Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 205567 times)

Theosist · « **Reply #930 on:** May 04, 2018, 07:52:54 AM »

Quote from: drew on May 02, 2018, 04:18:13 PM

Theosist,

Go back to the beginning of the thread. This has been covered multiple times. You are not the first to make this claim. It is made by everyone who holds the pope as their rule of faith. If after reading the previous posts you have a problem then offer your objections. There are those like Cantarella who would agree with you but not one Church Father held that a personal never-failing faith was promised to the successors of St. Peter. The never-failing faith of the popes only means that they cannot engage the Magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrinal and/or moral error and this was dogmatically defined at Vatican I.

Rev. Cornelius a Lapide addresses this directly and explicitly in his Great Commentary.

Drew

That is not never-failing faith. Engaging the magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrine is not faith, nor even essentially an act of faith, for as you yourself would hold, even a pope without any faith in what he is defining can define infallibly! Therefore infallibility in this sense and never-failing faith cannot refer to one and the same thing (they can’t even refer to the same category of things; faith is faith, not an engaging of a power).

The excerpt from Innocent III’s sermon explicitly identifying the never-failing faith of Luke 22:32 belonging to the Papal office with his personal faith (“For unless I were solid in MY faith ...”) is here:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HK6oDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT294&lpg=PT294&dq=innocent+iii”+“for+unless+i+were+solid+in+my+faith”&source=bl&ots=Fp7c-1CHQf&sig=iT5yRXA7BNUPAaGhwN2RjZJtW-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig_9SZh-zaAhULZ8AKHf-lBBQQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=innocent%20iii”%20“for%20unless%20i%20were%20solid%20in%20my%20faith”&f=false
I really don’t care what non-conciliar, non-Papal “authorities” you want to cite to reject these facts (not constitutive of an argument, sorry, and I will disregard any non-argumentative responses)
And I’ll ask you one more time to provide an example of a true statement which is not true everywhere and for all time in its intended sense.

Stubborn · « **Reply #931 on:** May 04, 2018, 07:56:41 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 04, 2018, 07:54:57 AM

No one has lost his faith due to sedeism; you on the other hand have clearly lost yours. You don't believe in an indefectible Church as your rule of faith. You're basically a Protestant who use your own private judgment as your ultimate rule of faith, and consequently you cannot, as St. Thomas taught, have supernatural faith.

You've lost your faith to sedeism, but I don't include you IRL.

Theosist · « **Reply #932 on:** May 04, 2018, 08:08:46 AM »

Quote

You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen. You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen. And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.

The Attributes are powers that belong to the Church primarily and essentially. They belong to churchmen only secondarily and accidentally. And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.

You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen. And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.

The Attributes are powers that belong to the Church primarily and essentially. They belong to churchmen only secondarily and accidentally.

Another sophistic trip off at a tangent. Notice how this distinction is never made part of a deductive argument to refute Cantarella; it’s simply stated as if the conclusion “Therefore you are wrong!” we’re to follow by magic.

Notice the bait-and-switch, though? It’s just wrong and idolatrous to make attributes like infallibility those of churchmen, in the first paragraph, but in the following it is stated that such attributes do in fact belong to to such men, secondarily and accidentally (as if that made any logical difference to Cantarella’s position).

hollingsworth · « **Reply #933 on:** May 04, 2018, 02:07:09 PM »

Stubborn:

Quote

In my case, IRL I've seen too many good Catholics, including priests lose their faith for sedeism. So why wouldn't I have a hatred for it?

We just explain the simple truths best as we can so others don't trap themselves in the iniquitous web of sedeism.

Gosh, I'm in much more danger of losing my faith by following the sophistry on this particular thread than from "sedeism." I've never experienced this much long windedness on any topic thus far presented on CI. The bottomless pit of verbiage exhibited by the likes of you and Drew just defies all undestanding. Why Matthew lets it go on defies all explanation. He's closed down other threads under far less provocation, imo. He's banned many for far less offensive and ridiculous input. Maybe the moderator is addicted to blowhards. I can't think of any other reason. This thread has itself become "iniquitous."

