Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 318816 times)

Samuel · « **Reply #450 on:** April 06, 2018, 12:53:46 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 06, 2018, 10:49:34 AM

Wrong. Said sensus fidei comes from simply reading Traditional pre-Vatican II theology about the Church and the Magisterium. Try it sometime and see if it lines up with your twisted heretical spin on Catholicism.

Wrong.

Error comes from simply reading... (i.e. Sedevacantism)

Sensus Fidei comes from simply understanding... (i.e. R&R)

Samuel · « **Reply #451 on:** April 06, 2018, 12:56:48 PM »

Quote from: Samuel on April 05, 2018, 03:28:25 PM

Thank you for the clear answer. Please bear with me, I am trying to fully understand your position.

Which of the following mutually exclusive statements is your position:

1. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic can determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.

2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.

Cantarella,

Are you willing to answer this question?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #452 on:** April 06, 2018, 02:56:18 PM »

Ok, everyone. Let's sum up the facts of the case. We're not dealing with interpretations, or opinions but FACTS.

1. CANON LAW SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT V2 WAS NOT INFALLIBLE, IN ANY WAY.

Canon Law 749 says that if something is not EXPRESSLY SAID to be infallible, then it's not:
*§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated. *

2. VATICAN II'S OWN DOcuмENTS ADMIT IT WAS NOT INFALLIBLE.

From V2's footnotes:
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.

My note: 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. POPE PAUL VI ADMITTED PUBLICLY THAT VATICAN 2 WAS NOT INFALLIBLE -- THREE TIMES!

Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.
(Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6tolast.htm)

---

" There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification , the council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council , it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner and dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."
(General Audience , December 1, 1966 published in L'Oservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

---

"Differing from other councils , this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral."
(General audience August 6, 1975.)

4.  MANY, MANY OTHERS IN ROME HAVE SAID IT IS NOT INFALLIBLE.

Cardinal Ratzinger stated:
"Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it , which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has changed , and what preceded it has no value or, at best , has value in the light of Vatican II..... The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level , as merely a pastoral council."

( Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference , II Sabato 30/7 5/8/1988

---

Cardinal Felici elaborated on this to Archbishop Lefebvre († 1991), who narrated his experience.

“These events I was involved in. It is I who carried the signatures to Mgr. Felici, the Council Secretary, accompanied by Mgr. de Proenca Sigaud, Archbishop of Diamantina: and I am obliged to say there occurred things that are truly inadmissible. I do not say this in order to condemn the Council; and I am not unaware that there is here a cause of confusion for a great many Catholics. After all, they think the Council was inspired by the Holy Ghost. “Not necessarily. A non-dogmatic, pastoral council is not a recipe for infallibility." When, at the end of the sessions, we asked Cardinal Felici, “Can you not give us what the theologians call the “theological note of the Council?”” he replied, “We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”

(An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.”, p. 107)

---

John Cardinal Heenan of England stated as follows.
“It deliberately limited its own objectives. There were to be no specific definitions. Its purpose from the first was pastoral renewal within the Church and a fresh approach to the outside.” (Council and Clergy, 1966)

---

Bishop Butler of England publicly spoke to the matter twice.
“Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecuмenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which is in itself infallible.” (The Tablet 26,11,1967)

---

Bishop Rudolf Graber wrote as follows.
“Since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council.” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, 1974)

---

Bishop Thomas Morris expressed his relief on the matter.
“I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council docuмents as tentative and likely to be reformed.” (Catholic World News 1,22,1997)

5. POPE PAUL VI REQUIRED "RELIGIOUS SUBMISSION" TO V2, WHICH IS CONDITIONAL ONLY

Paul VI gave the theological note of the revolutionary Council in his Apostolic Brief for its closing, “In Spiritu Sancto”(December 8, 1965), which was read at the closing ceremonies of that day by Archbishop Felici, the General Secretary. Paul VI had already stated in his address concluding the Council the day before that the Council had not “wish[ed] to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and therefore was not infallible; Felici went on to explain that Paul VI was making the Council a matter of religious submission, which is the assent given to non-infallible material, as we shall see.

“And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family. […] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. […] Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.”

