Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 27286 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Cantarella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6308
  • Reputation: +3903/-360
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1110 on: April 15, 2018, 06:09:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    In conclusion, I have provided  expert opinions from theologians (Rev. Pohle, St. Thomas, and Scheeben's) who regard dogma as the proximate rule of faith, three magisterial references that directly refer to dogma as the rule of faith.  But ever stronger than this is the fundamental fact of the definition of heresy.  I am re-posting what was previously offered to Cantarella with minor changes for clarification.

    Did you know that it was precisely in Scheeben's writings that I first read about the 1800's Denzinger dogmatic heading: "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience).

    He wrote extensively about the infallibility of General Councils, in zealous defense of Vatican I. Here is a full quote:


    Quote
    Infallibility of General Councils

    All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the DOGMA it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church. Emperor Constantine saw in the decrees of Nicaea "a Divine commandment" and Athanasius wrote to the bishops of Africa: "What God has spoken through the Council of Nicaea endureth for ever." St. Ambrose (Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, and Pope Leo the Great expressly declares that "whoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics" (Ep. lxxviii, ad Leonem Augustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framed instruente Spiritu Sancto, i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. How the same doctrine was embodied in many professions of faith may be seen in Denzinger's (ed. Stahl) "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum", under the heading (index) "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience). The Scripture texts on which this unshaken belief is based are, among others: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth . . ." John 16:13) "Behold I am with you [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20), "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it [i.e. the Church]" (Matthew 16:18).

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm


    I am glad to know you find Scheeben a reliable reference. Perhaps now you can re-read his article on General Councils with a neutral mind.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 220
    • Reputation: +631/-81
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1111 on: April 15, 2018, 06:21:30 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is good that you bring up this verse once again. This has been addressed before but here it is again, in case someone missed it in this long thread. The following is the annotation for such verse found in a Catholic Bible from XVI century:



    Your interpretation of St. Paul's correction to St. Peter in the context of R&R is completely corrupt. The heretics use this verse maliciously to promote "Resistance to the Face" towards a true Pope; instead of brotherly fraternal correction which this verse does allow for. The protestants infer that Peter did fail in Faith and therefore, that popes can fail in Faith also; but this is not true. If you notice, St. Peter's error was not in Faith, but in conversation or behavior. In such a case, when popes have personal faults, they may and have indeed been reprehended and admonished in the past in a zealous spirit of charity (St. Paul, Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian, etc.); instead of a contentious spirit of malice (think Luther, Calvin, Novatus, etc). Again, popes may err in their private teachings and writings, but their Faith cannot fail. It is certain they cannot err in doctrine. This is yet another scriptural verse whose annotation mentions this impossibility of Peter's Faith failing.

    Cantarella,


    I told you before that your rule of faith is the pope.  I know it, and now everyone else knows it as well.  Papalotry leads to sedevacantism or novus ordo hermeneutics of continuity positions.  Take your pick today for tomorrow you may be in the other camp. Your problem is not with me, it's with St. Paul and the Holy Ghost. Read the Galatians yourself.  It was St. Paul, who said under divine inspiration that St. Peter was guilty of "dissimulation" that himself, leading others, "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel."
     
    You also make a grave error in assuming that Judaizing is only a disciplinary problem.  It was the "Holy Ghost" who spoke at the Council of Jerusalem and inspired St. Paul's letter to the Galatians.  He is not to be gainsaid.
     
    Furthermore, I have gone over this at least three or four times with you concerning the claim that each and every pope possess a personal "never-failing faith."  Not one Church father endorses this claim; it is not so much as even mentioned in Haydock's Commentary or by St. Thomas.  Rev. Cornerlius a Lapide's Great Commentary does mention it only to categorically deny it. He says explicitly and directly that the personal never-failing faith was a personal gift to St. Peter alone.  Vatican I quotes the gift of never-failing faith in support only that the pope would never engage the Magisterial power of his office to bind the faithful to doctrinal or moral error.  And to this day, they have not, including the conciliar popes.
     
    Now you, who worship the pope, can believe that he possess a personal never-failing faith and make him you personal rule of faith.  I wish you well, but my wishes are like whistling in the wind. You have no pope, you have no rule of faith, you have no means to ever get a pope, you belong to a church that is permanently defective of a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ outside of which there is neither salvation nor forgiveness of sins.  Good luck.
     
    Drew


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6308
    • Reputation: +3903/-360
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1112 on: April 15, 2018, 07:01:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Mr. Drew,

    You cite Sheeben as a Magisterial reference when defending "Dogma" as the Rule of Faith. This same Sheeben (among many others) is telling you that it is a dogma that a General Council in union with the Pope has the assistance of the Holy Ghost, therefore cannot err.