Stubborn · « **Reply #934 on:** May 04, 2018, 02:25:58 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on May 04, 2018, 02:07:09 PM

Stubborn:
Gosh, I'm in much more danger of losing my faith by following the sophistry on this particular thread than from "sedeism." I've never experienced this much long windedness on any topic thus far presented on CI. The bottomless pit of verbiage exhibited by the likes of you and Drew just defies all undestanding. Why Matthew lets it go on defies all explanation. He's closed down other threads under far less provocation, imo. He's banned many for far less offensive and ridiculous input. Maybe the moderator is addicted to blowhards. I can't think of any other reason. This thread has itself become "iniquitous."

I feel for you - the solution to your dilemma is for you to go do something other than read this thread. Simple.

King Wenceslas · « **Reply #935 on:** May 04, 2018, 04:20:00 PM »

That is a good point that MEG brought up several pages back. Where is the Holy Ghost? Does it reside now only in a few sede Bishops throughout the world? Whew, the gates of hell never prevailing against the Church is starting to sound questionable.

forlorn · « **Reply #936 on:** May 04, 2018, 05:08:39 PM »

Quote from: King Wenceslas on May 04, 2018, 04:20:00 PM

That is a good point that MEG brought up several pages back. Where is the Holy Ghost? Does it reside now only in a few sede Bishops throughout the world? Whew, the gates of hell never prevailing against the Church is starting to sound questionable.

Arian. Crisis.

drew · « **Reply #937 on:** May 04, 2018, 05:44:30 PM »

Quote from: Theosist on May 04, 2018, 07:52:54 AM

That is not never-failing faith. Engaging the magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrine is not faith, nor even essentially an act of faith, for as you yourself would hold, even a pope without any faith in what he is defining can define infallibly! Therefore infallibility in this sense and never-failing faith cannot refer to one and the same thing (they can’t even refer to the same category of things; faith is faith, not an engaging of a power).

The excerpt from Innocent III’s sermon explicitly identifying the never-failing faith of Luke 22:32 belonging to the Papal office with his personal faith (“For unless I were solid in MY faith ...”) is here:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HK6oDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT294&lpg=PT294&dq=innocent+iii”+“for+unless+i+were+solid+in+my+faith”&source=bl&ots=Fp7c-1CHQf&sig=iT5yRXA7BNUPAaGhwN2RjZJtW-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig_9SZh-zaAhULZ8AKHf-lBBQQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=innocent%20iii”%20“for%20unless%20i%20were%20solid%20in%20my%20faith”&f=false
I really don’t care what non-conciliar, non-Papal “authorities” you want to cite to reject these facts (not constitutive of an argument, sorry, and I will disregard any non-argumentative responses)
And I’ll ask you one more time to provide an example of a true statement which is not true everywhere and for all time in its intended sense.

Theosist,

I am not really sure what you are talking about. Most conservative Catholics and most S&Sers believe that each and every pope possess a personal "never-failing faith," that is, the belief that no pope can ever personally lose the virtue of supernatural faith, just as was gifted to St. Peter by Jesus Christ. I deny this claim.

I would recommend that you read the commentary of Rev. Connelius a Lapide. It's only a couple of paragraphs but a nice summary that is wholly in accord with Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus. Not one Church Father as cited in any of the authoritative biblical commentaries held that each pope possesses a personal "never-failing faith," and a Lapide says that a personal "never-failing faith" was a gift given by Jesus Christ to St. Peter alone.

But Vatican I, Paster Aeternus says:

Quote

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

This is exactly was a Lapide says. The "never-failing faith" is understood to mean that the pope cannot err in the "discharge (of) their exalted office," that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine." It is not a personal gift but a gift associated through the Church with the "exalted office" of the papacy.

The Church in Paster Aeternus regarding the Dogma of papal infallibility refers specifically to this gift of "never-failing faith" given to St. Peter and his successors as scriptural evidence for the Dogma. The gift of "never-failing faith" and papal infallibility are directly associated. One is the proximate cause of the other. Obviously, the word "faith" in "never-failing faith" is not used in the same sense as the virtue of supernatural faith but to the Attribute of Infallibility that can only be engaged by the pope in the "discharge (of) their exalted office for the salvation of all."

