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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 76

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 318723 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 11975
  • Reputation: +7524/-2254
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #690 on: April 19, 2018, 02:43:02 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Show me where he has said I must attend under pain of sin.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7524/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #691 on: April 19, 2018, 03:33:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Bellator, can you explain to me why you don't think Paul VI was pope?  I'm curious on all of them, but let's just stick with Paul VI.
    Logged

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1431
    • Reputation: +1366/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #692 on: April 19, 2018, 03:45:30 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged
    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 Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1431
    • Reputation: +1366/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #693 on: April 19, 2018, 04:36:58 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Bellator Dei on April 19, 2018, 11:11:04 AM
    Is Pope Pius XII wrong?

    No pope is above dogma. In fact, their job is to defend and protect the Deposit of the Faith. When it was requested of Leo XIII to add St. Joseph's name  to the canon of the Mass, he responded: "I am only the pope". Pius XII set the stage with Mediator Dei and gave us Msgr. Bugnini. This in spite of the warning of Our Lady of Fatima through Sr. Lucy:



    Quote
    "I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the ѕυιcιdє of altering the Faith in her liturgy..."
    ...Puis XII Devant L'Histoire

    Logged
    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: 2488
    • Reputation: +992/-1099
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #694 on: April 19, 2018, 04:51:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 18, 2018, 07:32:06 PM
    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.  
    I repeated countless times that the truth doesn't change you bumbling idiot, but it was not a Church dogma until the 50s. The truth never changes, but as the Church's understanding of the truth expands the room for personal opinions narrows. Nothing changes, nothing old is contradicted or discarded. But formerly contested issues become settled and the truth of it clearly enshrined in dogma. 
    St. Thomas Aquinas taught multiple things that would be considered heresy today. But they were not heresy back then as the Church had not settled those issues yet. There was still room for debate. While yes, those dogmas were always TRUE, they were not always TAUGHT infallibly by the Church under pain of heresy. Had the Immaculate Conception been fully defined at the time, St. Thomas would not have erred or spoke falsely on the issue.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7524/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #695 on: April 19, 2018, 07:57:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • The novus ordo is substantially different than the True Mass.  It did not come from the infallible magisterium.  If it had, it would be required to accept under pain of sin, which it is not.  
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7524/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #696 on: April 19, 2018, 08:48:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

    • Quote
    The Roman pontiff can introduce and modify new rites, as long as the substance is intact.
    No one said he couldn't.  But if he does, he has to FOLLOW CHURCH LAW in doing so.  If you read Quo Primum (and all laws which follow it, which revise the missal of Quo Primum), each pope specifically names the previous missal he is revising and specifically says what is changing.  Paul VI's law did not revise Quo Primum, nor the 1962 missal, and he never claimed he did.

    As you say, Paul VI created a brand new missal/rite.  I agree.  The problem is, in order to USE this new missal, which Quo Primum strictly and specifically forbids, Paul VI would've had to simply insert a few sentences that explained that this minor part of Quo Primum was being changed, to allow for the new missal.  It would've been a very simple legal act, yet he did not do so.  And Benedict XVI confirmed no such change happened in his motu in 2007.  Hence, though Paul VI had the power to change Quo Primum, he didn't use this power.
    Logged

    Offline drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 399
    • Reputation: +1122/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #697 on: April 20, 2018, 02:40:42 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Cantarella on April 19, 2018, 10:39:42 AM

    What makes Mr. Kramer and you think that the Pope of Rome falls into the rank of "any ecclesiastical pastor"?


    Paul VI does not fall into this condition of "every pastor of the Church" here for two simple reasons:

    First, Paul VI made absolutely no changes to the actual Tridentine Latin Roman Rite; he simple promulgated a new order of Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is not an upgrade or modification to the Tridentine Mass. It is a completely brand new rite.

    Second, if Paul VI was indeed Pope, then he was just exercising his proper authority "when introducing and approving a new rite or modifying those he judged to require modification”. Historical evidence proves this fact. There are many rites out there that the Church has used and approved. Pope Pius XII clearly teaches this in Mediator Dei:

    If Paul VI was indeed Pope, he could promulgate a new Latin rite given that no Pope has an authority higher than another Pope.

    And if you think otherwise, that is an indication of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Papal authority.