(In Spiritu Sancto, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Docuмents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)

Paul VI established at the Council’s end that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed”. The 1983 Code of Canon Law distinguishes the matter of religious submission from infallible, definitive teaching.

---

“Can. 752. While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

So, “religious submission” is given when the Pope, either alone or with his bishops in a council, does not intend to “proclaim doctrine by a definitive act”: therefore the matter of religious submission is not infallible, which is why it does not require “the assent of faith”. IT IS CONDITIONAL.

6.  CAN A NON-INFALLIBLE EcuмENICAL COUNCIL ERR?

Dr. William H. Marshner, Professor of Theology at Christendom College and Theological Editor of Faith and Reason, considers Vatican II’s authority in the Fall, 1983 issue of that journal. The issue was dedicated to Dignitatis humanae and whether it represents continuity or rupture with previous teaching. Marshner concludes that the Declaration on Religious Liberty is consonant with perennial doctrine, but he goes on to acknowledge certain other possibilities:

“At the same time, however, I join with all other theologians in saying that the new ground is non-infallible teaching. So when I say that the possibility exists that Vatican II is wrong on one or more crucial points of Dignitatis humanae, I do not simply mean that the Council’s policy may prove unfruitful. I mean to signal a possibility that the Council’s teaching is false.

But may a Catholic theologian admit that such a possibility exists? Of course he may. The decree (sic) Dignitatis humanae is a non-infallible docuмent, and the teaching which it presents is admitted to be a “new development,” hence not something which is already acknowledged dogma ex magisterio ordinario. Therefore the kind of religious assent which Catholics owe to that teaching is the kind of assent which does not exclude the logical possibility that the teaching is wrong; rather our assent excludes any probability that the teaching is wrong.[20]

---

This synthesis agrees with that of Mr. Michael Davies, a Traditionalist apologist, where he cites a pre-Vatican II Benedictine theologian to this same effect:In a profound study intended to enhance the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium, Dom Paul Nau, O.S.B., cites a number of authors who reckon the duty of Catholics when confronted with a docuмent of the Ordinary Magisterium “to be that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught.”[23]

---

The final theologian we will cite regarding the possibility of error in Vatican II is Cardinal Avery Dulles. In discussing the four categories of Church teaching we have employed, he labels Vatican II’s teachings exactly as we have:
The third category has long been familiar to Catholics, especially since the popes began to teach regularly through encyclical letters some two centuries ago. The teaching of Vatican II, which abstained from new doctrinal definitions, falls predominantly into this category. In view of the mission given by Christ to the hierarchical magisterium, it is evident that when the magisterium formally teaches something as Catholic doctrine, it is not uttering a mere opinion that Catholics are free to disregard. The teaching has a real, though not unconditional, claim on the assent of the faithful.[24]

---

J. Robert Dionne, who produced “the most exhaustive investigation of the so-called ‘reversals’ of ordinary papal teaching”:
Dionne maintains that reversals occurred in Catholic doctrine regarding non-Christian religions, religious freedom, the ideal of church-state relations, the identity (or non-identity) between the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church, and the theology of church membership. On these and other issues, he contends, historical scholarship does not support the “maximalist” position that the ordinary magisterium of the pope is equipped with the charism of infallibility. To deny on principle that ordinary papal teaching can be corrected would be, in effect, to assert that all of it is definitive, and that none of it can pertain to the third and fourth categories in the CDF instruction.[29]

7.  CONCLUSION: VATICAN 2 IS NOT INFALLIBLE, ONLY REQUIRES "CONDITIONAL" RELIGIOUS ASSENT, AND THUS, IN ITS NOVELTIES, IT CAN ERR.

drew · « **Reply #453 on:** April 06, 2018, 03:16:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 05, 2018, 03:20:45 PM

I believe that also. I suspect that the V2 papal claimants were never legitimate to begin with. I believe that Siri was elected and illegitimately/illegally replaced by Roncalli.

There's this prophecy, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi --

John Vennari wrote a very good article on the Siri Thesis for CFN back in 2006 that examines the facts in a soundly reasoned analysis. It is short and wrote reading for anyone tempted to give any credibility to this absurd theory. A theory is supposed to provide an explanation for known facts. Any legitimate theory will necessary limit possibilities of explanation for given facts. When a theory expands the possibilities beyond known facts, it enters the realm of fantasy. The theory was also panned by Atila Guimaraes posted on Tradition in Action with some picture of Cardinal Siri and the conciliar popes. Links to both are provided below.

