Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 61309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • Reputation: +235/-274
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #570 on: April 15, 2018, 10:43:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • The despair you mention is exactly like the despair of the Apostles immediately after the Passion and Crucifixion.

    They failed to distinguish between Christ's humanity and His Divinity: "If Christ was truly God, then He would have never died on the cross, but since He did die on the cross, how can He really be God?"

    Likewise, you refuse to distinguish between the Ordinary and the Authentic Magisterium. You erroneously believe that the Authentic Magisterium is infallible, so when it does err you believe it cannot be the Authentic Magisterium and you reject it.

    The same obstinate mind block, the same resulting error to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

    Do you believe Vatican II should have been infallible? Prove it!

    PS : Meanwhile, I'm still interested in hearing your explanation of how we got a Paul VI. Was he orthodox, an occult heretic or a public heretic at the time of his election?

    PPS : Your answer, whether true or false, still does not solve the problem of your version of infallibility. It is not a Catholic version.
    If Ecumenical Councils are not infallible, then we don't even know for sure if our Bibles are correct or if Christ is divine you silly fool. All solemn definitions given at Ecumenical Councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. This is Church teaching. To deny this is to deny the Catholic Faith in its entirety, as you are then declaring that NOTHING the Church teaches is certain, and you merely rely on the Bible(which again wouldn't even be certain if you don't take Ecumenical Councils as infallible) like some Protestant heretic. 

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3261
    • Reputation: +1982/-976
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #571 on: April 15, 2018, 12:44:25 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1

  • Quote
    All solemn definitions given at Ecumenical Councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible.

    True, but V2 contained none.


    Offline Samuel

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 225
    • Reputation: +285/-119
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #572 on: April 15, 2018, 01:18:04 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Absurd argument.  I don't really care what YOU "conclude", all Catholic theologians teach to the contrary.  Nice waste of time.  Every step of the way you're just making something up that sounds good to you.

    Dogma is not PROXIMATE.  Otherwise people would never have gotten it wrong about the Immaculate Conception.  Otherwise there would never have been heresies in the Church and myriad heretical sects leaving the Church.

    From the New Advent Encyclopedia:

    Quote
    Loss of faith
    From what has been said touching the absolutely supernatural character of the gift of faith, it is easy to understand what is meant by the loss of faith. God's gift is simply withdrawn. And this withdrawal must needs be punitive, "Non enim deseret opus suum, si ab opere suo non deseratur" (St. Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 145 — "He will not desert His own work, if He be not deserted by His own work"). And when the light of faith is withdrawn, there inevitably follows a darkening of the mind regarding even the very motives of credibility which before seemed so convincing. This may perhaps explain why those who have had the misfortune to apostatize from the faith are often the most virulent in their attacks upon the grounds of faith; "Vae homini illi", says St. Augustine, "nisi et ipsius fidem Dominus protegat", i.e. "Woe be to a man unless the Lord safeguard his faith" (Enarration on Psalm 120).

    Ladislaus, your mind is darkened. I was agreeing with you that the Magisterium is the Rule of Faith, but you are so absorbed in your "most virulent attacks" against just about everyone else that you didn't even realize it. You are rude, arrogant, proud and.. plain stupid. You should not be on this forum, and certainly not on this thread. You are a hindrance to people who are seriously interested in discussing their faith.

    Offline Samuel

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 225
    • Reputation: +285/-119
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #573 on: April 15, 2018, 01:27:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If Ecumenical Councils are not infallible, then we don't even know for sure if our Bibles are correct or if Christ is divine you silly fool. All solemn definitions given at Ecumenical Councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. This is Church teaching. To deny this is to deny the Catholic Faith in its entirety, as you are then declaring that NOTHING the Church teaches is certain, and you merely rely on the Bible(which again wouldn't even be certain if you don't take Ecumenical Councils as infallible) like some Protestant heretic.

    Can you please explain to this "silly fool", when an Ecumenical Council teaches that "nothing in this council is infallible", was that an infallible teaching?

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #574 on: April 15, 2018, 02:51:44 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Rule of Faith, is it Dogma or the Magisterium?

    Let's start with the definition of the Rule of Faith:

    The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. (New Advent)

    So, we're looking for the proximate and animate or living Rule of Faith. Whatever that rule is, what are it's necessary attributes?