So what is your point?

Drew

drew · « **Reply #938 on:** May 04, 2018, 06:52:32 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 04, 2018, 12:59:28 PM

We are not talking about Fr. Johnson down the street. The Pope of Rome is the true successor of St. Peter, which is the very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church; as well as the Bishops in communion with him, are the true successors of the Apostles. That is the way Christ instituted His Church and for a good reason. Do you think that if God had wanted "Dogma" to be the Rule of Faith he would have established His Church precisely this way? he could have just left an inanimate "Book of Dogmas" which would be the only Rule of Faith for all generations. Protestants claim the same thing you do; but they call it "Sola Scriptura". In your view, what is the then the function of the Apostolic See, which is evidently composed of a human element, "the churchmen"?

The "churchmen" you are referring here constitute nothing less than the Apostolic See.

Vatican I Council:

Then right after this, it teaches, (what is this Rule of true Faith). It is the preaching of the Apostolic See.

Cantarella,

I have already provided you with two council docuмents approved by their respective popes that directly use the term, "rule of faith" as a synonym for dogmatic canons, as well as references from two respected theologians, Pohle and Scheeban's. Beyond these authoritative references, I have provided you with what is an argument you cannot answer. That is, the definition of heresy is the failure to keep dogma as the rule of faith. It is an essential definition which is the best of all definitions because it distinguishes genus and species. Yet you are unconvinced and in reply provide a quote that shows nothing more than a literary association.

But truth is not what you are interested in. You pretend that the "magisterium is your rule of faith" but whenever you are trying to prove your point you appeal to Dogma, or what you think is Dogma, as you just did referencing article #29 from Exsurge Domine, which you said was a "dogma from the Council of Trent."

You appeal to Dogma to make your case. Why? You should just say, "Well, let's write a letter to the magisterium and get our answer"! But that won't do. The magisterium might just make a dogmatic determination of divine revelation and send you the Dogma. Then you could only answer, "Sorry fellas, Dogma is not my rule of faith. Can you give me another answer?" But all this is fantasy, your magisterium is dead. Your rule of faith is dead. You have no pope, no magisterium. What is worse, you have no material or instrumental means to ever get them. And it does not bother you one bit that you are in a church that cannot be the Catholic Church.

You have nothing to argue with except Dogma which by your own arguments you cannot do. And then you accuse others of being "Protestants" for "private interpretation" of Dogma whenever it doesn't suit you. Dogma is not your rule of faith because it just gets in the way. You do not even know what Dogma is. You claim that everything from a general council is infallible therefore you cannot distinguish any difference between anything.

There is no salvation in the church of Cantarella.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #939 on:** May 04, 2018, 07:59:55 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 04, 2018, 06:17:39 PM

Even Lapide's commentary itself refutes you.

Notice the highlight below. "ANY ERROR". The Pope should NEVER openly fall from the Faith, as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the Faith. Yet, you think Paul VI officially promulgated an error in Vatican II Council.

Cantarella,

Amazing when arguments are driven by a heretical ideology how everything is corrupted. S&Sers have a habit of providing partial quotes as you have just done.

Lapide makes it clear that a personal "never-failing faith," that it, that a pope could ever lose the virtue of supernatural faith, is a gift given to St Peter alone. The gift that is given to all popes is that they would not fall from the faith so as to formally teach heresy. Lapide is talking about the magisterium, that is, the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, that it should never impose errors of faith on the Church. He appeals directly to the Church as the "the pillar and ground of the truth" which corresponds perfectly to the dogma of papal infallibility from Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus.

You have expressed the opinion that each pope possess a personal "never-failing faith" in the sense that he can never lose the virtue of supernatural faith. Rev. Cornelius a Lapide says that is not so, and the biblical commentaries of Haydock and St. Thomas alone with a Lapide do not cite a single Church father agrees with your opinion. It is a common opinion that is held by all those who hold the pope as their rule of faith.

