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

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 319244 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6790
  • Reputation: +3467/-2999
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #660 on: April 18, 2018, 02:04:15 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're wrong.  I'd say it was outright calumny, except that you just can't understand what I'm saying ... even after I've explained it half a dozen times.  I have never accused anyone of heresy for considering Francis to be the pope ... as the status of a heretical pope is disputed among theologians.  What I have problems with is the heretical ecclesiology that VERY OFTEN accompanies R&R.

    You've said twice in the past, in debating this topic, that I'm a heretic because I believe that the Pope is the Pope and that he does have jurisdiction. Are you denying this?
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1431
    • Reputation: +1366/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #661 on: April 18, 2018, 02:34:20 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • In the Tridentine Profession of Faith Roman Catholics swear TRUE obedience to the Pope.

    Your position is not that of TRUE obedience.

    Actually, your position advocates quite the opposite. It promotes disobedience towards the Roman Pontiff, "resistance to his face", as they say.


    In our position, we ignore the impostor. In yours, you disobey the Pope, in opposition to the Tridentine Profession of Faith.

    Which of these two above do you think is more in accord with the Holy Roman Catholic religion?


    You obviously didn't get read the reply.

    Quote
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604503/#msg604503

    Cantarella,

    This is as mindless a post as you have made.  The Tridentine profession of faith, which was used at the opening profession of Vatican I, is a litany of dogmas which I believe and hold as divinely revealed truths that constitute my proximate rule of faith.  It was at Vatican I that papal infallibility was formally defined and, if your read it, you will learn that the pope’s never-failing faith only means that he will never Magisterially bind the Church to doctrinal or moral errors as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.

    You on the other hand, deny dogma as the rule of faith. You, like Ladislaus, must go to your “dormant” magisterium to find out what these dogmas really mean because, if you try to figure that out on your own, you will be guilty of “private interpretation” like the “Protestants.”

    So since your magisterium is “dormant,” let me help.  “True obedience” is always regulated by the virtue of Religion. Therefore, we find in the Tridentine profession of faith the acceptance of the “received and approved” rites that were dogmatized at the Council of Trent.  “True obedience” demands the rejection of the Novus Ordo because of this dogma.  Your false obedience believes that the Novus Ordo must be accepted and dogma be damned.

    I attribute bad will to your posts. You just repeat the same mindless cants as if reiteration is the soundest sign of truth. Your church has not pope, no magisterium, no councils and no creeds and never will. No creeds because creeds are just a bunch of unintelligible dogmas that are not your rule of faith. This church that you now belong to is not the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

    By the way, the Tridentine profession of faith reaffirmed the "anathemas" of all previous councils.  That would include the "anathema" against Pope Honorius for "heresy." Only those who practice "true obedience" would have avoided following him in his error.  Just as St. Barnabas, if he had practiced "true obedience" would have withstood St. Peter to his face before St. Paul arrived instead of following him in his "dissimulation."

    Drew

    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14645
    • Reputation: +6032/-903
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #662 on: April 18, 2018, 02:39:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you think that rejecting an Ecunemical Council and a Liturgical Rite promulgated by the legitimate Pope is true obedience in any way?
    Absolutely it's true obedience. Again, you are confusing blind obedience to error, with true obedience to truth.

    True obedience is blind obedience to God in all things and at all times. What true obedience is not, is blind obedience to a pope and council that taught - and still teach errors.

    You say a pope and council cannot teach error even though it did, and from there, iniquity reigns.







    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1431
    • Reputation: +1366/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #663 on: April 18, 2018, 02:52:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Drew-

    Thank you for all of your writing on this topic.  For myself I am learning a lot through your knowledge on this subject regarding the rule of faith.  Do you happen to have a stand alone article on this particular topic in contrast to the rule of faith in the magisterium you are describing?

    If not, will you consider making one for the good of the church we can pass around?  It is superb.

    If and when you do, please post a copy of it and or PM me with it.  It will be much appreciated and forwarded in emails.

    Thanks again for your time on this important subject.


    Thank you, Ignatius. It has been very difficult for my husband to take the time with his busy work schedule but if only one person would benefit from his posts, it was well worth! God bless you.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2489
    • Reputation: +995/-1099
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #664 on: April 18, 2018, 03:24:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • The current magisterium can never have a universal discipline, because universal refers to all magisteriums, ever, in the history of the Church.  Universal refers to time; it does not refer to 'the present church'.  Something is only universal if it has ALWAYS been taught, everywhere, and by all.
    Incorrect. Anything that is taught by all the Bishops and the Pope in unity is infallible. It does not have to always have been taught. 