    1. It must be Divine and infallible. Private interpretation for example cannot be our Rule of Faith, because it is neither Divine nor infallible.

    2. It must be proximate. In other words, we must have access to it, here and now. Whenever a dispute arises we must be able to go to our Rule of Faith to "measure" and settle the dispute.

    3. It must be animate or living. What does that mean? Since Scripture and Tradition are called inanimate because they "cannot interpret themselves", we know that animate or living means that it must be able to interpret itself. In other words, if we don't understand what the Rule of Faith means, we must be able to ask that same Rule of Faith to further explain itself.

    Let's apply these criteria to our two contenders, Dogma and the Magisterium. We'll start with Dogma.

    1. Is Dogma Divine and infallible? Yes.

    2. Is Dogma proximate? Yes, we all have access to all the dogmas of our Faith anytime we want to. (Except.. the first Christians..see further down!)

    3. Is Dogma animate or living? No, since Dogma cannot interpret itself, for the same reason as Scripture and Tradition cannot interpret themselves.

    So, I conclude that Dogma is NOT the proximate and animate Rule of Faith. At best, we can consider Dogma as part of Tradition, i.e part of the proximate and inanimate Rule of Faith.

    What about the Magisterium?

    1. Is the Magisterium Divine and infallible? Yes, although this is where the distinction must be made between the Extraordinare and Ordinary Magisterium on the one hand, and the Authentic Magisterium on the other. The former is indeed infallible and Divine, while the latter is not infallible and can therefore not be part of our Rule of Faith.

    2. Is the Magisterium proximate? Yes, because the Church will always remain with us as Christ promised He will always remain with us. But just as during Christ's passion His humanity was disfigured and his Divinity thereby obscured or hidden, so also is in today's crisis of the Church the Authentic Magisterium so disfigured that it is obscuring or hiding the Ordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, the Infallible Magisterium remains proximate to those who are willing to see past appearances. We still have Catholic bishops who are willing to remain faithful to Tradition and teach what the Church has always and everywhere taught.

    3. Is the Magisterium animate or living? Yes, because the Magisterium is able to interpret itself. Whenever a new dispute arises, the Magisterium does not add any new doctrines to Divine revelation (which it can't do), but it explains and settles the disputes that arise. The Magisterium cannot contradict itself, but it can interpret itself.

    Therefore, I argue that the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary) is the proximate and living Rule of Faith for Catholics.

    Further questions and arguments:

    1. If you believe Dogma is the Rule of Faith, what about the first Christians then, what was their Rule of Faith? No Dogmas had been promulgated yet. But whenever a dispute arose they brought the matter before the Apostles, and especially before Peter who would settle the matter once and for all. Hence the saying, "Rome locuta, causa finita est".

    2. Our Lord told the apostles to "go and teach", not to "go and distribute dogmas", and "whoever believes you believes Me, whoever rejects you rejects Me". So it makes sense that our proximate and living rule of Faith is the living Magisterium, who is the sole legitimate interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

    3. What about all the truths of our faith which must be believed but which are not explicitly defined in dogmas? For example, "Doctrines of Ecclesiastical Faith" and "Truths of Divine Faith"? (see What are Theological Notes?) They too must be believed with different levels of assent. And those who reject them without a sufficiently grave reason are likewise to be treated as bad Catholics or even "suspect of heresy".

    4. As Fr. Berry and Cardinal Billot explain, not everyone who holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic, but rather he is a heretic who rejects the teaching authority of the Church. The former is a Catholic in error, but the latter is properly defined as a heretic, because he rejects the teaching authority of the Church, in other words, the Magisterium.

    Important Note:

    1. As I mentioned before, the error which leads either to Conciliarism or Sedevecantism is a failure to distinguish between the Extraordinary/Ordinary Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium.

    2. The above is how I understand the teachings of the Church, but since I could be wrong, I subject everything I said to the Infallible Magisterium, who shall have the last word!  :)


    Samuel,
     
    Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Furthermore, unless traditional Catholics understand this essential principle, there can be no defending of the faith.
     