The complete citation from Rev. Cornelius a Lapide, Commentary on Luke 22:32:

Quote

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. For thee, because I destine thee to be the head and chief of the Apostles and of My Church, that thy faith fail not in believing Me to be the Christ and the Saviour of the world. Observe that Christ in this prayer asked and obtained for Peter two especial privileges before the other Apostles: the first was personal, that he should never fall from faith in Christ; for Christ looked back to the sifting in the former verse, that is the temptation of His own apprehension when the other Apostles flew off from Him like chaff and lost their faith, and were dispersed, and fled into all parts. But Peter, although he denied Christ with his lips, at the hour foretold, and lost his love for Him, yet retained his faith. So S. Chrysostom (Hom. xxxviii.) on S. Matthew; S. Augustine (de corrept. et Grat. chap. viii.); Theophylact and others. This is possible but not certain, for F. Lucas and others think that Peter then lost both his faith and his love, from excessive perturbation and fear; but only for a short time, and so that his faith afterwards sprang up anew, and was restored with fresh vitality. Hence it is thought not to have wholly failed, or to have been torn up by the roots, but rather to have been shaken and dead for a time.

Another and a certain privilege was common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith. So S. Leo (serm. xxii.), on Natalis of SS. Peter and Paul; S. Cyprian (Lib. i. Ephesians 3), to Cornelius; Lucius I., Felix I., Agatho, Nicolas I., Leo IX., Innocent III., Bernard and others, whom Bellarmine cites and follows (Lib. i. de Pontif. Roman).
For it was necessary that Christ, by His most wise providence, should provide for His Church, which is ever being sifted and tempted by the devil, and that not only in the time of Peter, but at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world, an oracle of the true faith which she might consult in every doubt and by which she might be taught and confirmed in the faith, otherwise the Church might err in faith, quod absit! For she is as S. Paul said to Timothy, "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tim. iii15).
Rev. Cornelius a Lapide, Commentary on Luke 22:32

The Magisteium is the "Oracle of the true faith." An "oracle" is a medium, and what God's gives us through this medium is called Dogma. Furthermore this "Oracle" will be in "His Church..... at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world."

The Church you belong to has no "Oracle" and no means to ever get one.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #940 on:** May 05, 2018, 02:33:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2018, 10:53:27 AM

Too bad for you that Vatican I teaches the exact opposite. But, hey, that may have been in a fallible section of the decree.

Pastor Aeternus:
Drew, you directly reject the teaching of Vatican I. Now the comparison with Old Catholicism becomes more and more striking with each heretical post of yours.

Ladislaus,

Good timing. I recently posted to Cantarella explaining this fundamental corruption of Catholic teaching, and now you make a post that commits exactly the error described providing a opportune example:

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1697 on: Yesterday at 05:56:28 AM »

The cause of this error is making the Attributes of the Church the personal property of churchmen. It leads to Cantarella's and most S&Sers claim that everything whatsoever from a general council is infallible and that the no pope can ever lose the virtue of supernatural faith while possessing an "infallible infallibility" by his attribute of infallibility and a "non-infallible infallibility" by his attribute of indefectibility.

But addressing your post directly should be unnecessary since it has been addressed before. But for the sake of others that may be corrupted by your error, I will explain it again.

The gift of "never-failing faith" is used by the Magisterium of the Church as the scriptural evidence that the doctrine that is being defined is part of divine revelation. If it were not part of divine revelation, it could not be the subject matter of Dogma. It is the Dogma that is infallible and constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. If anyone wants to know what "the gift of truth and never-failing faith" means, they have only to look to the Dogma because it is this "gift" that the Church is claiming as the proximate cause of papal infallibility. But there is a good clue in the quote you provided that you have apparently overlooked. The gift is given to the popes so that they "might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all." This should have indicated to you that the gift is not a personal gift that each and every pope could never possibly lose the virtue of supernatural faith, but a corporate gift that they may "discharge the exalted office for the salvation of all." If it were a personal gift for this end, the dogma would simple be "the pope is the rule of faith. Think whatever he thinks, say whatever he says, and do whatever he does." And since the Dogma concerns both faith and morals, the personal "never-failing faith" would have to include morals as well. But all this is S&S nonsense.

