Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 57993 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline drew

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 332
  • Reputation: +1032/-179
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1065 on: May 16, 2018, 12:15:10 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Sedevacantism Reconsidered:

    A Public Heretic Cannot Retain The Papacy

    Saint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): “Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church.” (The Catholic Controversy)





    The Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry of "heresy" teaches the same, 1910:

    It is an absurdity to think that a non-member of the Church, such a manifest heretic, can still be the head thereof.

    Cantarella,

    How do you know that the conciliar popes are heretics?  When you answer this question bear in mind the following taken from your previous posts:

    1. The magisterium is your rule of faith.

    2. Dogma is not your rule of faith so you cannot appeal to any dogma without being guilty of “private interpretation” and becoming a “Protestant.”

    3. No pope can be a heretic because they have a “never-failing” personal faith.

    4. No pope can error in his fallible teaching because he is gifted with a negative infallibility by his personal indefectibility.

    5. All general councils are infallible in everything they do.

    So how do you know Pope Francis is a heretic?

    Drew

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 880
    • Reputation: +642/-124
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1066 on: May 16, 2018, 12:33:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Cantarella,

    How do you know that the conciliar popes are heretics?  When you answer this question bear in mind the following taken from your previous posts:

    1. The magisterium is your rule of faith.

    2. Dogma is not your rule of faith so you cannot appeal to any dogma without being guilty of “private interpretation” and becoming a “Protestant.”

    3. No pope can be a heretic because they have a “never-failing” personal faith.

    4. No pope can error in his fallible teaching because he is gifted with a negative infallibility by his personal indefectibility.

    5. All general councils are infallible in everything they do.

    So how do you know Pope Francis is a heretic?

    Drew
    Drew, we knew Jorge Bergoglio was a heretic even before he started dressing in a pope costume.  Likewise, the other Conciliar "popes" were all known to be liberals and/or Freemasons before they were elected.


    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1248
    • Reputation: +1263/-64
    • Gender: Female
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1068 on: May 16, 2018, 07:30:07 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • I think you misunderstand. My "S&S" is not really based on any personal heresy, either material or formal, or occult or public, of the "pope"; but in a Magisterial contradiction occuring in the setting of an "Ecunemical" Council, which is the indication of an impostor usurping the Seat of Peter, because we know that a legitimate successor of St. Peter cannot teach doctrinal error to the faithful. They were never popes to begin with. The events emanating from the Council confirm this usurpation.

    The reason I post the Church teaching on a "heretical Pope" is to demonstrate the logical conclusion one can draw from your illogical position. That the Pope can be a manifest heretic and still retain office, even though he is not a member of the Church.

    What do we say of a body whose head falls off?

    Cantarella,

    So you determined that Vatican II taught error and therefore the pope cannot be the pope.  But since the "magisterium is the rule of faith," how did you determine that the magisterium is teaching error?  What possible criteria are you using to judge that the magisterium is teaching error and therefore cannot be the magisterium? Concrete examples would be helpful.
     
    Once we find out how you are judging the magisterium as heretical we can get back to the problem of a heretical pope.
     
    Drew

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1069 on: May 16, 2018, 07:40:12 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Do you really have any doubt that Vatican II Council (if ratified by a legitimate Pope) belongs to the "ordinary and universal Magisterium" of the Church, at the very least?

    Cantarella,

    You do not know what the word "universal" means.  I know that Pax and Stubborn have pointed this out to you before but to no avail. "Universal" necessarily contains the attribute of time.  Without time, there is no universal.
     
    Any novelty cannot be a universal by definition.  Furthermore, there was never at any time at Vatican II the intent to define any doctrine, much less, impose the definition on the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Vatican II does not "belong to the ordinary and universal magisterium."

    Drew


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4413
    • Reputation: +3795/-230
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1070 on: May 16, 2018, 07:46:22 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cantarella,

    So you determined that Vatican II taught error and therefore the pope cannot be the pope.  But since the "magisterium is the rule of faith," how did you determine that the magisterium is teaching error?  What possible criteria are you using to judge that the magisterium is teaching error and therefore cannot be the magisterium? 
    Just out of curiosity, have you ever noticed that what was taught during and since Vatican 2 is not the same thing that was taught before Vatican 2?