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11978
    • Reputation: +7525/-2265
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #665 on: April 18, 2018, 04:53:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Incorrect. Anything that is taught by all the Bishops and the Pope in unity is infallible. It does not have to always have been taught. 
    So you’re saying that the pope/bishops can teach something new?  How is this possible?  They can teach a doctrine different from what Christ handed down, or different from Scripture?  OF COURSE NOT!

    This is where many people’s specific/modernist view of the magisterium is wrong.  You want to argue that the current magisterium is free from error - always.  Yet, you also want to say that it must jive with Tradition/Scripture.  IT CANT BE BOTH.  So what’s the solution?

    As has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, the solution is that 1) the current magisterium is infallible when they teach SOLEMNLY, or 2) when they teach non-solemnly, yet infallibly, and they are RE-AFFIRMING TRADITION.  

    The third option is they teach non-solemnly, and non-infallibly and therefore can err.  Like at V2.  

    There are no new truths, no new doctrine, no new cathechism.  We must believe today the SAME EXACT TRUTHS as Christians of the 1st century.  If the current hierarchy isn’t RE-TEACHING what has always been taught, as St Paul said “They are anathema!”

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11978
    • Reputation: +7525/-2265
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #666 on: April 18, 2018, 05:38:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But your acknowledgment/recognition of this fact (assuming it can be proven) means nothing.  What you or I believe, as we are laymen, means nothing.  The Church was built on Christ/pope.  When we die, the Church will continue.  It exists outside of us and whatever we “acknowledge” is irrelevant.  How can our opinion matter, when it is Christ’s Church?

    How has your acknowledgement of your theory affected Rome?  How has it affected your local diocese?  It hasn’t affected them at all, because our vote doesn’t count...

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2489
    • Reputation: +995/-1099
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #667 on: April 18, 2018, 05:44:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • So you’re saying that the pope/bishops can teach something new?  How is this possible?  They can teach a doctrine different from what Christ handed down, or different from Scripture?  OF COURSE NOT!

    This is where many people’s specific/modernist view of the magisterium is wrong.  You want to argue that the current magisterium is free from error - always.  Yet, you also want to say that it must jive with Tradition/Scripture.  IT CANT BE BOTH.  So what’s the solution?

    As has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, the solution is that 1) the current magisterium is infallible when they teach SOLEMNLY, or 2) when they teach non-solemnly, yet infallibly, and they are RE-AFFIRMING TRADITION.  

    The third option is they teach non-solemnly, and non-infallibly and therefore can err.  Like at V2.  

    There are no new truths, no new doctrine, no new cathechism.  We must believe today the SAME EXACT TRUTHS as Christians of the 1st century.  If the current hierarchy isn’t RE-TEACHING what has always been taught, as St Paul said “They are anathema!”
    By your warped logic, any dogma or doctrine defined after the 1st Century is heresy. No, new teachings and doctrines do not in any way contradict the old. They invent nothing, they merely make clear the correct interpretations of beliefs that had previously been contested and undefined by the Church. There are many cases in history where the Saints held beliefs that would be heretical today but were not then, as the doctrine had not been defined yet. Nothing new is created, merely old contested issues are clarified and made clear for all the faithful to believe, resolving the debate around them.  

    Similarly, new teachings by the universal ordinary Magisterium does not mean that they are inventing anything or contradicting the old. They CANNOT, as the universal ordinary Magisterium is infallible. THAT is traditional Catholic teaching for you. If you can prove the universal ordinary Magisterium to be teaching heresy, then it is clear that it CANNOT be the real Church hierarchy. As it is ancient and clear Church teaching that it is infallible.

    Quote
    There are no new truths, no new doctrine, no new cathechism.  We must believe today the SAME EXACT TRUTHS as Christians of the 1st century.  If the current hierarchy isn’t RE-TEACHING what has always been taught, as St Paul said “They are anathema!”
    This is just blatantly false. The Assumption of Mary was dogmatically defined in 1950 you tool. And there's a new cathechism every couple of decades. I never said the truth changes, but what we know and are required to believe does. As I said before, many dogma we hold as infallibly defined now were under debate for much of Church history with even Saints disagreeing with what the Church would later conclude was the truth. To deny that the Church has expanded its teachings is just to deny history plain and simple. It is to deny teachings such as the Assumption of Mary. It is a denial of reason and faith. 


