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 204835 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline drew

  • Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 391
  • Reputation: +1111/-239
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #885 on: April 30, 2018, 09:42:29 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stupidity is to think that the only way the Holy Ghost communicates Himself to the Militant Church is by exclusive definitions enclosed in grammatical "Canons" and "Anathemas" of times past. That is even worse than Protestants claiming they know the Word of God through "Sola Scriptura" and that is it.

    Ecunemical Councils have the assistance of the Holy Ghost, period.

    "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience).

    ^^^^^^

    What Church are you in, that even though having a Pope, you cannot trust him, having a Magisterium you cannot trust it? Recognizing who the Vicar of Christ is on earth, yet you cannot follow him. You cannot even trust the Ecunemical Councils of the Church.

    The Church Herself has turned against you and your moral compass is only yourself.

    Cantarella,

    Here you are again distorting what has been said which is just another way of lying.  You made a mistake attributing a condemnation of Luther from Leo X from Exsurge Domine as a "Dogmatic definition .... promulgated in the Council of Trent," and rather than acknowledge an error, you reply by claiming that I "think that the only way the Holy Ghost communicates Himself to the Militant Church is by exclusive definitions enclosed in grammatical 'Canons' and 'Anathemas' of times past." You are claiming that I hold that if it is not Dogma it does not bind the Catholic conscience.

    Produce a single quotation from any post where I have made such a claim.  You will not be able to do so, but for the record, I can produce many posts where I have told you time and again that Dogma is part of divine revelation.  It is that part of divine revelation that has been formally defined by the Magisterium of the Church. When a doctrine of faith is defined, it moves from being a "formal object of divine faith" to a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith."  Either way, it is and always was a formal object of faith.  Dogma is distinguished from the rest of divine revelation in that it becomes the proximate rule of faith while the rest of divine revelation is the remote rule of faith.  Note again, the rule of faith is divine revelation.  

    I am member of the Catholic Church and I have a pope.  It is true that he is a heretic and I do not trust him.  But Jesus Christ did not "trust" the heretic Caiaphas, the high priest, either.  He still told His disciples that they sit in Chair of Moses, and as St. John said, because Caiaphas was the high priest, although a heretic and deicide, he was used by God to accurately prophecy that Jesus should die for the nation.  Because who hold the pope as your rule of faith, you cannot tolerate a heretic pope. You have to make yourself the lord of the harvest.

    I also have a Magisterium but this I can and do trust because I have the promise of Jesus Christ that He would preserve the Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority, from ever binding the Catholic conscience to doctrinal and/or moral error.  Therefore, even when someone like John Paul II engaged the Magisterium through its "ordinary and universal" mode of operation, I can rely upon it to teach the truth which in fact, it did.

    Lastly, since I hold Dogma as the rule of faith, I can reliably reject all that is contrary to divinely revealed truth while you have nothing but your own wit to follow. That has led you into manifest heresy.  The church you belong to is NOT the Catholic Church.  It has no pope, no magisterium, no moral compass, no chance of salvation, nothing.  And most importantly, these defects are permanent because the church you belong to has no intention or means to ever correct these defects.

    This is where you are right now.  You are already in a state of hopeless despair.  It may take awhile to sink in but you are already there.

    Next time try to check our your cut and past quotes more carefully.

    Drew


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #886 on: May 01, 2018, 08:39:06 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, you most certainly are not a member of the Catholic Church.  You have broken communion with the man you claim to be the legitimate Pope and have also pertinaciously embraced various heresies regarding the Magisterium and general ecclesiology.  Since you have your private judgment as your proximate rule of faith, you do not have the supernatural virtue of faith.
    Well, he has no idea if the pope is the pope, but he is certain Drew is not a member of the Catholic Church. :facepalm:
    "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: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #887 on: May 01, 2018, 09:24:44 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/radtrad-thomist-mentioned-in-st.html?m=1
    It is significant because it is predicated on a dogmatic rejection of the R&R principle heresy:  that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church.

    So, when you are released from the ideological strangle-hold of the SSPX, and you study ACTUAL CATHOLIC ECCLESIOLOGY, the conclusion that R&R is not Catholic is simply inescapable.
    Best to stick with Archbishop Lefebvre's and Pope Pius IX's explanations and reject another ladism. Sedes need to accept Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is, until then, they will remain completely confused and lost in their abstract, shapeless and novus ordo ever changing magisterium.


    Magisterium:

    "...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
    "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: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #888 on: May 01, 2018, 09:48:45 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dumbass, I guess that Fathers Ringrose, Chazal, Pinaud, Ronoult, and Roy are just my lackey followers.  So we have 5 priests here against the heretic Stubborn.

