Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 441958 times)

drew · « **Reply #950 on:** May 05, 2018, 08:58:39 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2018, 07:54:50 PM

St. Robert Bellarmine differentiated between the two. And some untrained simpleton like yourself calling a theologian in the class of +Guerard des Lauriers an idiot who doesn't know philosophy 101, well, that's just preposterous and incredibly arrogant. You have no credibility whatsoever.

Ladislaus,

The appeal to authority is the weakest of all arguments. In fact, it's not an argument at all but often an excuse for not thinking. This has been your one and only babble from the beginning of this thread regarding the fundamental error on which sedeprivationism is grounded.

Now in "your church" you can do whatever you want. You can believe whatever you want to believe. But in the Catholic Church hylomorphism is Dogma in that this philosophical principle has been used in the dogmatic canons on the sacraments. It is a fundamental truth that the severing of the form and matter of any material being causes a substantial change in that being. The being is dissolved. Your theory has destroyed the papal office. But for faithful Catholics, who keep dogma as their rule of faith, we know by divine and Catholic faith that the papacy with perpetual successors will last until the "consummation of the world" and therefore, your theory is bunk.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #951 on:** May 05, 2018, 09:13:20 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2018, 08:00:51 PM

On our side you have a lengthy vacancy of the Holy See.

On your side you have a completely undependable Magisterium that can go 99.5% corrupt at any given time. You create a heretical and blasphemous concept of the Catholic Church where any idiot like you can on a whim second-guess the Magisterium.

You keep parroting back the stupidity that we have no Magisterium. I'll take no Magisterium over corrupt heretical Magisterium that endangers our faith if we submit to it.

You act as if we're talking about a problematic sentence in a narrative portion of the Council Docuмents. No, what we have in Vatican II is a completely new ecclesiology and modernist theological system. We have an epic failure on a grand scale, and not just a bad proposition here or there.

You blabber on about a 50+ year vacancy, but blow off the fact that, according to you, the Magisterium has been totally corrupt for over 50 years.

Ladislaus,

Again you admit that you will "take no Magisterium" over the "corrupt and heretical Magisterium that endangers the faith." But Lad, the "magisterium is your rule of faith." Since it is your "rule" how is it possible that the "rule" itself could ever be "corrupt and heretical" and "endanger the faith"?

I guess it is only the "rule" sometimes. But how did you know that the magisterium is "corrupt and heretical"?

Let me guess? Dogma? You used Dogma as your rule of faith to decide that the "magisteium is corrupt and heretical."

Gee, Lad, you change lanes so fast I can hardly keep up. In "your church" when they make you the pope, make sure that everyone knows that you are the rule of faith so this kind of mess doesn't recur. In "your church" there is no pope, no magisterium, no dogma and that's a good thing because you have no idea what they are.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #952 on:** May 05, 2018, 09:35:16 PM »

Quote from: drew on May 05, 2018, 08:58:39 PM

Ladislaus,

The appeal to authority is the weakest of all arguments. In fact, it's not an argument at all but often an excuse for not thinking. This has been your one and only babble from the beginning of this thread regarding the fundamental error on which sedeprivationism is grounded.

Now in "your church" you can do whatever you want. You can believe whatever you want to believe. But in the Catholic Church hylomorphism is Dogma in that this philosophical principle has been used in the dogmatic canons on the sacraments. It is a fundamental truth that the severing of the form and matter of any material being causes a substantial change in that being. The being is dissolved. Your theory has destroyed the papal office. But for faithful Catholics, who keep dogma as their rule of faith, we know by divine and Catholic faith that the papacy with perpetual successors will last until the "consummation of the world" and therefore, your theory is bunk.

Drew

Ladislaus,

I neglected to answer your claim that, "St. Robert Bellarmine differentiated between the two" (the form and matter of the papal office).

St. Robert did not, as you claim, make the same distinction as the Sedeprivationists. This was even brought up by Cantarella long ago and addressed long ago in this thread. St. Robert's distinction referred directly to the pope personally and on a different question. You should know better.

Drew

hollingsworth · « **Reply #953 on:** May 05, 2018, 10:22:05 PM »

Drew is a troll. :-\

drew · « **Reply #954 on:** May 06, 2018, 05:51:02 AM »

Quote from: Pugillator Fidei on May 05, 2018, 10:14:23 PM

Sorry Drew, but I don’t think you understand properly the SP distinction material-formal as applied to the pope. The papacy it’s not a subtantial form, but accidental form, which can be lost without destroying the being.

Also, the SP affirms the continuity of the papacy until the end of the world, because it’s essential to the church, and for this reason these material popes can become formal popes at any time, if they remove the obstacle to receive authority from Christ.

What is impossible though, is that a true pope will impose a new religion, promoting false doctrine and evil disciple to the whole church. That goes against infallibility & indefectibility. That’s heresy.

If you accept Francis as a true pope, divinely assisted by God to teach, govern & sanctify his church, then you have to accept his new religion. But then you will have a bigger problem...

Pugillator Fidei,

The papacy is an office that possess in itself a substantial being. If it did not, there would be nothing to elect a successor to and there would be no possibility of discussing its form and matter. It may be accidental to the person elected but Sedeprivationism postulates that the person can possess the material aspect of the office and not the formal aspect and that is impossible.

As for as accepting any heretic as the pope, it does not require accepting his new religion. This is only possible if the pope is your rule of faith which is a big problem with S&Sers as well as conservative Catholics. A Catholic who keeps dogma as his rule of faith is no more tainted by the heresy of a conciliar popes than Jesus Christ was by worshiping at Temple under the heretical high priest Caiaphas.

You are, like others, using the Attribute of Indefectibility to mean a negative Infallibility so that the pope possesses a "fallible infallibility" in his ordinary actions. This I contend is absurd. The Attributes of the Church are not the personal property of the pope but are possessed only secondarily and accidentally under specific conditions. These Attributes are divine powers and when made personal attributes of the pope constitute a form of idolatry.

We do not have to answer every question. Our duty is to keep the faith. Heresy is defined as a failure to keep dogma as the rule of faith. That is what heresy is.

Drew

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 441958 times)

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?

hollingsworth

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

drew

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