    Your post is a nice review of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry but offers nothing new. This is where Ladislaus began his argument using this article as his authority. This is where Ladislaus got the idea that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to the faith and therefore, he claimed, that "the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation."  Unfortunately for Ladislalus, he cannot get beyond this first error and nothing can profitably be discussed with him.
     
    The articles in the Encyclopedia are only as good as the person making the entry. The members of the board assembling the Encyclopedia are not competent in every field and look to other experts to write on specific subjects. Earlier in this thread I commented on the entry, "Tradition and Living Magisterium" by Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J. who is the author of Is There Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church? This heretical book is still published and referenced by Catholic authors today. It is still passed around though even Fr. Joseph Fenton, since Pope Pius XII declared that the "Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church," considered Bainvel's radical separation of the soul and body of the Church as untenable. Bainvel posits that anyone untied to the "soul" of the Church is saved including Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc., by being good Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc. Every single Dogma touching upon what is necessary for salvation is ignored or taken in a merely metaphorical sense. The seed of his doctrine are evident in hindsight in his encyclopedic entry.
     
    The Bainvel article in the Encyclopedia is important because it demonstrates the heresy of Neo-Modernism and how it works. 
     
    The first thing that needs to be understood it is the heresy of Neo-modernism and how does it differ from Modernism? This link offers a good introduction and is worth reading for those who do not know this essential difference:
    http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html
     
    Basically, Modernism and Neo-modernism have the same subject, divine revelation, and the same object, the destruction of dogma, but differ in methodology.  Modernism denies dogma in its very nature. St. Pius X in Pascendi, in Lamentabili, and the Oath Against Modernism, uses the word "dogma" and its cognates over 50 times in his effort to defend dogma in its very nature. After St Pius X the Modernists simply changed their methods but not their ends. Neo-modernism attacks dogma indirectly by 1) changing the definition of words, 2) by altering categorical propositions to conditional ones, and 3) (most importantly) by moving dogmatic definitions from the category of truth/falsehood to the category of authority/obedience and then applying all the moral qualifications that excuse from obedience to excuse from submitting to divinely revealed truth. Neo-modernist posit a fundamental disjunction between the truth of dogma and its linguistic formulation. They consider the language as only an approximation of truth, therefore, dogma must go through a never ending process of reformulations to progressively distill the truth from the human accretions.
     
    Bainvel does this in his article on "Tradition and Living Magisterium" in the Catholic Encyclopedia by firstly redefining the meaning of "living magisterium." The Magisterium is living only in the sense that a living pope holds the Magisterial keys to access the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility of the Church, and it is living in the sense that divine revelation is the subject of dogma which is the revelation of a "living God." For Bainvel and all Neo-modernists, the "living" refers primarily to the content of divine revelation that progresses through an organic development of constant changes within a form. For Neo-modernists, dogma cannot be the rule of faith because dogma must constantly progress. For Neo-modernists, the "Magisterium" is the rule of faith because it must constantly update dogmatic definitions that never reach their term.
     

    This is what Ladislaus really believes. He has posted that no Catholic has any right to interpret Dogma. He calls a Catholic who takes Dogma literally a "Protestant" because he is engaging in "private interpretation."  A Catholic therefore must always return to the Magisterium to find out what the current meaning of any Catholic teaching happens to be. It is axiomatic for all Neo-modernists that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium. For Ladislaus he must necessarily be either a sedeprivationist/sedevacantist or return to the Novus Ordo religion to work his way through the hermeneutics of continuity.   
     
    Vatican II was Neo-modernist council from the opening bell where Pope John XXIII announce that truths of our faith were one thing and how they are expressed another. The purpose of the Council was to update these expressions. This fundamental principle has been repeated by every single conciliar pope. Fr. Thomas Rosica said that it is the overarching principle uniting all conciliar popes. They are all Neo-modernists.
     
