Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 318630 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #1035 on:** May 12, 2018, 01:19:24 PM »

If this secret pagan publicly professes the Catholic faith I don't see why he wouldn't be a member of the Church. If he was baptized as an adult, but internally rejected this act, even at the very moment of it's carrying out, he would be a member, a dead member.

Matthew · « **Reply #1036 on:** May 12, 2018, 01:27:55 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on May 12, 2018, 01:19:24 PM

If this secret pagan publicly professes the Catholic faith I don't see why he wouldn't be a member of the Church. If he was baptized as an adult, but internally rejected this act, even at the very moment of it's carrying out, he would be a member, a dead member.

I just clicked on this thread out of curiosity, and here is my first impression:
Talk about an ivory tower, hypothetical, useless, academic discussion! Is that what the rest of this thread is like?

In other news, "here is how many angels could fit on the head of a pin..."

Meanwhile, Tradition burns.

Seriously -- think of the situation for so many Trads today: the downfall of the SSPX, the necessity of Mass, the economic reality of 2018, newlywed couples trying to get by, couples where the wife is forced to work, the issue of education "how to school our children without sending them to public school, and I can't homeschool", finding friends for your children who aren't a horrible influence, young people discerning marriage (both male and female), dealing with non-Trad and non-Catholic family members, and so many other important, critical, AND PRACTICAL topics.

We're talking about issues that affect Trads everywhere, in all parts of Tradition, regardless of what group they patronize. There are a lot of struggles we have in common. Yes, even between a young sedevacantist couple and a young SSPX couple. Yes, I know that's blasphemy for those who love to divide...

So is this academic issue really the most important issue pressing on Trad Catholics today? Are our lives so stable and worry-free that we can indulge in such academic discussions? I'm sure many would like to say (or shout) MUST BE NICE.

NOTE: I'm actually in a pretty stable situation myself -- but A) even I have issues I have to deal with, like the lack of weekly Mass, raising children in the 2018 pagan modern world, lack of friends/family "support network", etc. and B) I'm objective -- I don't always talk about myself. I step outside myself and my situation as easily as others are stuck thinking from their own situation/perspective :)

TL;DR:
We need less "Crisis in the Church" posts and more "Catholics Living in the Modern World" posts. The latter could have been called "The Rubber Meets the Road" or "Trad Catholic in Action" or "Trad Catholic life all week long - the struggles" and so forth.

trad123 · « **Reply #1037 on:** May 12, 2018, 01:34:50 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 12, 2018, 01:27:55 PM

Is that what the rest of this thread is like?

The crisis in the Church can be summarized as an ecclesiological battleground.

Matthew · « **Reply #1038 on:** May 12, 2018, 01:41:42 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on May 12, 2018, 01:39:35 PM

I'm surprised you wrote that post in this thread and not one of the flat earth discussions

Oh it applies to many other posts, I'm sure. I'm not excluding Flat Earth from the criticism.
I get the impression that if someone embraced Flat Earth, certain Flat Earth zealots would consider that person "100% good to go" -- according to their distorted thinking.
What about all the other problems and issues facing Trad Catholics? Give me a break.

drew · « **Reply #1039 on:** May 12, 2018, 04:27:27 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 12, 2018, 01:09:28 PM

Where is the source of his error?

Here is Bellarmine explicitly excluding pagans from membership in the Church:

Cantarella,

When you quote me it should always be done in context. I attributed this source to Msgr. Joseph Fenton in an article in AER and that should be included in your question. This citation says that St. Robert Bellarmine believed a non-baptized man pretending to be a Catholic, if accepted as such by a Catholic society, would be a member of the Church.

Msgr. Fenton wrote:

Quote

St. Robert was perfectly in line with a then existent theological tradition in holding that a man could he a true member of the Catholic Church when he possessed the outward bond of unity with the Church, apart altogether from the inward bond. He believed that a man was a real member of the Church when he had this outward bond of union, even though he had no true and inward Christian faith whatsoever.