    Quote
    All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the DOGMA it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element.

    Yet you regret this. Why? I wonder then, What "Dogma" really is your Rule of Faith? Is it the Council of Trent in exclusivity? (your position is infallibly condemned in Trent under the errors of Luther). Is it perhaps the thrice infallible EENS dogma? (then, what makes a Catholic to be in "submission" to the Holy Father? one of the premises of EENS)

    I ask questions but you provide no relevant answers; only contradictions. I am in agreement with some of your statements but most are off-topic.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6308
    • Reputation: +3903/-360
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1113 on: April 15, 2018, 07:14:38 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • But then according to the last sentence, you actually believe that Paul VI wasn't even a Catholic at all. He only pretended to be a Catholic, like a true marrano.

    Is this correct?

    Thank you for the clarification. Yes, this is correct. It seems reasonable to believe so and this would be the impediment to receive Divine Assistance as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, whose Faith cannot fail.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline forlorn

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +47/-134
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1114 on: April 15, 2018, 08:03:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • I have absolutely no idea what made you think that I am "afraid of the Magisterium"!?

    Yes, I am aware of and agree with the distinctions between and the limitations of the Extraordinary, the Ordinary and the Authentic Magisterium. That is why believe in R&R and reject SV.

    Was you reply maybe meant for someone else?
    I didn't even quote you. I quoted Drew. 


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 220
    • Reputation: +631/-81
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1115 on: April 15, 2018, 10:07:13 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Mr. Drew,

    You cite Sheeben as a Magisterial reference when defending "Dogma" as the Rule of Faith. This same Sheeben (among many others) is telling you that it is a dogma that a General Council in union with the Pope has the assistance of the Holy Ghost, therefore cannot err.

    Yet you regret this. Why? I wonder then, What "Dogma" really is your Rule of Faith? Is it the Council of Trent in exclusivity? (your position is infallibly condemned in Trent under the errors of Luther). Is it perhaps the thrice infallible EENS dogma? (then, what makes a Catholic to be in "submission" to the Holy Father? one of the premises of EENS)

    I ask questions but you provide no relevant answers; only contradictions. I am in agreement with some of your statements but most are off-topic.

    Cantarella,

    You assume that everything from an ecumenical council is infallible.  It is not.  Infallibility is only possible when all the necessary criteria stipulated in Vatican I are met: intent to define, a matter of revealed doctrine or morals, by virtue of the "teaching authority" which Jesus Christ empowered His Church, determination to impose the judgment on all the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Even with other councils, such as Trent, although all the documents have great authority, only the dogmatic canons have the note of infallibility.

    Quote
    As Scheenben's says: "Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the DOGMA it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element.

    There was neither the "formula" or the "dogma it enshrines" produced from Vatican II.  No one before the council, during the council or after the council ever said anything to the contrary. And you post your question as if this has not already been addressed over and over again.  But no matter how many time it is said to you, you repeat the same errors again and again.  You are repeating this just as you repeated your belief that the pope possess a personal "never-failing faith."  Well, if you insist on believing these things and leaving the Catholic Church for a church that does not, and will never have any of these problems because it will never have a pope and never have an ecumenical council ever, you will find the problems you are leaving behind are nothing compared to the problems you will be facing. Remember, your church not only does not have a pope, it does not have the means to ever get one. It is irredeemably defective. This is a fact.

    Drew

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2128
    • Reputation: +1308/-539
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1116 on: April 15, 2018, 11:59:57 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Drew, Drew, Drew!  One cannot let facts and logic get in the way of a good story.  

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13437
    • Reputation: +6920/-1615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1117 on: April 16, 2018, 08:58:53 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
  • You assume that everything from an ecumenical council is infallible.

    And you assume that NOTHING about V2 is infallible, that it can be thoroughly corrupted and polluted with error.

    That's heretical.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13437
    • Reputation: +6920/-1615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1118 on: April 16, 2018, 08:59:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I told you before that your rule of faith is the pope.

    And you persist in this straw-man lie ... even after having been corrected multiple times about it.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13437
    • Reputation: +6920/-1615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1119 on: April 16, 2018, 09:03:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • You cite Sheeben as a Magisterial reference when defending "Dogma" as the Rule of Faith. This same Sheeben (among many others) is telling you that it is a dogma that a General Council in union with the Pope has the assistance of the Holy Ghost, therefore cannot err.