    What is it that upsets you so much about Pope Pius IX's clear explanation of what the magisterium is? Do you doubt he was a pope too?
    "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: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #889 on: May 01, 2018, 10:04:25 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was simply calling out your stupidity in referring to these priests as "Ladists".  Guess what, bonehead, we all came to the same conclusion independently by studying Catholic theology.
    Well first, I never referred to those priests as "Ladists" you bone head, you sure hold yourself in high esteem.

    If you all came to the same conclusions, you did so by learning your theology from the same post V1 theologians. It is no wonder you are so confused.

    You have a magisteriam that defected but that can't happen, a pope and hierarchy who may not be the pope and hierarchy, you have something called an infallible universal discipline that no one even knows what that is, but whatever that is, like all things NO is also completely corrupted, you have all the bishops in the world in union with the pope whose teachings are supposed to be infallible yet they are all teaching heresy and other errors in unison with the pope.

    Goodness! No wonder you are confused.

    What is it that upsets you so much about Pope Pius IX's clear explanation of what the magisterium is? Do you doubt he was a pope too?
        
    "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: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #890 on: May 01, 2018, 10:52:57 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You referred to their position as "Ladism".  That would make them "Ladists", moron.
    You seem to wholly agree that the R&R hold to a "principle heresy", namely: "that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church."  

    You are confusing what the magisterium actually is, with what the confused sede / NO idea inspired by some post V1 theologians, of it is.

    The reason that false claim and you are ridiculous, is because you are making the claim that the R&R actually believes that the magisterium, that is; "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world," has imposed evil practices on the universal Church. That whole idea is totally false and beyond utterly ridiculous.

    You and the other sedes simply cannot be as confused as you seem to want the rest of us to think you are.

    What have you got against Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is anyway? Do you doubt he was pope too?
    "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: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #891 on: May 01, 2018, 10:56:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How did you figure that one out, Sherlock?
    From your confused, NO inspired replies.
    "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: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #892 on: May 01, 2018, 11:01:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You, on the other hand, are confusing heresy with actual Catholicism.
    Really? Do I confuse Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is too? Why don't you let us know what he really meant you NO theologian wannabe.
    "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: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #893 on: May 01, 2018, 11:14:36 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Absolutely.  You completely distort his meaning.
    LOL
    Now THAT'S funny.
    BTW, don't hold it against me for not taking your word for 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

    Offline drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 391
    • Reputation: +1111/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #894 on: May 01, 2018, 08:57:58 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • The condemned Errors of Heresiarch Martin Luther by Pope Leo X are not "dogmatic" enough for Mr. Drew. I guess we can all question them now even though this Papal Bull undoubtedly belongs to the Infallible Magisterium of the Church.

    However, to Mr. Drew these errors are not really "DOGMA" and as such, they are fallible and I guess they may be doubted. Perhaps these errors were not that serious and Luther was not that bad, after all? On this, Mr. Drew would fit right in with Francis who is celebrating the Reformation, even though the Council of Trent condemned it with hundreds of anathemas.

    I really hope those in the fence can see through this complete nonsense.

    From Exsurge Domine:

    What is next Mr. Drew, am I allowed to start questioning the veracity of Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctam?

    Cantarella,

    The docuмent Exsurge Domine states within itself the authority of the condemnations.

    Quote
    “Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be.”
    Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine

    It does not identify the authority of each individual article. You have referenced #29 which says:

    Quote
    “A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.”
    Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine, article 29

    You have called this a “Dogma from the Council of Trent.”  When it was pointed out to you that it is not from the Council of Trent you have replied by insisting that it is still a “dogma”.  The fact of the matter is that you do not know if it is “heretical” (having already been dogmatized) or simply “offensive to pious ears.” Many of the articles are formal heresies and came from previous dogmatic condemnations.  They are specifically referred to as having been condemned at the Council of Constance against “the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians.”  Many of the articles were not heresies at the time but became so after they were dogmatically treated at the Council of Trent, such as the specific dogmas from Trent on the sacraments of Baptism and Penance. But understand this, there is no Catholic dogma placing every council at every level above criticism by any of the faithful for any reason.

    When Pope Leo X is referring to an ecuмenical council in Exsurge Domine he uses the term, “general council,” or uses the specific name of the council, such as, the Council of Constance.  Number 29 is referring to all councils without any differentiation or qualifications.  This covers any local, regional, or national council or synod. But regional councils have in the past been modified or in some cases entirely rejected by the Magisterium.