The Dogmatic canon itself provides the understanding what the gift of "never-failing faith" means. But since Dogma is not your rule of faith, I don't suppose you looked there:

Quote

We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of our: let him be anathema.
Vatican I, Dogma

Several important truths can be know from this Dogma. Such as, it says that it is a "divinely revealed Dogma" which makes it clear that Dogma is part of divine revelation. To be more specific, it is that part of divine revelation that is formally defined by the Magisterium, that is, the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Infallibility and Authority. Dogma is "irreformable," that is in both its form (the meaning) and its matter (the words). It is divine revelation from Scripture and Tradition that forms the remote rule of faith, and likewise, it is again divine revelation that forms the proximate rule of faith.

The "gift of never failing faith" possessed by the pope is the "assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.... which the divine Redeemer willed His Church" WHEN "he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals."

This Dogma is wholly consistent with what Rev. Cornelius a Lapide describes in his Great Commentary on Luke 22:32 where he says that the gift of a personal never-failing faith, meaning that he would never lose the virtue of supernatural faith, was given to St. Peter alone. What was given to the successors of St. Peter was the guarantee that they would never teach error by the Magisterium, which Lapide calls the "divine Oracle," that is, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Authority and Infallibility.

But while discussing Dogma and Vatican I, what about this Dogma:

Quote

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Vatican I, Dogma

Since Dogma is not your rule of faith you need not let this little condemnation trouble your conscience. In the Church of Ladislaus there is no pope, no magisterium, no councils, no dogma, and most importantly, no material or instrumental means to ever get them. Your church is permanently defective of attributes that "by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself" willed for His Church. There is no salvation in the Church of Ladislaus.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #941 on:** May 05, 2018, 03:32:12 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 04, 2018, 09:13:27 PM

I had read the entire citation before; but it is only the second part of it, and not the first one, what is actually relevant to this discussion because you claim that a legitimate Pope (Paul VI) can teach error to the faithful in nothing less than an Ecunemical Council. Your position therefore, is refuted by Lapide himself, which clearly teaches that the Pope cannot teach error to the Church, even less through the decrees of a General Council. And this has nothing to with the "personal" Faith of Peter, which is a separate issue.

By the way, Lapide does not "make it clear" that a personal never failing Faith is exclusively given to the person of St. Peter. He is just speaking about both privileges, the first touching St. Peter himself; the second one, the office. That is not necessarily a negation of the first privilege for the rest of the legitimate successors of St. Peter.

Cantarella,

You claim "only the second part" is "actually relevant to this discussion" because the other two paragraphs do not fit with your presuppositions on which you have built your church of straw.

You are claiming that I have misrepresented what Lapide said and that is a lie. You are able to give this impression by dropping the first and third paragraphs of the reference cited taking his commentary completely out of context. In the first paragraph Lapide says, contrary to your belief, that the successors of St. Peter DO NOT possess a grace of never possibly losing the virtue of supernatural faith. This was a "personal" gift to St. Peter ALONE. You have repeatedly claimed that each and every pope possess this grace of never losing the virtue of supernatural faith. This is wrong and not a single Church Father is cited holding this opinion, NOT ONE by Lapide, Haydock, or St. Thomas. It is just another stupid idea that you cling to because it serves your ideology. And it is not as if this has not been explained to you before:

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1155 on: April 16, 2018, 08:31:58 PM »

I invite everyone to read the entire citation of Lapide for themselves posted nearly three weeks ago.

The third paragraph was dropped because it makes it clear that the "never-failing faith" that was gifted to St. Peter's successors is in the exercise of the papal office which directs the "divine Oracle." This is wholly consistent with the doctrine that was dogmatized at Vatican I on papal infallibility and its necessary relation to the exercise of the papal office.

A general council approved by the pope cannot teach error in faith and morals when the Magisterium of the Church, that is, the "teaching authority" God willed His Church grounded upon the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, is engaged. That requires intent to define a matter of divine revelation. That never happened at Vatican II and this has been explained to you countless times but to no effect. You persist in claiming that everything from a general council is infallible without exception. This, as said, is nothing other than a form of idolatry. You are taking the divine Attributes which belong to the Church primarily and essentially and making them the primarily and essentially the personal powers of churchmen.