Drew

http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page77/cardinal_siri_thesis.html

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A441-Siri2.html

Stubborn · « **Reply #454 on:** April 06, 2018, 03:18:38 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 06, 2018, 02:56:18 PM

7. CONCLUSION: VATICAN 2 IS NOT INFALLIBLE

Good post Pax, a shame to spend the time you did on it proving the painfully obvious.

drew · « **Reply #455 on:** April 06, 2018, 03:35:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 05, 2018, 12:01:08 PM

How many times does it need to be explained to you that we don't believe that Paul VI has Magisterium? That is the very point of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism.

"How many times does it need to be explained to you." The Magisterium is the "authoritative teaching" of the Church that can only be engaged by the pope. So if the each one of the conciliar popes "has (not) Magisterium" who does? And if no one does where is your rule of faith? No pope, no access to the Magisterium, no rule of faith. Then you are left only with yourself as your only rule of faith, with "your own private judgment." Sounds just like Protestantism.

As you already said:
Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 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.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #456 on:** April 06, 2018, 03:42:06 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 06, 2018, 03:18:38 PM

Good post Pax, a shame to spend the time you did on it proving the painfully obvious.

I would like to second Stubborn's endorsement of your post Pax. It is incredible that such evident truths still need to be repeated. But this is really true of all the posts explaining the errors of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. They have to go back and restate the most elementary truths of our faith which these errors corrupt.

Drew

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #457 on:** April 06, 2018, 03:46:12 PM »

Quote

How many times does it need to be explained to you that we don't believe that Paul VI has Magisterium?

Ok, so Paul VI didn't have a valid Magisterium. Is that because you believe in the Siri thesis? If not because of Siri, then why wouldn't Paul VI be valid? And, further, why didn't JPI, JPII, Benedict or Francis have a valid magisterium?

I'll repeat what I asked earlier ... I received no response:
Even if the "pope siri" thesis were true, it can't be proven, so we can't say for sure. Even if we allow for it to be true, that still doesn't solve your problem of WHY didn't you consider Benedict XVI a pope? Siri was long dead before Benedict was elected, so Benedict would be valid - unless you hold to the "hidden pope" theory where Siri's cardinals held a conclave.

If you would just admit the above, I could understand your arguments better. I wouldn't agree with them, but at least they wouldn't be so contradictory. As they are now, absent the multiple thesis related to Siri, they have many logical holes.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #458 on:** April 06, 2018, 04:10:57 PM »

Quote from: drew on April 06, 2018, 03:35:53 PM

"How many times does it need to be explained to you." The Magisterium is the "authoritative teaching" of the Church that can only be engaged by the pope. So if the each one of the conciliar popes "has (not) Magisterium" who does? And if no one does where is your rule of faith? No pope, no access to the Magisterium, no rule of faith. Then you are left only with yourself as your only rule of faith. Sounds just like Protestantism.

Drew

They look to dogma as their rule of faith now, with no Magisterium to guide them. They look to dogma to determine that the current hierarchy, which should be their Magsterium, is heretical, and therefore a bunch of "masqueraders." And they accuse others who recognize the truth of using dogma as the ultimate authority - basically doing what they do in practice (just don't say it - hypocrites!) - as if it were some offense against the faith.

And they have no sense of the irony of it all.

You have to see it to believe it, and even then you scratch your head.

They have made the Church their God, as the theologians they swear to made the Church their God. The Church is God's surrogate, and the pope is His vicar. They have made this means established by God, and the organ of His Revelation, into their idol. They worship the Temple and not the God of the Temple.

So the judgment came, and cometh.

drew · « **Reply #459 on:** April 06, 2018, 04:19:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 05, 2018, 03:20:45 PM

I believe that also. I suspect that the V2 papal claimants were never legitimate to begin with. I believe that Siri was elected and illegitimately/illegally replaced by Roncalli.