    Unfortunately for traditional Catholics the SSPX has followed this Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be constantly interpreted by the Magisterium. Bishop Felly believes that dogma does not have to be taken literally. His belief regarding what is necessary for salvation is like the Neo-modernist Bainvel. Consequently, dogma is not his rule of faith because it is never a determined thing; Dogma never reaches its term. But without dogma as the rule of faith there is no possible opposition to Neo-modernism. Take for example, Fr. Karl Rahner's thesis of nearly universal salvation excepting only those who make a fundamental option for evil. On what possible grounds can anyone object to this theory if striped of dogma as the rule of faith? Or Vatican II's Hans Küng, a periti, who denies the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. He affirms that Christ rose from the dead metaphorically. If dogma is not the rule of faith, if dogma is in a state of progressive development, who can object and on what grounds? This explains what has transpired in the doctrinal discussions between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican going back over twenty years with GREC. Both sides deny dogma as the rule of faith. Both sides deny that dogma needs to be taken literally. All they can discuss is theological opinions. If dogma were their rule of faith, the discussions would have been over in a few hours at best.
     
    What is the Magisterium?  It is the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority which are firstly Attributes of God and secondarily Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The key to the Magisterium is help by the pope alone. Without him, there is no accessing the Magisterium.
     
    What is Dogma?  Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church and offered to the faithful as a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith."  The formal cause and the final cause of Dogma is God. The material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma is the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient cause of Dogma. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient means by which Dogma is created. Dogma is the end of the Magisterial act. Dogma, as divine revelation and the work of God, is irreformable in both its form (divine truth) and its matter (words of expression). Over the history of the Church, Dogma has developed in its construction as a categorical proposition that can only be universally true or false. That is, Dogma is a JUDGMENT on divine revelation relating two concepts. The necessary tools for understanding Dogma are definition and grammar, not theological competency. Dogma is formulated as accessible for all the faithful. Dogma is the Magisterium offering definitive clarification of divine revelation. The Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium is really a rejection of the Magisterium. It is as if saying, "I will not accept your judgment, go back and give me another." 

     
    Addressing your objections:
    1) Dogma has been the rule of faith from Apostolic times and scripture gives evidence of this. The Council of Jerusalem was really the first ecumenical council estimated to have occurred around 50 A.D. The "Apostles and ancients," including St. Paul returned to Jerusalem "assembled to consider the matter." The heresy addressed was that of the Judaizers. "There arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). The judgment of the Magisterium was dogmatic for they declared that, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us" (Acts 15:28). The judgment was not a matter of mere discipline.  It is directly related to worship and doctrine.
     
    When St. Peter accommodated the Judaizers he was confronted by St. Paul in Galatians 2:11-15. St. Paul did not say St. Peter, who held the keys to the Magisterium, 'whatever you say goes.' He confronted St. Peter for he "was to be blamed" because he "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel," and because of "his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation." How did St. Paul know this? He knew because the "Holy Ghost" said so at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul, grounded upon a "formal article of divine and Catholic faith," corrected St. Peter and "withstood him to the face," who was the holder of the keys to the Magisterium.
     
    2) The Magisterium is the means not the end.  Once the dogma is established, it become the proximate rule of faith.  No one has to go back to the Magisterium to know whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven. The Magisterium has judged and defined the matter and the Dogma is declared. The Dogma is the rule every faithful Catholic must believe with divine and Catholic faith or become a heretic by definition.  It is grave error to claim that Catholic faithful must return to the Magisterium to find out what the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary means today.
     
    3) Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition. Note that both the remote rule of faith and the proximate rule of faith are of the exact same nature, that is, divine revelation. The greater part of divine revelation has not been dogmatically defined but remains a formal object of divine faith. Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Doctrines of mere "ecclesiastical faith" do not exist. This has been discussed in detail in another thread and has been briefly mentioned in this thread. Suffice to say, there is an excellent article by Fr. Joseph Fenton in AER that concludes with the opinion that mere ecclesiastical faith is a myth.
     
    4) This explanation offered will lead to confusion. It is true that not everyone who "holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic," such as St. Thomas in his denial of the Immaculate Conception. Once the divine revelation of the Immaculate Conception (a formal object of divine faith) was defined by the Magisterium, the Immaculate Conception became a Dogma, that is, a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith." Anyone holding St. Thomas' opinion of the Immaculate Conception today would now be a formal heretic. It is the denial of Dogma that makes the heresy. If someone denies the "teaching authority" of the Church, that is just another heresy because the Magisterium itself is a Dogma.
     