    Just as with Vatican II, Sheeben is to be considered an authority when he agrees with Drew and mistaken (no longer an authority) where he disagrees with Drew.  Drew subjects Vatican II to the same criterion or truth/falsehood, his own private judgment and superior theological (and reading comprehension) skills ... unlike that bumbling idiot +Guerard who, with his multiple degrees and credentials, can't hold a candle to Drew.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8422
    • Reputation: +3111/-621
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1120 on: April 16, 2018, 09:43:26 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Just as with Vatican II, Sheeben is to be considered an authority when he agrees with Drew and mistaken (no longer an authority) where he disagrees with Drew.  Drew subjects Vatican II to the same criterion or truth/falsehood, his own private judgment and superior theological (and reading comprehension) skills ... unlike that bumbling idiot +Guerard who, with his multiple degrees and credentials, can't hold a candle to Drew.
    Such puerile reasoning as this could be understood if coming from prots or NOers, I guess, sadly, coming from sedes is also to be expected.
     
    Like the Baltimore and other Catechisms, most of what the catechisms teach is good and holy and agrees with what the Church has always taught, yet there are some teachings within the catechisms that need correcting - the same applies to theologians. Even the greatest of all theologians, the Angelic Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas, admits this.

    Sheeben along with van Noort, Guerard, Fenton and etc. are to be considered an authority when they agree with the Church, not with Drew. Drew, as well as the rest of us, agree with the theologians when the theologians agree with the Church's teachings, and we disagree with them when they disagree with the Church's teachings, same as the catechisms. It's not complicated.

    The problem is that you believe that all of the teachings of those 19th/20th century theologians are actual teachings of the Church - which is entirely wrong and wrong headed, but this false idea has, as +ABL said, permeated all the manifestations of the Church, and it is this same false thinking which you embrace, that has lead billions to accept those false theological speculations as if they are official teachings of the Church, in turn leading them to lose their faith - and YOU, in spite of being corrected umpteen times, are guilty of promoting those same false ideas as if they are actual teachings of the Church -poop head.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13437
    • Reputation: +6920/-1615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1121 on: April 16, 2018, 09:46:17 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
  • Sheeben along with van Noort, Guerard, Fenton and etc. are to be considered an authority when STUBBORN SAYS they agree with the Church ...

    There, fixed it for you.

    Offline forlorn

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +47/-134
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1122 on: April 16, 2018, 11:59:53 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • It does not matter what Drew personally interprets the dogma to mean. Catholic are still required to give faithful assent to ALL MAGISTERIUM. Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Protestant heresy. 

    If you accept Pope Francis as a valid Pope and the V2 Church as the true Catholic Church, you MUST assent to its teachings. There's no way around that.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13437
    • Reputation: +6920/-1615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1123 on: April 16, 2018, 12:47:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • It does not matter what Drew personally interprets the dogma to mean. Catholic are still required to give faithful assent to ALL MAGISTERIUM. Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Protestant heresy.

    If you accept Pope Francis as a valid Pope and the V2 Church as the true Catholic Church, you MUST assent to its teachings. There's no way around that.

    Yes, Cantarella and I have been trying to tell Drew this for the entirety of the thread.

    Drew attempts to get around this by claiming that his interpretation of dogma = dogma itself, that dogma itself (i.e. his interpretation thereof) is the rule of faith.

    No, it's not Vatican II vs. Tradition, Drew.  It's YOUR interpetation of Tradition and Vatican II vs. the Magisterium's (as you hold it to be) interpretation of Tradition and Vatican II.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13437
    • Reputation: +6920/-1615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1124 on: April 16, 2018, 12:52:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Such puerile reasoning as this could be understood if coming from prots or NOers, I guess, sadly, coming from sedes is also to be expected.

    There's nothing puerile about this.  You just can't get your mind around it.  I say that Van Noort agrees with the Church, whereas Drew says he does not.  So, then, does he or doesn't he?  I say Fenton agrees with the Church, but you say he does not.  So does he or does he not?  You're saying that YOUR perspective is consistent with dogma, and the other one is wrong.  I guess that leaves each one of us to decide what is consistent with dogma and what is not ... without a final arbiter.  So then our own private judgment becomes our own rule of faith.

    That's where the Magisterium comes in ... for Catholics anyway, as that objective arbiter.  This is Catholicism 101 vs. the Protestant heresies.

    Why do you think the Prots have split up into some 23,000+ sects.  Person A decides that X is consistent with Scripture, Person B decides that X is not consistent with Scripture.  And for each person there's a unique rule, his own private judgment.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16