    What you have learned from Ladislaus is not to retract an error but rather to compound it.  This is not to minimize the importance of Exsurge Domine but to understand its authority.  Catholics “must regard them (the articles) as condemned, reprobated, and rejected.”  But unlike dogmas that need never be contextualized, these condemnations do because, unlike dogmas that are universal truths, these are not necessarily so. Luther denied the pope, the papal office, the Magisterium, the authority of all councils and dogmatic definitions.

    But what have you done?  Don’t you see the irony of your position?  You and Ladislaus when a real Dogma is presented to you have accuse me of being a “Protestant” for engaging in “private interpretation” of dogmas, while you, offer your own definitive interpretation of an article of condemnation against Luther raising it to the level of a dogma when it is not.  You hold article #29 is a dogma and have concluded that it means that every Catholic who recognizes the conciliar popes as valid popes must uncritically accept a pastoral council’s teaching without any qualification even when it contradicts Catholic dogma.  

    To address this you have “mused” that the pope must not be the pope and taken these musing to be facts.  Even when these “facts” directly contradict Catholic dogma.  It is a Dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith that the papal office will exist until the consummation of the world having perpetual successors.  

    If you read the condemnations from Leo X in Exsurge Domine you will find that they do anticipate the formal condemnations from the Council of Trent. Luther denied the Magisterium and the papacy.  Like Luther, you are in a church that has neither a pope nor a Magisterium.  Like Luther, your church does not have the intention or the means to ever correct these problems.  Like Luther, you have no moral compass.  

    That is why Dogma is the rule of faith.  Those that keep Dogma are of the faithful, those who do not are heretics. You are accusing R&R of “heresy” without any dogma to support your
    allegations.  You have to make one up.

    This is where you are right now, outside the Catholic Church.  

    Drew

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2042
    • Reputation: +448/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #895 on: May 01, 2018, 09:38:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Cantarella,

    ....................

    That is why Dogma is the rule of faith.  Those that keep Dogma are of the faithful, those who do not are heretics. You are accusing R&R of “heresy” without any dogma to support your
    allegations.  You have to make one up.

    This is where you are right now, outside the Catholic Church.  

    Drew

    Cantarella is out, but Francis is in? ;D
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.


    Offline sedevacantist3

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 245
    • Reputation: +104/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #896 on: May 01, 2018, 10:05:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can i get something written from the Church stating a non catholic can be pope?

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1424
    • Reputation: +1360/-142
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #897 on: May 02, 2018, 05:36:20 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0


  • https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606716/#msg606716


    Cantarella, On reply # 1604 above you quoted Article 29 of Exsurge Domine as a condemnation from the Council of Trent. :facepalm:

    Here is the entire docuмent:


    Quote
    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm

    Exsurge Domine
    Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther
    Pope Leo X - 1520
    Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it.

    Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

    We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter’s. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.


    Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics “whose last defense,” as Jerome says, “is to start spewing out a serpent’s venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished.” For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, “It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man’s, or what is worse, the devil’s.”

    Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

    For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed.

    These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church’s advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance. Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord’s field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history.

    In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circuмstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present docuмent; their substance is as follows:


    1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

    2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

    3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

    4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

    5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

    6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

    7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.”

    8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

    9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God’s mercy for pardon.

    10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

    11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

    12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

    13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

    14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

    15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

    16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

    17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

    18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

    19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

    20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

    21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

    22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

    23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

    24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

    25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

    26. The word of Christ to Peter: “Whatsoever you shall loose on earth,” etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

    27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.
    28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

    29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.


    30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

    31. In every good work the just man sins.

    32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

    33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

    34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

    35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.

    36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.

    37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

    38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

    39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.

    40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.

    41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.

    No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

    Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord’s field as harmful thornbushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): “I will be with you to the consummation of the world”; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.

    With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication….

    Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

    As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.

    But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.

    Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

    Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal docuмents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

    We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.
    {And even though the love of righteousness and virtue did not take him away from sin and the hope of forgiveness did not lead him to penance, perhaps the terror of the pain of punishment may move him. Thus we beseech and remind this Martin, his supporters and accomplices of his holy orders and the described punishment. We ask him earnestly that he and his supporters, adherents and accomplices desist within sixty days (which we wish to have divided into three times twenty days, counting from the publication of this bull at the places mentioned below) from preaching, both expounding their views and denouncing others, from publishing books and pamphlets concerning some or all of their errors. Furthermore, all writings which contain some or all of his errors are to be burned. Furthermore, this Martin is to recant perpetually such errors and views. He is to inform us of such recantation through an open docuмent, sealed by two prelates, which we should receive within another sixty days. Or he should personally, with safe conduct, inform us of his recantation by coming to Rome. We would prefer this latter way in order that no doubt remain of his sincere obedience.
    If, however, this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices, much to our regret, should stubbornly not comply with the mentioned stipulations within the mentioned period, we shall, following the teaching of the holy Apostle Paul, who teaches us to avoid a heretic after having admonished him for a first and a second time, condemn this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices as barren vines which are not in Christ, preaching an offensive doctrine contrary to the Christian faith and offend the divine majesty, to the damage and shame of the entire Christian Church, and diminish the keys of the Church as stubborn and public heretics.}* . . .

    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 drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 391
    • Reputation: +1111/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #898 on: May 02, 2018, 08:20:14 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Mr. Drew,

    I think you have completely discredited yourself with this argument, with no possible amend. This is exactly what the liberals are saying today in order to reconcile Luther and praise the Reformation....along with Francis.

    This statement  claims Exsurge Domine "contains no hierarchy of condemnation," and "never distinguishing which of the forty-one errors are heretical doctrinally and which are merely "offensive to pious ears.".

    This is absolutely no different from what you say. This depravity is being promoted in Catholic Answers and other Modernist outlets to the satisfaction of all of these heretics thinking that Lutherans and Catholics are one and the same and that the condemned errors of Luther do not really mean what they say.  

    This is yet another example of you taking sides with the enemies of the Papacy and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Ladislaus has made the correct assertion of you.


    Cantarella,

    Pope Leo X, himself, in the docuмent Exsurge Domine, itself, says twice, once at the beginning and again at the end, the level of authority of the various articles of condemnation against Luther.  They range from being heretical to offensive to pious ears.  The articles that are regarded as heretical reject Catholic dogma as previously defined at ecuмenical councils.  Subsequent to the publication of Exsurge Domine at the Council of Trent, several of the articles against Luther became formal heresy after being dogmatized at Trent.

    This is a fact, not opinion, but a historical fact that cannot be excused by trying to attribute it to the fruit of a “liberal” ideology.

    You said the same thing earlier about the fact that two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective pontiffs condemned Pope Honorius as a “heretic” and “anathematized” him by name.  You said that this was an argument used by the enemies of the Church!  It, like the authority of the condemnations in Exsurge Domine, is not an argument at all but a historical fact.  Facts have to be normative in your judgments.

    You claimed that article #29 was a “dogma from the Council of Trent.”  It is not from the Council of Trent and it has never been dogmatized, not at the time of its publication or subsequently at Trent.  This is not to diminish the importance of the condemnations of Luther but rather to recognize the correct authority of particular articles.

    Dogma does not lend itself to contextual interpretation because Dogma is divine revelation expressed in the form of a universal categorical judgment that is always and everywhere true or false.  Any other condemnation from the ordinary magisterium of the Church that is not necessarily infallible permits and often requires contextual considerations to properly understand. You are taking an article that you are ignorant of its authority and making it a dogma of faith and interpreting it to mean that everything in any council whatsoever must never be questioned.  The Church herself does not do this and has historically rejected individual judgments of councils and on occasion, entire councils.

    Luther rejected the pope and the Magisterium and the authority of all councils.  Your church is similar in this regard.  You have no pope and no Magisterium and will never have a council.  The Catholic dogmas that you overthrow to arrive at this end present no greater obstacles to you than the condemnations of the Greeks and the Bohemians at the Council of Constance did to Luther.  You have no way out.  You are parked in a dead end and have not figured out how you got there.

    Drew

    Offline Theosist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +59/-171
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #899 on: May 02, 2018, 11:24:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    But unlike dogmas that need never be contextualized, these condemnations do because, unlike dogmas that are universal truths, these are not necessarily so.
    Sophistry. This is an implicit statement of relativism. It’s at heart the same epistemological nonsense that the SSPX have used to deny John 3:6 and the Athanasian Creed to preach the possibility of salvation without faith and baptism.

    A “universal truth”? As opposed to another kind?

    Please provide an example of a true statement which is not true everywhere and for all time in the sense in which it is intended.


    Quote
    We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.
    Sorry, but Exsurge Domine clearly states that the ideas it condemns are not Catholic but against doctrine and tradition. 

    Heresy or not, can they be against the doctrine and tradition of the Church but not “universally” so? It’s a cognitively meaningless string of vacuous words on your part.

    Quote
    By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . .
    Teaching on faith binding upon the whole Church ... oops.