    Contrary to what Ladislaus believes, the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.  It is also the object itself of Dogma. The definition of a heretic is the rejection of Dogma. According to Vatican I, the "teaching authority" of the Church is part of the primacy of St. Peter continued by his "perpetual" successors in the Chair of Peter. The primacy of the pope refers to his universal jurisdiction. The rejection of the primacy of the pope is firstly an act of schism (by definition) and a secondly, a heresy because this divine revelation has been itself dogmatized.
     
    The definition of heresy is the rejection of Dogma. Most who reject Dogma also reject the Magisterium which is the necessary but insufficient material cause of Dogma.  
     
    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.
     
    A strong proof that dogma is the proximate rule of faith is the definition of heresy. I did not explain it any further in previous posts because this is not an argument but rather a definition. I think if you look from the perspective of heresy it may be easier to see. An excerpt taken from the 1907 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading of "heresy":
     

    Quote
    St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church.
     Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907


     Heresy is "the corruption of dogmas" while "the right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching." These "teachings" are found in "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church." What the Church, by her "teaching authority" (i.e.: Magisterium) "proposes to our belief" is called Dogma. Those who keep Dogmas and do not corrupt them are called  the faithful, those who do corrupt them are called heretics. 
      
     This difference represents a clear division in the "Tree of Porphyry." It is this division that establishes a species from a genus which is called an "essential definition" and is regarded as the best definition because it is the most intelligible. As the article points out, "The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith." Heresy and faith have the same subject, that is, "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church" which is the total of divine revelation.  They differ in their object. The heretic breaks the rule of faith, the faithful keep it. This establishes that Dogma is the rule of faith not by argument but by fact of an essential definition. The definition of heresy necessarily makes Dogma the rule of faith. The Magisterium is necessary but insufficient means by which we know Dogma, but it is the Dogma itself which is known. It is the what that we know and therefore the rule of faith.  If you exchange "Magisterium" for Dogma, even though the Magisterium has the same subject-matter, there cannot be a clear distinctive division because there exists no species in the genus of Magisterium, the "teaching authority" of the Church, excepting only in the case where the Magisterium itself is treated as a dogma like every other dogma, then those who reject the "teaching authority" constituted by God in His Church are just another kind of heretic.

     
    The only weapon to combat Neo-modernism is to hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith. It is also the only weapon to combat sedevacantism and sedeprivationism which necessarily end in the overturning of Dogma. You are correct that these two errors are due to an improper understanding of the Magisterium but that improper understanding rests in the belief that Dogma can be reinterpreted by the Magisterium.
     
    Drew


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #575 on: April 15, 2018, 03:07:19 PM »
  • Thanks!6
  • No Thanks!1
  • Absurd argument.  I don't really care what YOU "conclude", all Catholic theologians teach to the contrary.  Nice waste of time.  Every step of the way you're just making something up that sounds good to you.

    Dogma is not PROXIMATE.  Otherwise people would never have gotten it wrong about the Immaculate Conception.  Otherwise there would never have been heresies in the Church and myriad heretical sects leaving the Church.

    Stupid Ladislaus, again commenting on something he did not understand and probably did not ever read.

    He does not know what Dogma is; he has no idea even what Dogma is "proximate" to.   

    He has provided about 20% of the posts on this thread and has offered nothing of any intellectual merit, but rather serves only as an agent of obstruction to serious consideration of an important subject.  My personal opinion is that that is his purpose.

    Drew

    Offline Samuel

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 225
    • Reputation: +285/-119
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #576 on: April 15, 2018, 03:20:23 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Samuel,
     
    Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Furthermore, unless traditional Catholics understand this essential principle, there can be no defending of the faith.
     
    Your post is a nice review of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry but offers nothing new. This is where Ladislaus began his argument using this article as his authority. This is where Ladislaus got the idea that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to the faith and therefore, he claimed, that "the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation."  Unfortunately for Ladislalus, he cannot get beyond this first error and nothing can profitably be discussed with him.
     