He differed, however, from other ecclesiologists of his time in his concept of the outward bond itself. He held literally and consistently that these factors which were capable of making a man a member of the true Church and sufficient to constitute him such were the profession of the Christian faith and the communion or reception of the sacraments, under the direction of legitimate ecclesiastical pastors and ultimately, under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff. He definitely did not teach that the baptismal character was necessary for real membership in the Church.

He definitely taught that those who have not given their names to Christ through baptism, but who follow other religions, "are not members of the Church." He also denied that catechumens, those who were preparing for the reception of baptism, and thus for entrance into the true Church of Christ, were members of the kingdom of God on earth. But, in the light of what he has set down towards the end of the tenth chapter in his De ecclesia militante, it is obvious that he considered an unbaptized man a true member of the Church when that man lived in society as a Catholic and was accepted as such, either by reason of a mistake about his status, or because the man cold—bloodedly falsified his position, claiming to have been baptized when he knew well that he had never received the sacrament.

It is manifest that this particular aspect of St. Robert’s teaching is unacceptable in the light of Mystici corporis. It must he remembered, however, that St. Robert’s faulty description of the Church’s outward bond of unity in no way militates against his teaching about the possibility that occult heretics can be members of the true Church, and in no way invalidates the arguments he employed in favor of that contention.
Msgr. Joseph Fenton, AER, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching About the Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church; page 221

And answering your previous post.

Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and the definition of a heretic proves this necessarily. You are either unwilling or unable to understand this. No one can see this for you. In a mathematics textbook, you will typically find an axiom proposed followed by its mathematical proof. A lot a students cannot see the proof, they just assume the book is correct, memorize the axiom and leave it at that, but is always better to understand the proof which becomes helpful in higher orders of study.

The definition of a heretic is a baptized person who rejects one or more dogmas. He does not keep Dogma as his rule of faith. This is the essential definition that provides the genus and species. It proves that the faithful are those who keep Dogma as the rule of faith.

It is worth repeating for the benefit of others even if you cannot appreciate it. For you the question becomes why do S&Sers reject this evident truth? I think it is because they end up in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogmas and cannot be the Catholic Church. If you turn your back on the revealed truth as your rule of faith, the current error is less psychologically troubling.

Do you know that the condemned error against Huss is of the same category of authority as the condemnations of Luther in Exsurge Domine? They are not dogmatic truths and therefore must be contextualized. The "foreknown" are those predestined to Hell. Huss held that only those predestined to heaven were members of the Church. A wicked pope in a state of mortal sin is still a material member of the Church but he has lost the life of sanctifying grace by definition. That is, he is no longer a temple of the Holy Ghost, an heir to heaven. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Holy Ghost is the "Soul of the Church." If any Catholic is without sanctifying grace he cannot be a living member of the Church. Exactly what his relationship is admittedly a matter of theological dispute but as Fr. Fenton said that ultimately everyone is either a member of the Church or not. If we are not perfectly accurate in discerning the grey areas it is our incomplete understanding of the problem. You are free to speculate in these area of uncertainty but you are not free to engage in speculation and practical decisions that overthrow dogma.

You are in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith and no material or instrumental means to ever correct these permanent defects. You are in a church that is not Catholic and never will be. Instead of trying to figure out how you ended up in this spiritual desert, you try only to overthrow the authority of dogma whenever it suits your purpose.

Drew

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.

TKGS · « **Reply #1045 on:** May 13, 2018, 07:07:44 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont 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.

This would make sense. I've just not seen Novus Ordo Watch delete topic appropriate criticisms--no matter how inane they are.

2Vermont · « **Reply #1046 on:** May 13, 2018, 07:15:15 AM »

Quote from: TKGS on May 13, 2018, 07:07:44 AM

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.

This would make sense. I've just not seen Novus Ordo Watch delete topic appropriate criticisms--no matter how inane they are.

Actually I just went back int here and it is there. This poster is probably new there and it had not been approved yet. In fact NOW actually responds to it.

drew · « **Reply #1047 on:** May 13, 2018, 03:07:08 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 10:15:25 AM

So you continue with this calumny despite the fact that it's been explained to you at least a dozen times that this accusation was rooted in your inability to comprehend the English language and my use of the term revelation. You disputed that revelation (in English) could have the meaning with which I was using it, and I cited dictionary.com which listed my use of the term first and yours second.

You really are a bad-willed degenerate. You've got nothing else to rebut my arguments, so you keep dusting off this false accusation in desperation.

Ladislaus,

"Calumny"? "False accusations"? These are a links to your claim that the "Magisterium is not part of divine revelation." It does not matter whether your were claiming that the "Magisterium is not part (of the content) of divine revelation," or that the "Magisterium is not part (of the act) of revelation." Either way, it is a spectacular error with grave doctrinal implications that you have never corrected.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1468 on: April 25, 2018, 08:07:46 PM »

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1521 on: April 27, 2018, 12:05:27 PM »

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1543 on: April 27, 2018, 01:25:21 PM »

Here are the links to your denying the correct definition of supernatural faith.

SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2015, 08:08:35 AM »

SSPX Resistance News / SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« on: August 16, 2015, 01:17:43 PM »

It is not easy to keep track of your posts Ladislaus because you are an expert on everything and cannot keep your mouth shut. You have, on this thread alone, posted more than 450 times. You make up nearly 25% of all posts on this one thread. You have more posts on this thread alone than I have in all my posts on CathInfo going back four years. The outstanding characteristic of your posts are a crude arrogant dismissal of opinions that are not your own, a failure to ever correct gross errors of fundamental first principles, a superficial flippant pretense of erudition, a routine quoting out of context, and the use demeaning language in approximately 90% of your posts on this thread alone.

Since you do not know the correct definition of the Magisterium and you do not know the correct definition of supernatural faith, you cannot possibly know what you are saying when you claim, "the magsiterium is the rule of faith" because you do not know the meaning of the terms of the proposition. You are only fooling those who want to be fooled. Unfortunately, there are plenty of them.

Now we know from your last post that you do not know what "calumny" is. Calumny is the detraction of another by lying. Actually, to accuse anyone of calumny when it is not is a good example of calumny.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1048 on:** May 13, 2018, 05:16:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 04:57:30 PM

You bumbling idiot, the second proposition is Catholic doctrine ... as taught even by Vatican I. The first is the distorted heretical meaning which you tried to tar me with due to your inability to understand English.

So, according to you, when the Magisterium defines a doctrine, the Magisterium is revealing the doctrine.

Ladislaus,

Why don't you shut up and let others read the posts that I have provided links. Let your own words speak for you. Let others see for themselves what kind a person you are. If these links do not demonstrate that I am telling the truth, then you will be vindicated and I put to shame. If they do in fact demonstrate what I claim, your protestations are to no avail and only further denigrate your reputation.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1981 on: Today at 03:07:08 PM »

Drew

hollingsworth · « **Reply #1049 on:** May 13, 2018, 10:49:26 PM »

drew:

Quote

It is not easy to keep track of yo'ur posts Ladislaus because you are an expert on everything and cannot keep your mouth shut. You have, on this thread alone, posted more than 450 times. You make up nearly 25% of all posts on this one thread. You have more posts on this thread alone than I have in all my posts on CathInfo going back four years.

So maybe Lad is a "bad willed degenerate," and a "bumbling idiot" too. I mean, there's got to be some kind of degeneracy and idiocy at play here. Otherwise, a totally outrageous and embarrassing thread like this would not be approaching 40,000 views. But as long as Matthew allows this ridiculous food fight to continue, we can only expect more of it, I suspect.