There's this prophecy, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi --

I would also add that the belief of Cantarella and Ladislaus that a validly elected pope could not fall into heresy is untenable with their belief that everything from an ecuмenical council is infallible, either directly by infallible infallibility, or indirectly by "infallible security". Two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes personally anathematized by name Pope Honorius as a heretic. If a "validly elected pope cannot not fall into heresy," then two infallible ecuмenical councils have erred which they deny can happen.

And for the record, it does not matter to anyone except Pope Honorius himself whether or not his heresy was formal or only material. Since when does the Church "anathematize" anyone for merely material heresy? There must be some degree of personal culpability and imputability to Pope Honorius in what he did or failed to do regarding the dogmas of our faith.

Drew

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #460 on:** April 06, 2018, 05:36:21 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 06, 2018, 04:22:25 PM

Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Today at 04:10:57 PM
Quote
And they accuse others who recognize the truth of using dogma as the ultimate authority - basically doing what they do in practice (just don't say it - hypocrites!) - as if it were some offense against the faith.

Since you just joined in, why don't you tell me where did you get this "truth" from?

It was in my post. The truth is, you, Ladislaus, - everyone in truth uses dogma as their ultimate authority. If you didn't, you would have no ground upon which to judge the heretics in the Vatican. There is no Magisterium that has made that judgment for you; you did it on your own. With what? Previously infallible dogma that has been contradicted and betrayed.

You can do all your pretty little semantic somersaults about "rule of faith" and declare this or that, accuse so in so of heresy and being against this and that theologian, say this or that person's formulation of what is their "rule of faith" is heretical . . . but it's all semantics.

Everyone uses dogma as their ultimate authority. All you have to do is look at the fruit on every tree.

That's the truth.

Some get bent out of shape if someone outright comes out and fesses up and declares it, like Drew. They like to play their little semantic games and play pretend with language.

That's their problem, for the truth is the truth: dogma is the ultimate authority.

The Church's privileged role in all of this is, the Church proclaims the dogma, and is the organ that delivers the ultimate authority.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #461 on:** April 06, 2018, 05:50:27 PM »

Quote

Where are your traditional, pre-Vatican II Council, Catholic sources that support that a General Council ratified by the Pope can teach heresy?

Well, let’s see. There were 3-4 St Bellarmine quotes but you ignored them. Then there were a few from theologians in the 1920s but you must not like those either.

Secondly, the fact that Modernists who created, wrote and promote V2 admit that it only requires CONDITIONAL assent is a GOOD thing. But you can’t admit that because you have an agenda and aren’t open to the truth.

Finally, you’ve yet to explain how/why Paul VI was not the pope. You’ve yet to answer 3-4 outstanding questions I and others have asked you.

You have no integrity.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #462 on:** April 06, 2018, 05:54:09 PM »

A good description of this from MHFM, from there book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation :

Quote

3.  Believe Dogma as it was once declared

     There is only one way to believe dogma: as holy mother Church has once declared.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Churchhas once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[xviii]

     This definition of the First Vatican Council is critically important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way the Devil attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to recede (move away) from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared.  There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how holy mother Church has declared them.

     Many of us have dealt with people who have attempted to explain away the clear meaning of the definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation by saying, “you must understand them.”  What they really mean is that you must understand them in a way different from what the words themselves state and declare.  And this is precisely what the First Vatican Council condemns.  It condemns their moving away from the understanding of a dogma which holy mother Church has once declared to a different meaning, under the specious (false) name of a “deeper understanding.”

     Besides those who argue that we must “understand” dogmas in a different way than what the words themselves state and declare, there are those who, when presented with the dogmatic definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation, say, “that is your interpretation.”  They belittle the words of a dogmatic formula to nothing other than one’s private interpretation.  And this also is heresy.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[xix]

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned[xx]

     Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven; they are not interpretations.  To accuse one who adheres faithfully to these truths fallen from heaven of engaging in “private interpretation” is to speak heresy.

      The very point of a dogmatic DEFINITION is to DEFINE precisely and exactly what the Church means by the very words of the formula.  If it does not do this by those very words in the formula or docuмent (as the Modernists say) then it has failed in its primary purpose – to define – and was pointless and worthless.

     Anyone who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of the Chair of Peter, Papal Infallibility and dogmatic definitions.  He is asserting that dogmatic definitions are pointless, worthless and foolish and that the Church is pointless, worthless and foolish for making such a definition.