    The articles in the Encyclopedia are only as good as the person making the entry. The members of the board assembling the Encyclopedia are not competent in every field and look to other experts to write on specific subjects. Earlier in this thread I commented on the entry, "Tradition and Living Magisterium" by Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J. who is the author of Is There Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church? This heretical book is still published and referenced by Catholic authors today. It is still passed around though even Fr. Joseph Fenton, since Pope Pius XII declared that the "Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church," considered Bainvel's radical separation of the soul and body of the Church as untenable. Bainvel posits that anyone untied to the "soul" of the Church is saved including Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc., by being good Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc. Every single Dogma touching upon what is necessary for salvation is ignored or taken in a merely metaphorical sense. The seed of his doctrine are evident in hindsight in his encyclopedic entry.
     
    The Bainvel article in the Encyclopedia is important because it demonstrates the heresy of Neo-Modernism and how it works.
     
    The first thing that needs to be understood it is the heresy of Neo-modernism and how does it differ from Modernism? This link offers a good introduction and is worth reading for those who do not know this essential difference:
    http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html
     
    Basically, Modernism and Neo-modernism have the same subject, divine revelation, and the same object, the destruction of dogma, but differ in methodology.  Modernism denies dogma in its very nature. St. Pius X in Pascendi, in Lamentabili, and the Oath Against Modernism, uses the word "dogma" and its cognates over 50 times in his effort to defend dogma in its very nature. After St Pius X the Modernists simply changed their methods but not their ends. Neo-modernism attacks dogma indirectly by 1) changing the definition of words, 2) by altering categorical propositions to conditional ones, and 3) (most importantly) by moving dogmatic definitions from the category of truth/falsehood to the category of authority/obedience and then applying all the moral qualifications that excuse from obedience to excuse from submitting to divinely revealed truth. Neo-modernist posit a fundamental disjunction between the truth of dogma and its linguistic formulation. They consider the language as only an approximation of truth, therefore, dogma must go through a never ending process of reformulations to progressively distill the truth from the human accretions.
     
    Bainvel does this in his article on "Tradition and Living Magisterium" in the Catholic Encyclopedia by firstly redefining the meaning of "living magisterium." The Magisterium is living only in the sense that a living pope holds the Magisterial keys to access the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility of the Church, and it is living in the sense that divine revelation is the subject of dogma which is the revelation of a "living God." For Bainvel and all Neo-modernists, the "living" refers primarily to the content of divine revelation that progresses through an organic development of constant changes within a form. For Neo-modernists, dogma cannot be the rule of faith because dogma must constantly progress. For Neo-modernists, the "Magisterium" is the rule of faith because it must constantly update dogmatic definitions that never reach their term.
     

    This is what Ladislaus really believes. He has posted that no Catholic has any right to interpret Dogma. He calls a Catholic who takes Dogma literally a "Protestant" because he is engaging in "private interpretation."  A Catholic therefore must always return to the Magisterium to find out what the current meaning of any Catholic teaching happens to be. It is axiomatic for all Neo-modernists that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium. For Ladislaus he must necessarily be either a sedeprivationist/sedevacantist or return to the Novus Ordo religion to work his way through the hermeneutics of continuity.    
     
    Vatican II was Neo-modernist council from the opening bell where Pope John XXIII announce that truths of our faith were one thing and how they are expressed another. The purpose of the Council was to update these expressions. This fundamental principle has been repeated by every single conciliar pope. Fr. Thomas Rosica said that it is the overarching principle uniting all conciliar popes. They are all Neo-modernists.
     
    Unfortunately for traditional Catholics the SSPX has followed this Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be constantly interpreted by the Magisterium. Bishop Felly believes that dogma does not have to be taken literally. His belief regarding what is necessary for salvation is like the Neo-modernist Bainvel. Consequently, dogma is not his rule of faith because it is never a determined thing; Dogma never reaches its term. But without dogma as the rule of faith there is no possible opposition to Neo-modernism. Take for example, Fr. Karl Rahner's thesis of nearly universal salvation excepting only those who make a fundamental option for evil. On what possible grounds can anyone object to this theory if striped of dogma as the rule of faith? Or Vatican II's Hans Küng, a periti, who denies the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. He affirms that Christ rose from the dead metaphorically. If dogma is not the rule of faith, if dogma is in a state of progressive development, who can object and on what grounds? This explains what has transpired in the doctrinal discussions between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican going back over twenty years with GREC. Both sides deny dogma as the rule of faith. Both sides deny that dogma needs to be taken literally. All they can discuss is theological opinions. If dogma were their rule of faith, the discussions would have been over in a few hours at best.
     