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1071 on: May 16, 2018, 08:13:11 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope : when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a general council

    Published 1809

    https://archive.org/details/OnTheApostolicalAndInfallible

    trad 123,

    I have enjoyed reading this book. It was not published in 1809 but in 1869.  The author is a Jesuit with a doctorate of divinity.  I have found the term "rule of faith" used about 15 times in the text.  Since the book is dealing directly with the question of the Pope and his engagement of the Magisterium, I thought I would post a few examples of his usage of the phrase.


    Quote
    “Testimony of all the general councils of the East and West, declaring the judgment of the Chair of St. Peter at Rome, to be the infallible Rule of Faith.”  
    Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
    That is, the “judgment” is the Rule of Faith.  What do we call the judgment?  Dogma!


    Quote
    Agatho likewise asserted his Apostolical authority in his letter to the Emperor, whom he reminds that the Church of Rome has never strayed from the path of truth into the by-ways of error, and that her decisions have always been received as a rule of faith, not merely by individuals, but also by the Councils.  “Haec Apostolica ecclesia nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est.” This is the rule of true faith. “Haec est verae fidei regula.”  Alluding to the words, “Confirm thy brethren,” the Pontiff remarks that the successors of St. Peter have always strengthened the Church in the truth.  Hence he infers that “all bishops, priests and laics, who wish to please the God of truth, must study to conform to the Apostolical rule of the primitive faith, founded on the rock Peter, and preserved by him from error.”
    Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
    “Her decisions have been received as a rule of faith.”  We call these “decisions” Dogma.


    Quote
    The consent, as we have shown, is not and cannot be sufficiently clear and definitive to be a rule of faith. The Pope’s definitions, on the other hand, are in precise and positive terms and immediate answers, word for word, to the questions proposed.
    Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
    We call these “clear and definitive... definitions" Dogma.


    Quote
    A Judge has a rule before him, the law of the country, and he must strive to decide according to its dictates. For the Bishops, that rule is the teaching of the Church grounded on the authority of the Holy Scripture and tradition.  By their “definiens subscripsi” the Bishops declare, that the definition of the Council to which they subscribe, in their conviction, is in accordance with the faith based upon the Holy Scripture and tradition. When it is confirmed by the Papal approbation, the Divine Law is more clearly expressed by the definition, and the Bishops, acting as Judges, declare it to be their faith also, and by their subscription, announce its accordance with the normal rule of faith.  We would recall in this connection what we before mentioned concerning the subscription of the Bishops to the acts of the Eight General Council : “I, N. N., Bishop of N., have subscribed the profession of faith made by me in the person of his Holiness, Pope Adrian, Supreme Pontiff.”
    By such a declaration, they affirm with St. Jerome, that they believe with the faith of the Head of the Church; that his faith is their faith; that that is an article of faith which he, as the Head of the Church, pronounces to be such, and their “definiens subscripsi” is to show that they were aware of what they did, and intended it, and it was to be the evidence that such faith was the faith of the whole Church.
     Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
    The bishops “subscribe to the definition” as their “normal rule of faith.”  We calls these “definitions” Dogma.


    Quote
    Moreover, Bossuet is well aware that by the formula of Adrian II, which he holds himself bound to defend, whosoever subscribes it is obliged to obey the decisions of the Pope actually occupying the Apostolic See, as “a rule of faith;” neither could he be ignorant that the Fathers of the ecumenical Councils recognized in every individual Pope, the rock upon which the Church is built, the divinely commissioned teacher of the faith, the Vicar of Christ in whom Peter always lives.
    Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
    We call these “decisions of the Pope” Dogma.


    Quote
    It is only under the same supposition that we can account for the action of Adrian II toward the Eight General Council, in the time of Photius, in sending them a letter for their subscription, which contained the following declarations: “First of all, true salvation is found in keeping the right rule of faith, which is to submit to the decisions of the Apostolic See, according to the promises of Christ to Peter, ‘Thou art a rock,’” etc. That this is true is proved by the fact that the Apostolic See has always preserved the Catholic religion immaculate, and professed its holy doctrine. “Quia in Sede Apostolica immaculate est eemper Catholica servata religio et sancta celebrate doctrina.”
    Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
    The “decisions of the Apostolic See” that we “submit to” as the “right rule of faith” are called Dogmas.


