arguments.

    I agree. He's always defending her and her ridiculous views.
    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 Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #439 on: April 06, 2018, 09:46:00 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Stubborn on April 06, 2018, 05:52:49 AM
    This is not true Cantarella because it is not the constant teaching of the Church that the resolutions of General Councils are infallible - what that is, is NO speak, not the teaching of the Church. That EXACT wrong thinking is what originally swayed many otherwise faithful Catholics to abandon their faith and join the NO. I saw it happen in real time with my own eyes.  

    As regards infallibility, there has only ever been one Council that spelled it out, i.e. infallibly defined the extent of the Church's infallibility - and that was The First Vatican Council, whose teachings, which entirely omit the above thinking, effectively and infallibly destroy the above belief.  



    You gave a blatant misquote from Pope Leo the Great. The correct quote is: "whosoever resists the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics". I trust you see the error by omission in your above quote as well as it's inevitable repercussions.

    Please note that you will find this to always be the case whenever you come across papal encyclicals regarding the necessity of our submission to the decrees from Councils - they will *always* be referring to past councils - not to future councils. It is important for you to always make this distinction and always remember this.

    Good points above. But Cantarella is not going to pay any real attention to them. 
    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: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #440 on: April 06, 2018, 09:50:20 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    You, on the other hand, are a heretic who needs to convert back to the Catholic faith.  So you are not in any position to judge anyone else's integrity.
    Lack of facts and personal attacks (hey, that rhymes).  That’s all you have. 
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #441 on: April 06, 2018, 09:57:49 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 06, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
    So now you call traditional Catholic theology a set of "ridiculous views".  Cantarella, unlike you R&R types, has a strong Catholic sensus fidei.

    You only THINK that you have a strong sensus fidei. When in fact you only have a strong attachment to your opinion. Same with Cantarella. 
    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: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #442 on: April 06, 2018, 10:03:43 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Pax said:
    Quote
    As V1 defined, all clear, authoritative, 'under pain of sin' and "of the faith" teachings are infallible (solemn or non-solemn).
    All pre-V2 ecuмenical councils fulfilled V1's requirements, therefore they contained infallible teachings.
    V2 did not fulfill V1's infallible requirements, and Paul VI and many theologians admitted this.
    Therefore, V2 did not contain any infallible teachings.

    It's that simple.


    Ladislaus said:

    Quote
    Idiot.  V2, as a Council, most certainly did fulfill the requirements for infallibility.

    What you're bumbling about trying to say is that there are no TEACHINGS within Vatican II that have the notes of infallibility, whereas some of the teachings in Vatican I did have these notes.  It's not about the form of the Councils, as V2 meets all the conditions require for a Council to be infallible ... as Cantarella has demonstrated.

    You can't even properly articulate your arguments, so I have to help you.

    No, I wrote what I wrote for a reason.  You had to "fix" it because you still don't grasp what Vatican I teaches about infallibility.  The pope can be infallible INSIDE or OUTSIDE of an ecuмenical council, so the reality of an ecuмenical council DOESN'T MATTER (it only matters from an efficiency and procedural aspect, since having most cardinals all together can make the research and precision needed for forming the infallible teaching easier on the pope.  Whenever the Church issues an official teaching, it's usually HIGHLY researched and takes time so that exactness in the whole docuмent can be achieved as much as possible).  

    Nowhere in Vatican I (or anywhere else) is it explained that an ecuмenical council is AUTOMATICALLY infallible.  Just because all previous ones were, doesn't mean all future one's will be.  As V1 explained, what matters to infallibility is the intent, wording and authority used, not when, where or with whom the pope teaches.  A council is irrelevant to the pope teaching infallibly, as Pius XII's papal bull shows clearly.

    V2 meets the conditions for an ecuмenical council, but NOT for any infallible statements.  V1 met the conditions for an ecuмenical council AND for infallible statements, but infallibility is INDEPENDENT OF a council and not dependent upon it in any way.

    A plain reading of V1, along with all the commentary, proves these facts.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #443 on: April 06, 2018, 10:16:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Idiot.  V2, as a Council, most certainly did fulfill the requirements for infallibility.
    Would also like to point out the most obvious error you made - you falsely think that a council, which is is an INANIMATE OBJECT, can be infallible.  No, a council cannot be infallible, only the pope can.  A council is just a method, vehicle, or instrument USED by the pope to teach infallibly.