    What is the Magisterium?  It is the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority which are firstly Attributes of God and secondarily Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The key to the Magisterium is help by the pope alone. Without him, there is no accessing the Magisterium.
     
    What is Dogma?  Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church and offered to the faithful as a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith."  The formal cause and the final cause of Dogma is God. The material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma is the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient cause of Dogma. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient means by which Dogma is created. Dogma is the end of the Magisterial act. Dogma, as divine revelation and the work of God, is irreformable in both its form (divine truth) and its matter (words of expression). Over the history of the Church, Dogma has developed in its construction as a categorical proposition that can only be universally true or false. That is, Dogma is a JUDGMENT on divine revelation relating two concepts. The necessary tools for understanding Dogma are definition and grammar, not theological competency. Dogma is formulated as accessible for all the faithful. Dogma is the Magisterium offering definitive clarification of divine revelation. The Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium is really a rejection of the Magisterium. It is as if saying, "I will not accept your judgment, go back and give me another."  

     
    Addressing your objections:
    1) Dogma has been the rule of faith from Apostolic times and scripture gives evidence of this. The Council of Jerusalem was really the first ecumenical council estimated to have occurred around 50 A.D. The "Apostles and ancients," including St. Paul returned to Jerusalem "assembled to consider the matter." The heresy addressed was that of the Judaizers. "There arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). The judgment of the Magisterium was dogmatic for they declared that, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us" (Acts 15:28). The judgment was not a matter of mere discipline.  It is directly related to worship and doctrine.
     
    When St. Peter accommodated the Judaizers he was confronted by St. Paul in Galatians 2:11-15. St. Paul did not say St. Peter, who held the keys to the Magisterium, 'whatever you say goes.' He confronted St. Peter for he "was to be blamed" because he "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel," and because of "his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation." How did St. Paul know this? He knew because the "Holy Ghost" said so at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul, grounded upon a "formal article of divine and Catholic faith," corrected St. Peter and "withstood him to the face," who was the holder of the keys to the Magisterium.
     
    2) The Magisterium is the means not the end.  Once the dogma is established, it become the proximate rule of faith.  No one has to go back to the Magisterium to know whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven. The Magisterium has judged and defined the matter and the Dogma is declared. The Dogma is the rule every faithful Catholic must believe with divine and Catholic faith or become a heretic by definition.  It is grave error to claim that Catholic faithful must return to the Magisterium to find out what the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary means today.
     
    3) Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition. Note that both the remote rule of faith and the proximate rule of faith are of the exact same nature, that is, divine revelation. The greater part of divine revelation has not been dogmatically defined but remains a formal object of divine faith. Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Doctrines of mere "ecclesiastical faith" do not exist. This has been discussed in detail in another thread and has been briefly mentioned in this thread. Suffice to say, there is an excellent article by Fr. Joseph Fenton in AER that concludes with the opinion that mere ecclesiastical faith is a myth.
     
    4) This explanation offered will lead to confusion. It is true that not everyone who "holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic," such as St. Thomas in his denial of the Immaculate Conception. Once the divine revelation of the Immaculate Conception (a formal object of divine faith) was defined by the Magisterium, the Immaculate Conception became a Dogma, that is, a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith." Anyone holding St. Thomas' opinion of the Immaculate Conception today would now be a formal heretic. It is the denial of Dogma that makes the heresy. If someone denies the "teaching authority" of the Church, that is just another heresy because the Magisterium itself is a Dogma.
     
    Contrary to what Ladislaus believes, the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.  It is also the object itself of Dogma. The definition of a heretic is the rejection of Dogma. According to Vatican I, the "teaching authority" of the Church is part of the primacy of St. Peter continued by his "perpetual" successors in the Chair of Peter. The primacy of the pope refers to his universal jurisdiction. The rejection of the primacy of the pope is firstly an act of schism (by definition) and a secondly, a heresy because this divine revelation has been itself dogmatized.
     
    The definition of heresy is the rejection of Dogma. Most who reject Dogma also reject the Magisterium which is the necessary but insufficient material cause of Dogma.  
     
    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.
     