    Cantarella,

    You have made the pope your rule of faith which is a massive error that leads to sedevacantism and sedeprivationism.  But those are not the only errors.  A total corruption of worship of God is also a consequence of this corruption since Vatican II.  I have not heard the objections offered by you in at least ten years.  They were very popular among Novus Ordo religious in the 70s and 80s but from about 1975 there has been a continuous publication of new liturgical works and republication of old out of print works that have gradually suffocated these old conservative nostrums.  But here you are resurrecting old errors as if to give them new life.

    Your post here contains two massive errors and I am limiting this reply specifically in addressing these two. This first error concerns your posting a mistranslation of Canon 13 from the Council of Trent. The correct translation is:


    Quote
    If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema.
     Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13

    You have used the corrupted translation of "any pastor of the churches" to "every pastor of the churches." Which entirely changes the meaning of the canon.  The correct translations means that 'no pastor can do it', the corrupted translation means 'not every pastor can do it'.  This specific problem was addressed by Canon Gregory Hesse that has been posted in a YouTube video:  



    at the 19:50 minute mark in this video Canon Hesse specifically addresses this canon.  The entire video is worth hearing and addresses a number of stupid things you have posted elsewhere such as your error that "Quo Primum is a disciplinary decree", etc. which I am not addressing in this post.

    It has taken years for this corrupted translation to be buried and here you are again spreading it around possibly leading other into grave error. Please be careful not to do it again.

    The second error concerns your reference to Pope Pius XII Mediator Dei and the claim that it authorizes the pope to do whatever he wants in regard to liturgy.  This is only possible when a sentence is taken entirely out of context which is nothing more than a form of lying. There is much that can be said about this encyclical but limiting only to this question whether or not Pope Pius XII is authorizing papal creation of a Novus Ordo.

    The quote from the encyclical, Mediator Dei, “It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification,” is the most often quoted authority by liturgical innovators to defend the right to reduce liturgy to mere discipline, and thus create the Novus Ordo. When the quote is examined in context, it does not support this assertion. It is not using the term “new rites” in a broad sense like permitting the Novus Ordo, but is rather using the term in a restrictive sense such as adding a new rite of Mass in honor of the Sacred Heart or the Blessed Virgin. As far as what “he judges to require modification,” several examples are provided such as, “ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the… sacrament of penance, the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate, and again, the practice of Eucharistic communion under a single species.”

    After giving these examples of legitimate development he goes on to censure the liturgical plans of the innovators such as use of a table instead of an altar, excluding black liturgical color, forbidding sacred images, distorted crucifixes, corruptions of music, etc. that if followed “would be straying from the straight path.” All these innovations, and more, are now the standard fare of the day.

    I think it is profitable to reflect upon these examples to help understand what Pope Pius XII considers the “substance” of the Mass that cannot be touched when he says, “From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians, What is more, it has not been slow—keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact—to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.” Well, the Roman canon is essentially the same in the pre-1962 Missal as it was during the time of Pope Damasus in the 4th century. Obviously, if the hierarchy has “not been slow” to “regulate and enrich” the Mass, not touching upon the “substance”, it is fair to conclude that the Roman canon must be part of that “substance” that should not be touched.

    Importantly there is nothing that implies that the pope has the authority to forbid or suppress an immemorial tradition. Pope Pius XII says that “In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly.” The Pope also emphasizes that “the entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church. For this reason whenever there was question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils in their recourse to the ‘theological sources,’ as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the liturgy.” It is therefore impossible that an immemorial liturgical tradition, especially one of wide usage, could not be a perfect expression of the faith and thus to suppress an immemorial tradition indirectly attacks the faith that it expresses. Finally, Pope Pius XII could not have been referring to the papal authority to establish a completely “new rite” of the Mass in this encyclical because such a thing has never been done before. The reference has no historical ground.

    There are many other errors that form presuppositions in your post, such as, the belief that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are simple matters of mere discipline, and not as I affirm, necessary attributes of the faith that make it known and communicable to others.  I will try to address these in other posts. But all your errors have the basic source in believing the pope is the rule of faith. You believe that he possesses an infallible infallibility and a fallible infallibility, a never-failing faith, and thus becomes your rule of faith in all that he says and does. Except when he says and does something you do not like and then he is no longer the pope.  Working yourself backwards from this "dogma", you end up corrupting everything in support of your miserable conclusions.