    It's like saying "The car took me to the grocery to get food."  No, the car didn't get you food, WHOEVER DROVE THE CAR took you to get food.

    In the same way, a council is not infallible, it does not teach.  It is a VEHICLE used for teaching, if THE POPE, who presides over the council, uses his power to teach infallibly.  Paul VI did not use his power to teach authoritatively and infallibly at V2, therefore the fact that it was ecuмenical (i.e. worldwide collection of Cardinals) is irrelevant.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #444 on: April 06, 2018, 11:01:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Councils are more than just an extension of papal infallibility.  You're trying to pretend that an Ecuмenical Council is no different than, say, an Encyclical letter.
    I'm trying to distinguish between the POPE and a COUNCIL.  There is a difference.  The POPE has the power of infallibility, not a council.  The pope can use his infallibility at a council, in an encyclical letter, in a papal bull, etc.  To teach infallibly, the pope has to fulfill the conditions set down by V1.

    Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption in a Papal Bull (which is a legal docuмent).  Are all Papal Bulls, then, infallible?  Of course not.
    All previous Ecuмenical councils are infallible BECAUSE THEY TAUGHT INFALLIBLY, not because they were ecuмenical.  Does that mean that all future councils are infallible?  No.

    So, what are the CONSISTENT characteristics between all previous ecuмenical councils, and Pius XII's papal bull?  Both have this in common -  THE POPE used the specific, required language that V1 defined as necessary for his infallibility.

    Quote
    You are constantly being exposed as simply making sh*t up as you go along.
    Another empty comment from you.  "Lack of facts and personal attacks".
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #445 on: April 06, 2018, 11:19:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    But you just said that Councils essentially don't exist and are inanimate objects.
    I never used the phrase "don't exist".  Here is what I said:

    ...You falsely think that a council, which is is an INANIMATE OBJECT, can be infallible.  No, a council cannot be infallible, only the pope can.  A council is just a method, vehicle, or instrument USED by the pope to teach infallibly.

    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #446 on: April 06, 2018, 11:20:58 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Can. 749 §1 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ's faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.

    **§2 **The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecuмenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.

    *§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated. *

    ---
    #3 above agrees with what V2 explained in its footnotes, it agrees with what Pope Paul VI said in his explanation of the council, it agrees with the MANY theologians who have explained that it is NOT REQUIRED to be held with an "assent of faith", hence it's not infallible.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14645
    • Reputation: +6032/-903
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #447 on: April 06, 2018, 11:44:57 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 06, 2018, 09:18:46 AM
    Absolutely right.  When someone doesn't accept the Magisterium as their rule of faith, they invariably fill the vacuum with their own private judgment.

    Again, Cantarella, you're too kind.  What does that make him?  A HERETIC.  (you softened it by saying he's an oxymoron who holds a position unheard of except from heresiarchs).

    While only God can make the determination of whether he's a formal heretic in the internal forum, he's obviously a manifest heretic in the external forum who pertinaciously adheres to various Protestant heresies.  And Drew is the same.  You show him too much respect as well ... just because he outwardly lives a good Catholic life.  Same could be said of many heretics throughout history.
    :facepalm:
    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 Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14645
    • Reputation: +6032/-903
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #448 on: April 06, 2018, 11:45:19 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Cantarella on April 06, 2018, 09:15:13 AM
    Why don't you just plainly say that your Rule of Faith is actually the dogmatic canons of Trent exclusively, and your own personal interpretation of Vatican I Council, in particular, the canons that you "think" may construct a theological foundation which would justify disobedience to the Roman Pontiff and a complete rejection of an Ecunemical Council?

    You are a Roman Catholic who do not trust the Pope of Rome nor the Ecunemical Councils. What does that make you? an oxymoron. The fact that this position is unheard of -except from arch heretics such as Luther- before Vatican II Council, reassures me that indeed it is not traditional. It is not the authentic Catholic position.
    :facepalm: :pray:
    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 Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14645
    • Reputation: +6032/-903
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #449 on: April 06, 2018, 11:46:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on April 06, 2018, 09:46:00 AM
    Good points above. But Cantarella is not going to pay any real attention to them.
    I see that.
    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
    Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 76
    « previous next »