    Quote
    How, otherwise, could Agatho, in the face of the Council, assert that the Roman See has never deviated from the path of truth? “Haec Apostolica Ecclesia nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est.”  How, otherwise , could he insert, in his instructions to his Legates, that, after the decision contained in his dogmatical letter to the Council, the Fathers could not discuss the dogma, but must simply subscribe it as a rule of faith?  “Non tamquam de incertis contendere, sed ut certa et immutabilia compendiosa definition proferre.”  We have seen with what joy the Fathers obeyed his decree. ……. Yet neither he nor the Fathers of the Council had one word to say of his case, nor objected to the “rule of faith” as proposed by Adrian, but subscribed in the memorable way that history has made known to us.
    Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
    Needs no further comment.  They must “subscribe to it (the Dogma) as a rule of faith.”


    The Magisterium is the insufficient material and instrumental causes of Dogma.  God is the formal and final causes of dogma.  The Magisterium is the means, Dogma the ends.  "It is the ends that are primary in practical matters." I have placed the last sentence in quotations because it is a fundamental rule of Thomistic philosophy.  The means to the end cannot be the end itself.

    If anyone is interested in learning more about the Fr. Weninger, S.J., he has a Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Xavier_Weninger

    Drew

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1072 on: May 16, 2018, 08:23:04 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!3
  • Just out of curiosity, have you ever noticed that what was taught during and since Vatican 2 is not the same thing that was taught before Vatican 2?

    TKGS,

    I know that because I keep Dogma as the rule of faith. Therefore, I can see what was taught at Vatican II is not in accord with the Dogmas that constitute the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.

    But S&Sers deny that Dogma is the rule of faith.  They obviously think that Vatican II taught error.  What I want to know is what criteria they are using to come to this determination since it is not by Dogma.  It is particularly a problem because they hold the "magisterium as the rule of faith."  So they apparently are declaring that their rule of faith has failed as a rule of faith.  So what is taking its place?

    Drew


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4413
    • Reputation: +3795/-230
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1073 on: May 16, 2018, 08:44:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Drew,

    What is your criteria for determining what teachings are DOGMA what what teachings are Satanic Verses?

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1074 on: May 16, 2018, 08:58:01 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • For the 94th time now, a true formal heretic is someone who pertinaciously rejects the RULE OF FAITH.

    If I think (mistakenly) that the Church has taught PROPOSITION X, I am a formal heretic if I reject X ... even if the rejection of X is not materially heretical (since the Church never actually taught it).  That's like being guilty of mortal sin for stealing if I take $1,000 that I THINK belongs to someone else ... even if it turns out that it was mine.  Materially not a theft, but formally a theft.

    If I think (mistakenly) that the Church has NOT taught PROPOSITION Y, I am not a formal heretic for rejecting PROPOSITION Y.

    What's key is whether I am implicitly rejecting the very RULE OF FAITH behind all the dogmas.

    But this does not register to your brain.

    Ladislaus,
     
    This is not a discussion of the subjective morality of heresy but its objective qualities.  You act as if heresy does not have a definition.  The Catholic Encyclopedia defines heresy by quoting St. Thomas who says that heresy is “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.”  
     
    Canon laws defines heresy as: "The offense of one who, having been baptized and retaining the name of Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that one is under obligation of divine and Catholic faith to believe (cf. Codex iuris canonici [Rome 1918; repr. Graz 1955]c. 751)."
     
    “Truths that one is under obligation of divine and Catholic faith to believe” are called DOGMAS.
     
    A heretic fails to keep Dogma as his rule of faith.  This definition necessarily means that those who keep Dogma as their rule of faith are not heretics.
     
    What you are conflating is the definition of heresy and apostasy.  The denial of the Dogma that the Magisterium is a revealed truth of God, is therefore denial of all revealed truth, which makes the person an apostate.  There is a difference between heresy and apostasy but that is not convenient for you.
     