    Drew
     
     
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7524/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #698 on: April 20, 2018, 08:32:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Cantarella,
    Why do you think Paul VI was not the pope?  I'm curious to know.  Can you explain in detail?
    Logged

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2842
    • Reputation: +2932/-517
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #699 on: April 20, 2018, 10:55:20 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!3

    • Cantarella:
    Quote
    Why do you keep changing the topic?

    I had to laugh at this question. Fr. Ringrose dropped out of the discussion at least 25,000 views ago. The original topic has changed over and over again. It’s become stream of consciousness non stop. Whatever is on the poster’s mind, he blurts out on this topic. The very meaning of ‘Topic’ has been obliterated. The thread has become a dumping ground for any and all so-called “topics.”
    Matthew, you have taken the liberty in times past to either change the wording of certain topics, or eliminate them altogether. Why don’t you at least take this particular “topic” and name it simply


    MISCELLANIA, or, CATCH ALL, or BASH AN ERRANT PRIEST, or SEDEVACANTISM MADE EASY, or I’M CONFUSED, or YOU’RE AN IDIOT, or, DOES FR. JENKINS DYE HIS HAIR,etc.? Anything! But please, let’s not pretend that it has anything to with Fr. Ringrose and the Resistance. Folks lost interest in Father weeks ago and hundreds and hundreds of comments earlier.
    Logged

    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2361
    • Reputation: +1528/-91
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #700 on: April 20, 2018, 11:20:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • To bring things back on topic, does Fr. Ringrose believe in Flat Earth? ;D :o ??? ;)
    Logged

    Offline drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 399
    • Reputation: +1122/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #701 on: April 20, 2018, 11:51:55 AM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: hollingsworth on April 20, 2018, 10:55:20 AM
    Cantarella:
    I had to laugh at this question. Fr. Ringrose dropped out of the discussion at least 25,000 views ago. The original topic has changed over and over again. It’s become stream of consciousness non stop. Whatever is on the poster’s mind, he blurts out on this topic. The very meaning of ‘Topic’ has been obliterated. The thread has become a dumping ground for any and all so-called “topics.”
    Matthew, you have taken the liberty in times past to either change the wording of certain topics, or eliminate them altogether. Why don’t you at least take this particular “topic” and name it simply


    MISCELLANIA, or, CATCH ALL, or BASH AN ERRANT PRIEST, or SEDEVACANTISM MADE EASY, or I’M CONFUSED, or YOU’RE AN IDIOT, or, DOES FR. JENKINS DYE HIS HAIR,etc.? Anything! But please, let’s not pretend that it has anything to with Fr. Ringrose and the Resistance. Folks lost interest in Father weeks ago and hundreds and hundreds of comments earlier.

    There has been 1,318 posts on this thread with thousands of viewings. The topic concerns the grave errors of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism, its mortal implications that lead to heresy, its causes and it cures, which is a matter of serious concern to Catholics trying to keep the faith.  There is not in fact a single area of Catholic theology that is not fouled by these errors which distort the papal office, the Magisterium, the Attributes of the Church, the nature of ecclesiastical traditions, and now as we see, even the nature of the worship of God.

    If this matter is of no concern to you, go elsewhere.

    Drew
    Logged

    Offline songbird

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4962
    • Reputation: +1929/-393
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #702 on: April 20, 2018, 12:05:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Maybe because he said the New Order mess?  Which is publicly heretical.
    Logged

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2842
    • Reputation: +2932/-517
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #703 on: April 20, 2018, 12:12:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
    • I think Cantarella, Drew and others may be the victims of low frequency, electronic emissions from remote unknown sources.  Tell me, any of you, do you hear a constant buzzing in your ears, especially at night? :jester: :laugh1:
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7524/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #704 on: April 20, 2018, 12:16:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote
    Also, Mr. Drew, you did not address the other contents of my posts, firstly, that Paul VI made absolutely no changes to the actual Tridentine Latin Roman Rite; he simple promulgated a new order of Mass. The Tridentine cannon is explicitly referring to changes made to "received and approved rites". The Novus Ordo is not a "change" to the Tridentine rite; but a completely brand new rite.
    I addressed it completely.  If you're going to allow Ladislaus to answer for you, then you have to allow others to answer for Drew.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 76
    « previous next »