    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2489
    • Reputation: +995/-1099
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #668 on: April 18, 2018, 05:45:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But your acknowledgment/recognition of this fact (assuming it can be proven) means nothing.  What you or I believe, as we are laymen, means nothing.  The Church was built on Christ/pope.  When we die, the Church will continue.  It exists outside of us and whatever we “acknowledge” is irrelevant.  How can our opinion matter, when it is Christ’s Church?

    How has your acknowledgement of your theory affected Rome?  How has it affected your local diocese?  It hasn’t affected them at all, because our vote doesn’t count...
    Freemasons cannot be Popes. 

    Offline drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 399
    • Reputation: +1122/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #669 on: April 18, 2018, 06:59:55 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1
  • Care to explain how is it that the Novus Ordo Mass is not an "approved and received" rite when we see the "Popes" offering the Sacrifice of the Mass daily and publicly with it?

    To avoid this Tridentine Anathema...

    How can you say that the Church does not use the Novus Ordo rite?

    How can you say that Paul VI did not approve it?

    Faith does not contradict reason.

    Cantarella,


    God takes His revealed truth seriously and He expects everyone else to do so as well.  The faithful are called the "faithful" because they are faithful to believe what God has revealed on the authority of God.  What God has revealed is found in Scripture and Tradition.  This is called the remote rule of faith and the proximate rule of faith is that part of Scripture and Tradition that has been formally defined by the Church's Magisterium that we call Dogma.  Since Dogma is proximate in time to Scripture and Tradition, it is called the proximate rule of faith.  Dogma is a two edged sword.  For the faithful it makes God's revelation so explicit that there can remain no doubt whatsoever regarding what God wants us to believe, so Dogma is called, "the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  But as a two edged sword it cuts both ways. Those who reject any Dogma suffer the direct condemnation by God through his Church.  That is what "anathema" means: 'Go to Hell'. Sedevacantists and sedeprivationists should reflect upon this most seriously because both these theories lead directly to the denial of Catholic Dogma.

    The "received and approved" rites of the Catholic Church are the subject of Dogma. From the book, ѕυιcιdє in Altering the Faith in the Liturgy attributed to Fr. Paul Kramer (N.B.: For the record, Fr. Kramer has admitted that he is not the actual author of many parts of the books attributed to him, therefore, if any further explanation of this quote is wanted, he may not be the person to ask.")


    Quote
    The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.”  The “received and approved rites” are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII).  Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.”  
    Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

    This "Tridentine anathema" is leveled at anyone who denies the Dogma in word or deed. Pope Paul VI had no authority even as pope to alter the "received and approved" rites. Paul VI was a heretic which, for those who hold Dogma as the rule of faith, it is someone who denies a Dogma.  Those who do not hold Dogma as the rule of faith cannot call anyone a heretic because they have no standard by which to judge.  You and Ladislaus hold the "Magisterium as the rule of faith" which is the same as saying the pope is your rule of faith since it is the pope who hold the keys to the Magisterium.  You believe whatever the "magisterium" says at any particular time (sometimes).  So by what right do you have to complain about the Novus Ordo?  I can reject it because I keep the Dogmas of the Catholic Church. You do not.

    And because I have no problem in understanding that the "received and approved" rites are not, and never could be, the subject of mere Church discipline, or as you and your buddy like to believe, mere ecclesiastical faith, I know that there is no "magisterial" power on earth that can overturn revealed Truth, i.e.: Dogma.  Faithful Catholics do not participate in the Novus Ordo and those who do are at least guilty of material heresy.  It is the form of worship for a Novus Ordo religion that can be compared analogously to the countless times in the Old Testament where those "sitting on the chair of Moses" lead and/or participated in idolatrous worship for the time of Moses himself to the time of the Maccabees.  

    "Faith does not contradict reason." I have no problem accusing the conciliar popes of heresy because I adhere to Dogma as my rule of faith.  God has kept His promise to prevent these heretics from using the Magisterium, that is, the 'teaching authority' of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Authority and Infallibility to bind the faithful to doctrinal and/or moral error over the last 50 years.  God is faithful even when we are not.  All you are called upon to do is keep His revealed Truth.  The problem is His revealed Truth is not good enough for you. You want to be the lord of the harvest.  Where God is patient, you are not. I am telling you most seriously, those who make themselves "lord of the harvest" will find themselves bundled with the chaff.