     Also, those who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter.  They are subordinating the dogmatic teaching of the Chair of Peter (truths from heaven) to the re-evaluation of fallible human docuмents, thereby inverting their authority, perverting their integrity and denying their purpose.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug. 15, 1832: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[xxi]

    Thus, there is no “strict” or “loose” interpretation of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as the liberal heretics like to emphasize; there is only what the Church has once declared.

In the Holy Office letter, those cardinals declared that dogmatic truths must "be understood in the sense in which the Church herself understands it," as if the words themselves weren't clear enough. That quoted phrase is code for "it is what we say it is," and we know what fallible popes (when not engaging the charism given to them under circuмstances defined and limited by God) and bishops have said some of those dogmas "really" mean over the last 50 plus years.

Some perpetuate the "it is what we say it is" fraud of the Vatican II hierarchy when they say that the "rule of the faith" is the Magisterium, without defining that phrase to where there statement would only make sense: the Church speaking infallibly. They are committing the same errors that got us here and which enabled V2.

And, as I said, they act otherwise anyway and treat dogma as their ultimate authority anyway, unwittingly revealing the truth.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #463 on:** April 06, 2018, 08:55:16 PM »

Oh, Cantarella, you can’t even make a simple distinction that not everything in a council is infallible. Even your buddy Ladislaus agrees you’re wrong on this.

Women have no business discussing theology, philosophy and especially, logic.

drew · « **Reply #464 on:** April 06, 2018, 09:45:52 PM »

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.

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"), the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vatican I council, The 1800's Denzinger version, my Bible, etc. (in fact, if you notice, every single one of my thoughts are backed up by an ecclesiastical source). Why should I put all those behind to trust and follow Mr. Drew, instead ? Everyone is wrong except Mr. Drew?

I am still waiting for a single reputable Catholic source that is in agreement with your theory on the Rule of Faith being "Dogma". No Council, no Pope, no saint, no priest, not even a known theologian is in agreement with you.

I am always welcome to be proven otherwise, though.

Tell me, what really makes your assertion any different from Luther's here above?

I think you should change your name to Won'tarella.

Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Magisterium ("teaching authority") of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority.
The causes of Dogma:
The formal cause and the final cause of Dogma is God.
The material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma is the Magisterium.
The Magisteriuim is necessary but insufficient cause of Dogma.
The Magisterium can only be engaged by the Pope.
Therefore, whoever holds dogma as the proximate rule of faith must necessarily accept the pope, his office and the Magisterium without which there would be no dogma.

Luther denied dogma; he denied the papal office; he denied the Magisterium. If you are unable or unwilling to understand the difference between those who hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith from Martin Luther then you have a lot more serious problems than sedevacantism and sedeprivationism.

Your charge of Protestantism is based upon your belief that dogma is not a settled question but rather is always evolving new and deeper meanings. Therefore, the literal meaning of dogma is insufficient to its real meaning which must be always reinterpreted by the "magisterium." Therefore, anyone who takes dogma in its literal sense as once defined infallible truth is guilty of "private interpretation." This is what you mean by the "magisterium is your rule of faith."

This is essentially a denial that dogma is divine revelation constituting the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. This is a grave error that you share with every Modernist and Neo-modernist heretic.

Lastly, you were given a lengthy quotation from the Fourth Council of Constantinople where the Council Fathers cited dogma as their rule of faith. You were also given the evidence from the regional council approved by Pope Zosimus using "dogma" and "rule of faith" as synonyms. You have also had it explained to you that the very definition of heresy is the rejection of dogma as the rule of faith. Luther did not keep Catholic dogma and was formally declared a heretic. You are going down the same road by rejecting dogma which necessarily happens with sedevacantism and sedeprivationism.

I do not know what your motive is in this but I know it will not end well for you. This is as certain as death itself.

Drew

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 318816 times)

Samuel

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

Samuel

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

Pax Vobis

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

drew

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

Stubborn

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?

Pax Vobis

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

Jeremiah2v8

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

drew

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

Jeremiah2v8

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

Pax Vobis

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

Jeremiah2v8

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

Pax Vobis

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

drew

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