Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 443342 times)

drew · « **Reply #865 on:** April 28, 2018, 03:04:45 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 28, 2018, 08:50:55 AM

For crying out loud, please stop wasting my time and read the actual posts. I was referring quite specifically to the axiom articulated several times on this thread by Stubborn that if a pope teaches something new, then Catholics can never be forced to accept it. I explained that this is a meaningless axiom because if the notes of infallibility are there, the Pope is PREVENTED by the Holy Spirit from teaching something new. So if the notes of infallibility are present, even if prior to that time I considered the idea contrary to Tradition, I must reject my former belief and accept it as in fact NOT new and NOT contrary to Tradition. Now, if we want to argue about the limits of infallibility, that's a different matter. But the axiom itself is meaningless and constantly being misapplied by R&R.

Ladislaus,

"For crying out loud" about what?

Your post has nothing to do with "axioms." This is a matter of Dogma. It is a Dogma that the (the content of) revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. It is a Dogma that the subject matter of any infallible teaching is divine revelation, therefore, Dogma itself is divine revelation. It is a Dogma "if a pope teaches something new," that is, some new doctrine that is not part of divine revelation, it cannot be accepted with divine faith and if it in any contradicts Dogma, it must be rejected. For example, Pope John Paul II's opening encyclical, Redemptor hominis, addressed to the "church of the New Advent" in which he directly says:

Quote

"This inheritance (from recent pontificates) has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council, which John XXIII convened and opened and which was later successfully concluded and perseveringly put into effect by Paul VI, whose activity I was myself able to watch from close at hand."
John Paul II, Redemtor Hominis

Any teaching that is "utterly new" and "unknown previously" does not have to accepted by any of the faithful because no such teaching can ever bind that Catholic conscience because it cannot be part of divine revelation and the subject matter of Dogma, which itself is a Dogma. It is not an axiom because it is a Dogma that, as you say, "the Pope is PREVENTED by the Holy Spirit from teaching something new." Because "something new" cannot be the subject of infallible teaching, "something new" meaning anything that cannot be directly related to divine revelation or indirectly following from it as a necessary corollary.

Blessed Pius IX in his prologue to the declaration of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception says:

Quote

"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts."
Bl. Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus

The greater part of the decree, I would guess at least 80%, is just offering evidentiary proof that the doctrine was from divine revelation and therefore the proper subject matter for an infallible definition of the doctrine that would forever end any erroneous speculations on the question. The same thing applies to Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, on the Assumption. The greater part of the decree is again providing proof the the doctrine in question is a part of divine revelation. These popes accepted it as their responsibility to establish that the doctrine in question was part of divine revelation.

St. Thomas must have considered the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception "contrary to Tradition" but once the doctrine is dogmatized, if here were alive at the time, would have accepted it as "something NOT new and NOT contrary to Tradition." Everything here is a matter of dogma and not theoretical axioms.

There is no "axiom" involved in what you have posted. I am not disagreeing with anything said other than this is a matter of Dogma and not "axioms" which are just human postulates that serve as presuppositions. The R&R position is consistent with Dogma and offers no conclusions that contradict Dogma. The same cannot be said for S&S. In fact S&S is now, in the present tense, in a position that is incompatible with Dogma and their criticism of R&R is grounded entirely in axiomatic presuppositions that are not true, such as, the pope possessing a personal never-failing-faith and a non-infallible infallibility in his ordinary magisterium, or the axiom that a corruption of custom that is generalized is therefore "universal" and must be accepted. The sure sign that these human presuppositions are false is that they lead to the overturning of Dogma.

Drew

forlorn · « **Reply #866 on:** April 29, 2018, 07:55:02 AM »

Quote from: drew on April 28, 2018, 03:04:45 PM

Ladislaus,

"For crying out loud" about what?

Your post has nothing to do with "axioms." This is a matter of Dogma. It is a Dogma that the (the content of) revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. It is a Dogma that the subject matter of any infallible teaching is divine revelation, therefore, Dogma itself is divine revelation. It is a Dogma "if a pope teaches something new," that is, some new doctrine that is not part of divine revelation, it cannot be accepted with divine faith and if it in any contradicts Dogma, it must be rejected. For example, Pope John Paul II's opening encyclical, Redemptor hominis, addressed to the "church of the New Advent" in which he directly says

Wrong. The Church defining dogma is not divine revelation. All dogma is divinely revealed in that it all comes from what was divinely revealed to the Apostles, but divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Basic Church teaching that you previously denied and attacked Ladislaus over due to your poor grasp on the English language, only to turn around now and contradict yourself.

cathman7 · « **Reply #867 on:** April 29, 2018, 10:17:51 AM »

All this time spent on abstruse theological topics, what are we doing personally and collectively to rebuild the Catholic social order?

drew · « **Reply #868 on:** April 29, 2018, 03:55:03 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 29, 2018, 11:00:35 AM

Yes, it's almost physically painful to just read the tortured logic and contradiction in Drew's posts. And yet he dismisses a theologian of +Guerard des Lauriers' qualifications and learning with the waive of his hand as a simpleton who doesn't know the basics regarding matter and form (Philosophy 101). I'm not sure how much more I can take of this guy. I'm done responding directly to him.

Ladislaus,

How appropriate Ladislaus that you should end your posting endorsing Forlorn's claim that "dogma is not divine revelation," and at the same time repeating your belief that no matter what des Lauriers may say, he is your rule of faith even when he builds a theological speculation upon a philosophical impossibility that overturns Dogma. Since for you, "dogma is not divine revelation," you have no problem disregarding it as a limitation to theological misadventures.

You are phony and Forlorn is appropriately monikered. But, never forget ever, that you are in a church of your own making, without pope, without magisterium, without dogma, without moral compass, without the possibility of salvation. And you have no material or instrumental means to ever correct any of these deficiencies and more. You have no excuse because the signs are manifestly self-evident.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #869 on:** April 29, 2018, 04:12:38 PM »

Quote from: obscurus on April 29, 2018, 10:17:51 AM

All this time spent on abstruse theological topics, what are we doing personally and collectively to rebuild the Catholic social order?

Obscurus,

These are not "abstruse theological topics." The consequences are eternal salvation. Those that keep dogma as there rule of faith have the possibility of salvation. Those who do not, are by definition, heretics.

The rebuilding of Catholic social order can only happen by those working together who keep the faith. S&S do not. They have reached conclusions that are incompatible with membership in the Catholic Church. The church they have created is manifestly lacking essential necessary attributes of the Catholic Church that make the her visible and knowable; that make her what she is. What is worse is that not only are the missing these necessary attributes, they have no possible material or instrumental means to ever recover them. The implications of this are grave because it implies a complacency in sin which makes repentance impossible.

The only weapon a faithful Catholic possess against the abuse of authority is truth. That is, Dogma. Those that keep Dogma as their rule of faith are the only ones who can ever contribute in the rebuilding of the Church and, from the Church, to the rebuilding of Catholic social order.

Drew

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 443342 times)

drew

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

forlorn

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

cathman7

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

drew

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

drew

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