    Drew





    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11978
    • Reputation: +7525/-2265
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #670 on: April 18, 2018, 07:32:06 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Forlorn, your understanding of dogma is a little off.  The Assumption is a dogma now, and was not before the 50s but it was ALWAYS held to be true, until Protestants cane around.  The Assumption is not a new truth; it’s from Apostolic times.  

    The Immaculate Conception is also from Apostolic times.  It started being debated in the Middle Ages and was RE-TAUGHT as a dogma in the 1800s.  

    ALL TRUTHS of our faith are Apostolic.  Just because the immaculate conception was debated in the Middle Ages does not mean it was NEW, it just means the truth was corrupted and not understood.  


    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1431
    • Reputation: +1366/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #671 on: April 18, 2018, 07:51:06 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0


  • It may help Forlorn:

    In Lamentabili Pope St. Pius X condemns the proposition that, "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." Again in the same docuмent St. Pius X condemns the error that holds that, "The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing."
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11978
    • Reputation: +7525/-2265
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #672 on: April 18, 2018, 08:18:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Freemasons cannot be Popes. 
    That's debatable.  Can they be validly elected popes, since they are excommunicated for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?  Yes.  Pope Pius XII changed the rules of the conclave (as did Pius X) and ordered that even those who are excommunicated shall not be prohibited from voting or being voted for, in the conclave.

    I tend to believe that both Pius X and Pius XII saw the growing disorder and heresy in the Cardinals and despaired that there would even be any orthodox Cardinals who could be elected, as time went on.  So, to preserve the papacy, since it is a sign of unity of the faith and the visible sign of the visible church, they changed the rules, so that even a heretic/excommunicant could be elected, for a vacant seat is worse than a heretic sitting in it.  This is how important the SIGN and MEANING of the papacy is.

    Quote
    34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)

    Fr Cekada attacks the above on his website (of course he does, because he's obsessed with the papal question).  He says there is usually an interpretation of canon law, though for this one law, he said no interpretation exists.  So, instead of the obvious answer being that NO INTERPRETATION IS REQUIRED (duh?), he goes on to define every major word in the above law, reformulate it's meaning to his own understanding and then say that the above "doesn't mean what it says."  Very modernist of him.    

    I'm not comparing Fr C to Bill Clinton by any means, but it reminds me of the Monica-Bill scandal when Bill was asked a question and responded:  "It depends what the meaning of "is" is."  ...Only those who don't want to see the truth, or want to hide it, resort to "high brow", intellectual re-interpretation of the english language.  Anyone who reads the above passage cannot help but see that it says plainly that excommunicated persons can elect and be elected.  It's very simple; it needs no interpretation.

    ---
    Can an excommunicant exercise their spiritual office, after elected?  

    I'd lean towards 'no', but that's just my opinion.  The sedeprivationist theory would say their spiritual office cannot be exercised because of their excommunication, but their material office is still valid and in force, for no one can take away the pope's right to be the pope, except God through death, or personal abdication.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14645
    • Reputation: +6032/-903
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #673 on: April 19, 2018, 04:27:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Incorrect. Anything that is taught by all the Bishops and the Pope in unity is infallible. It does not have to always have been taught.
    Then you are a NOer.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14645
    • Reputation: +6032/-903
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #674 on: April 19, 2018, 05:15:14 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • That was because there was not a Pope, and therefore not a council. That is why there is error.
    That whole idea is a lie, don't you fall for it Cantarella. Slap your face a few times and shake yourself out of it!

    There was error at V2 because there was no divine protection from error, the reason there was no divine protection from error is because they held the council in order to "make known some new doctrines".

    Have you forgotten or do you now deny that it is a dogma of the Church, decreed at V1, that there will be no divine protection at all if the pope wants to make known some new doctrines? This fact alone admits that popes are absolutely able to make known new doctrines - but that there will be no divine protection from error if they do - that is what the Church teaches. Not that the pope and council are always infallible - THAT idea is 19th-20th CENTURY THEOLOGIAN / NOVUS ORDO / SEDEISM TEACHING and is blatant error - snap yourself out of it!



    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse