Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440778 times)

ctarozzi · « **Reply #1040 on:** May 12, 2018, 07:55:52 PM »

I'M PUBLISHING HERE A POST NOVUSORDOWATCH REFUSED TO PUBLISH TO THE 'POSTSCRIPT ON FR RINGROSE':

I apologize if I come like a ‘party crusher’ in the middle of your celebrations of Fr Ringrose’s public statement on the conciliar Popes.

First of all, I imagine Fr Ringrose smiling at the pompous “earthquake” metaphor given on this website to his modest three part comments on the Pope in his Bulletin. Father is well known for his harmless meteorological observations but not for producing any telluric activity!

More seriously, I noticed you're making too much of it. For instance, I remarked that Fr Ringrose in his Bulletin never said that the two other discarded explanations were ‘heretic’, that he never used the word ‘material’ Pope, nor ‘sedeprivationism’ to characterize his own opinion. It seems rather that Fr Ringrose has his own particular theory, probably close to sedeprivationism, but not identical to the one of Des Lauriers.

Fr. Ringrose’s position can be summarized to a single phrase at the end: “the Chair is not totally vacant, not is it totally full.” Any people with deep knowledge on Theology will hardly find this ‘half-pope” fiction taught in any serious Theology manual. In any case, it doesn’t square with any theologian in the past, like Bellarmine et alii.

I found particularly ‘selective’ Bp Sanborn, quoted above praising Fr Ringrose’s public position, when he fails to mention that the Fr. Ringrose condemned also unequivocally totalist sedevacantism...! This misleading attitude of Bp Sanborn, a sedeperivationist, is motivated by the fact he is comfortable with Fr Cekada, a totalist sedevacantist, teaching in his own Seminary in Florida. “Sede-ecuмenism”?

I found also interesting that the initial comment about Fr Ringrose’s position on the conciliar Popes quickly degenerated on a serious and embittered brawl between the different sede factions! The totalists fighting the privationists, the Sanbornists fighting the Cekadists. Very telling.

All the discussions posted above, no matter which kind of sede they belong to, prove at least one thing: the irreconcilable and contradictory character among the different sede theories. They concur only on something purely negative, “there is not a valid Pope in Rome today,” but their explanations and their solutions differ enormously.
I remarked that the only sede version missing in this debate are the conclavists. This is truly the craziest sede branch, but at least they are consistent. They say: “If the Pope is essential to the Church, and the Chair is empty, it logically follows that the Church cannot continue without a Pope, so LET’S ELECT ONE!”

How many sede “popes” do we have now? We lost the counting... and interestingly enough they’re mostly Americans. BTW these people should not be called sede-vacantist but sede-plenist because they have a “pope,” and even a dozen. The problem is that there are too many “popes” to accommodate on the same chair... like playing to the musical chairs!
Now, do you expect that anyone after reading your ‘Babelian’ discussions posted above will take seriously any sede position?

Imagine any newcomer Catholic, with a solid Faith and a lot of common sense, arriving in the middle of this sede thread and witness your irreconcilable positions... He will think that none of your explanations and solutions cannot be taken seriously.
We know that Truth is one and error are multiple. The multiplicity of the different versions of sede theories are the most telling proof that any sede theory cannot be the solution.

Therefore, I appeal to the last remnant of common sense among you, folks. You’re utterly disconnected with reality and with Catholicism. All of you seem to be comfortably living in an unreal world, alien to Catholicism. Do you imagine that the Catholic Church could have lived without a visible head, bad as the occupants could be, for almost 60 years?

The empty Seat theories don’t only question your ability to connect with the sensus Fidei, but also it is offensive to God who, if you’re right, not only would have miserably failed to preserve the Church’s visibility for 60 years, but also prevents the possibility of returning to a normal state of the Papacy.

The bottom line is that the so-called theological sede explanations betray too much of self-complacency, theological ignorance, and are alien not only to Catholic Doctrine but even to common sense.

One thing that seems to me evident is that the crisis in the Church is worsening and that even some Traditional Catholic are victim of this crisis as well, being blindsided by the illusion of bringing “The” solution to a situation too mysterious in the Church that we cannot grasp it in all of its aspects.

drew · « **Reply #1041 on:** May 12, 2018, 08:27:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 12, 2018, 07:09:21 PM

You have this completely backwards, and the definition of heresy actually proves that the Church/Magisterium are the rule of faith. This has been amply demonstrated.

So, for instance, one could deny a dogma BEFORE its definition by the Church and he would not be a heretic. If dogma were the rule, one would be a heretic even before its definition by the Church.

One could deny a dogma out of ignorance, but so long as there's no implicit rejection of the formal RULE of faith, the authority of the Church, the heresy is material only (and some theologians deny the term heresy to so-called "material" heresy).

That's why it is rightly said that if one denies a single dogma he denies all the dogmas. Why? Because in rejecting the one you are rejecting the authority behind them all, so that you do not actually believe ANY of them, not with the requisite formal motive of faith.

You are just so completely befuddled and dazed and confused due to having to defend your R&R at all costs.

Ladislaus,

You are the guy who did not even know that the Magisterium was part of divine revelation. You are they guy who did not know the definition of supernatural faith, and then you divided its necessary attributes corrupting its meaning. You are the guy whose "magisterium is dormant" and shows no signs of life. And now you want to offer your opinion on the rule of supernatural faith? You have displayed a phenomenal ignorance on the fundamental meaning of both of the terms in the proposition. Really, how could you possible make a truthful judgment?

Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church and proposed by the Church as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Therefore, it is impossible to deny a Dogma before it is defined. The magisterium is the insufficient material cause and instrumental cause of dogma. God is the final cause and formal cause of dogma. God is the "authority behind" all Dogma. The Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church, is also a Dogma.

St. Thomas defines heresy as, : "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." The definition is addressing formal heresy for mere material heresy is not heresy at all. This definition of St. Thomas is called an "essential definition" because it includes the genus and the species. I do not expect that you would understand why this is the best of all possible definitions but you should be able to at least confirm that it is from any authoritative textbook on logic or epistemology. This essential definition necessarily makes Dogma the rule of faith and it is clearly demonstrated by simply moving from the species to the genus. Those who break the rule are heretics. Those who keep the rule are the faithful. The breaking or keeping the rule of dogma becomes the essential difference. If Dogma is not the proximate rule of faith, no one could be called a heretic.

And yet, you like to freely slander others with the charge of "heresy" and you are ignorant of this fact.

Why don't you go and wake up your magisterium and ask them?

Drew

TKGS · « **Reply #1042 on:** May 12, 2018, 08:37:35 PM »

Quote from: ctarozzi on May 12, 2018, 07:55:52 PM

I'M PUBLISHING HERE A POST NOVUSORDOWATCH REFUSED TO PUBLISH TO THE 'POSTSCRIPT ON FR RINGROSE':

What do you mean "Novus Ordo Watch refused to publish"? Did you post this as a comment using DISQUS and Novus Ordo Watch deleted your post?
There are critical posts on many Novus Ordo Watch posts so I would be surprised that this would have been deleted. In general, Novus Ordo Watch only deletes comments when they stray from the topic. These comments seem to be on subject.

drew · « **Reply #1043 on:** May 12, 2018, 09:10:51 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 12, 2018, 07:15:43 PM

This is utter garbage and filled with lies and distortions ... which have been corrected. But you are of bad will and therefore refuse to accept correction.

Let's start with the easiest one. With sedeprivationism (which is most akin to what Cantarella and I believe), there's every "instrumental means" to correct the problem.

We have a Magisterium that is not exercised at the moment, just as you would have after the death of one pope and before the election of another. You, on the other hand, have a thoroughly corrupt and polluted Magisterium that you are required to reject in order to save your soul.

You have perverted the term "rule of faith" in order to suit your agenda, so that doesn't apply at all.

You continue to lie even after you are corrected.

Ladislaus,

Since you do not know the rule of faith no one should be surprised to see you in a church of your own making without pope, without magisterium, without rule of faith, and without means to ever get these necessary attributes of the Catholic Church.

You have made the pope a god by claiming that the office and the pope constitute one being. Therefore you have made the divine Attributes of the Church the personal possession of the pope. His personal infallibility means he is infallible whenever he want to be infallible, his personal indefectibility means he is infallible whenever he wants to be just fallible, that is his "infallible security" blanket.

But even if I were to accept your claim that the office is the "form of the papacy" and the "person the matter," sedeprivationism posits dividing the form itself from the matter which again would be a substantial change that is not any different from sedevacantism in its practical result.

But you are wrong because we know from dogma, and divine and natural law, that the pope and the office are not an identity but have real distinctions. Sedeprivationism posits that the pope can materially possess the office and formally not possess the office at the same time. This separates the form and matter of the office itself which necessarily produces a substantial change in what God has promised will endure until the end of the world with perpetual successors.

And what evidence can be offered that the form has departed from the pope as you claim that the form departs from a heretical pope in the same manner as from a dead pope? We know it departs from a dead pope because the matter corrupts. You have nothing but your own high opinion as evidence that any separation has occurred and there are many theologians who would not agree with you. It is God who joins and only God can divine.

And by what criteria are you judging the pope as a heretic? Could it be Dogma? You like to use Dogma to charge others with heresy but when you deny Dogma yourself, "it's not the rule of faith" is the answer. In the end, you are your own rule of faith. Whatever serves your end will do.

It has led you into your own church of your own making.

Drew

2Vermont · « **Reply #1044 on:** May 13, 2018, 07:03:57 AM »

Quote from: TKGS on May 12, 2018, 08:37:35 PM

What do you mean "Novus Ordo Watch refused to publish"? Did you post this as a comment using DISQUS and Novus Ordo Watch deleted your post?
There are critical posts on many Novus Ordo Watch posts so I would be surprised that this would have been deleted. In general, Novus Ordo Watch only deletes comments when they stray from the topic. These comments seem to be on subject.

I noticed that a couple of posts were deleted on a different thread about Francis' latest heresy. Perhaps these were the same posts. If so, then this poster posted his post in the WRONG thread rather than on the Fr Ringrose thread. I suspect that THIS was the only reason why it was deleted.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440778 times)

ctarozzi

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

drew

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

TKGS

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

drew

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

2Vermont

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