What do you possible care about Dogma? It is not your rule of faith and you and Ladislaus have accused others of being "Protestants" for "private interpretation" when taking Dogma in its literal sense. Anyway, you do not even know what Dogma is as evidenced by your referring to Article #29 from Exsurge Domine as a "dogma from the Council of Trent." Dogmas have developed a common grammatical form and you could not ever recognize that.

No wonder you are in a church without dogmas. You have no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, no moral compass. and what is most damning of all, no material or instrumental means to ever get them. All these are necessary attributes of the Catholic Church and an infallible sign that whatever church you belong, it is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Drew

JPaul · « **Reply #942 on:** May 05, 2018, 06:24:36 PM »

Which means that Vatican II has nothing at all to do with the See of Peter. It is the false teaching of thieves and robbers.
Who could argue to the contrary?

drew · « **Reply #943 on:** May 05, 2018, 07:06:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2018, 03:55:30 PM

So, then, Drew, what happens to the Church when a Pope dies and before another is elected? At one point there was a span of three years. This dogma does not mean that there has to be a Pope at every moment of history since the founding of the Church. And neither Cantarella nor I are straight sedevacantists, so our position absolutely maintains the "material or instrumental means" to get a true Pope elected. So you keep putting up bogus strawmen, as is typical of people who are not intellectually honest.

I reiterate, Drew, you are a heretic, not unlike a Protestant and an Old Catholic, who does not believe in the indefectibility of the Magisterium. To you a mere material continuity suffices for indefectibility.

You claim we have no Magisterium. In your heretical view of things, we're better off WITHOUT a Magisterium, since YOUR MAGISTERIUM leads souls to hell.

You are at once a heretic and a blasphemer against Holy Mother Church.

Ladislaus,

You are talking about the historical precedent of "a span of three years" between popes during which time the willful intent, the moral imperative, and the material and instrumental means to make a pope was always present.

This cannot be equated with a span of more than fifty years, give or take a few depending on whose version of S&S your dealing with, during which there exists no willful intent, no moral imperative, and no material and instrumental means to correct the defect. The defect is even worse with Sedeprivationists who have destroyed the papal office by fracturing its form and matter. It is a dogma (for whatever that is worth to you), a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that there will be "perpetual successors" in the papal office. What do you think the word "perpetual" means? Its primary meaning in English, and the Latin from which it is derived, is "permanent." The only thing "permanent" about the S&Sers is the defect.

Your church has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, no moral compass and no way out.

I doubt not that in "your church" I am a "heretic" and "blasphemer" but I am not a member of "your church." The Jєωs and Mohammedans would agree with you. I am a member of the Catholic Church which can be recognized even in this age of apostasy by unmistakable Attributes. "Your church," as you said is "better off WITHOUT a Magisterium," therefore it is, without a possibility of doubt, not the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #944 on:** May 05, 2018, 07:31:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2018, 04:06:27 PM

So Drew claims that Vatican I teaching regarding never-failing faith applies only to when the Pope is infallibly defining dogma. Drew, using his own rule of faith, his own private judgment, explains away anything he doesn't like.

Unfortunately for him, this sentence precedes the one cited earlier. Pastor Aeternus:
Explain how, after your interpretation of what happened with Vatican II, you do not deny this teaching that "this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by ANY ERROR." Vatican II is the mother of all blemishes on the Holy See ... from your heretical viewpoint.

Ladislaus,

You should send your posts to me for corrections before publication so you don't look too bad. You are committing the same error again that you did in your previous post that served as nice illustration for Cantarella, but one is enough.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1730 on: Today at 02:33:19 PM »

The Dogma itself, the fruit of the Magisterium, defines what the "gift of never-failing faith" means regarding papal infallibility. If you want to know what is means look to the Dogma. Luke 22:32, the "gift of never-failing faith," is directly cited as the Scriptural authority for the doctrine as part of divine revelation and the justification for the dogmatic definition. Dogmas are "truths fallen from heaven." And therefore, what St. James said is doubly true for Dogma, "Receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls."

The link to the previous post above also provides the quotation of the Dogma on papal infallibility from Vatican I with a brief reflection. Take the time to read it again for comprehension.

Drew