    A strong proof that dogma is the proximate rule of faith is the definition of heresy. I did not explain it any further in previous posts because this is not an argument but rather a definition. I think if you look from the perspective of heresy it may be easier to see. An excerpt taken from the 1907 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading of "heresy":
     


     Heresy is "the corruption of dogmas" while "the right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching." These "teachings" are found in "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church." What the Church, by her "teaching authority" (i.e.: Magisterium) "proposes to our belief" is called Dogma. Those who keep Dogmas and do not corrupt them are called  the faithful, those who do corrupt them are called heretics.  
      
     This difference represents a clear division in the "Tree of Porphyry." It is this division that establishes a species from a genus which is called an "essential definition" and is regarded as the best definition because it is the most intelligible. As the article points out, "The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith." Heresy and faith have the same subject, that is, "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church" which is the total of divine revelation.  They differ in their object. The heretic breaks the rule of faith, the faithful keep it. This establishes that Dogma is the rule of faith not by argument but by fact of an essential definition. The definition of heresy necessarily makes Dogma the rule of faith. The Magisterium is necessary but insufficient means by which we know Dogma, but it is the Dogma itself which is known. It is the what that we know and therefore the rule of faith.  If you exchange "Magisterium" for Dogma, even though the Magisterium has the same subject-matter, there cannot be a clear distinctive division because there exists no species in the genus of Magisterium, the "teaching authority" of the Church, excepting only in the case where the Magisterium itself is treated as a dogma like every other dogma, then those who reject the "teaching authority" constituted by God in His Church are just another kind of heretic.

     
    The only weapon to combat Neo-modernism is to hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith. It is also the only weapon to combat sedevacantism and sedeprivationism which necessarily end in the overturning of Dogma. You are correct that these two errors are due to an improper understanding of the Magisterium but that improper understanding rests in the belief that Dogma can be reinterpreted by the Magisterium.
     
    Drew

    Thanks Drew for the time and effort of this long reply. After a first reading I am not convinced (yet) but I will take my time to read through your post a few more times and ponder it.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 564
    • Reputation: +235/-274
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #577 on: April 15, 2018, 04:53:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Samuel,
     
    Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Furthermore, unless traditional Catholics understand this essential principle, there can be no defending of the faith.
     
    -snip-
     
    The only weapon to combat Neo-modernism is to hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith. It is also the only weapon to combat sedevacantism and sedeprivationism which necessarily end in the overturning of Dogma. You are correct that these two errors are due to an improper understanding of the Magisterium but that improper understanding rests in the belief that Dogma can be reinterpreted by the Magisterium.
     
    Drew
    It is also Catholic dogma that the Extraordinary Magisterium and universal Ordinary Magisterium cannot teach in error. And while the rest of the Ordinary Magisterium may sometimes be in error, we are still obliged to give religious assent to it. While yes, we may read and interpret dogma, we cannot as Catholics contradict or reject the Magisterium. Your fear of the Magisterium is unfounded. The Church will not and cannot revise the Magisterium to contradict existing dogma. 
    If you are really so afraid of the Magisterium, it suggests you are rejecting its teachings. You are separating yourself from the Church. If you believe that it is the true Catholic Church with a valid Pope at its head, why are you doing that? 


    Offline Samuel

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 225
    • Reputation: +285/-119
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #578 on: April 15, 2018, 05:14:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is also Catholic dogma that the Extraordinary Magisterium and universal Ordinary Magisterium cannot teach in error. And while the rest of the Ordinary Magisterium may sometimes be in error, we are still obliged to give religious assent to it. While yes, we may read and interpret dogma, we cannot as Catholics contradict or reject the Magisterium. Your fear of the Magisterium is unfounded. The Church will not and cannot revise the Magisterium to contradict existing dogma.
    If you are really so afraid of the Magisterium, it suggests you are rejecting its teachings. You are separating yourself from the Church. If you believe that it is the true Catholic Church with a valid Pope at its head, why are you doing that?

    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?

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #579 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 forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 564
    • Reputation: +235/-274
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #580 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: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #581 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: 3261
    • Reputation: +1982/-976
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #582 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 Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8792
    • Reputation: +3466/-720
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #583 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 forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 564
    • Reputation: +235/-274
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #584 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.

     

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