Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 442055 times)

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

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 442055 times)

King Wenceslas

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

forlorn

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?

drew

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