    You never seek clarity but glory of Ladislaus.

    You have no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, and the church you belong to will never have these necessary attributes of the Catholic Church.  So when you get to where you are going, do not say that you were not warned.
     
    Drew


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1075 on: May 16, 2018, 09:03:44 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1
  • Drew,

    What is your criteria for determining what teachings are DOGMA what what teachings are Satanic Verses?

    TKGS,

    Maybe that is why S&Sers deny Dogma as their rule of faith.  They do not know what it is.  The first clue to recognizing Dogma is the intent of the Magisterium, that is, the teaching Authority of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, to define an article of divine revelation.  That is why Dogma itself is divine revelation and, like all divine revelation, constitutes the rule of faith.

    I hope this helps you out.

    Drew


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1076 on: May 16, 2018, 09:14:19 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Papal judgements and decisions do not necessarily pertain to dogmas. They can also be of a disciplinary and temporary nature, and / or not appertaining to Faith or morals.

    A dogma is simply a revealed truth solemnly defined by the Church as such.  Revealed truths do not become dogmas until the Magisterium proposes them in that way. A dogma implies a twofold relation: Divine Revelation + authority teaching of the Church.

    Cantarella,

    The title of the book should give you a clue on the subject matter:

    Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council

    The book is focusing on the authority of the pope, not on Dogma per se.  But what is clear from the context of the book is that the definitive judgments of the pope are the rule of faith.  And when pope defines a doctrine of revelation as a Dogma, it is a permanent rule that cannot be changed by any future pope because there is only one universal Magisterium teaching that every individual pope engages.

    Quote
    How, otherwise, could Agatho, in the face of the Council, assert that the Roman See has never deviated from the path of truth? “Haec Apostolica Ecclesia nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est.”  How, otherwise , could he insert, in his instructions to his Legates, that, after the decision contained in his dogmatical letter to the Council, the Fathers could not discuss the dogma, but must simply subscribe it as a rule of faith?  “Non tamquam de incertis contendere, sed ut certa et immutabilia compendiosa definition proferre.”  We have seen with what joy the Fathers obeyed his decree. ……. Yet neither he nor the Fathers of the Council had one word to say of his case, nor objected to the “rule of faith” as proposed by Adrian, but subscribed in the memorable way that history has made known to us.
    Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council

    Needs no further comment.  They must “subscribe to it (the Dogma) as a rule of faith.”


    Drew


    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1248
    • Reputation: +1263/-64
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1077 on: May 16, 2018, 10:24:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

  • Cantarella, is there a reason why you always say "Ecunemical" Councils? Instead of Ecumenical? Just wondering.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3137
    • Reputation: +1924/-971
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1078 on: May 16, 2018, 11:08:59 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!3

  • Quote
    When I say that Ecunemical Councils approved by the legitimate successor of St. Peter are infallible, I am not saying that they are necessarily dogmatic; or irreversible. (They can deal with pastoral, disciplinary, and temporary affairs as well). Infallible does not necessarily mean "dogmatic". It only means "incapable of making mistakes or being wrong".

    Ecunemical Councils ratified by a Pope are infallible, and they are binding to all Christians. That means they are applicable to Catholics of all rites, they do not erragainst the Faith and they cannot contradict the Faith even when they deal with disciplinary matters which potentially could be reversible in time. Ecunemical Councils represent the Universal Church which has the assistance of the Holy Ghost.
    I lost track of how many times you contradicted yourself above.  One of the most illogical posts I’ve ever read.  Your understanding of the words “infallible”, “doctrine”, and “irreversible” is astoundingly wrong.  


    Quote
    English is not my first language;
    You should learn English before you try to teach theology.  

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4413
    • Reputation: +3795/-230
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #1079 on: May 17, 2018, 08:47:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Every Catholic theologian knows that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.  Drew just refuses to back down because he has his ego invested in it.

    If you want to argue about the limits of infallibility, go ahead, but you need to drop this Protestant-heretical stupidity of making dogma the proximate rule of faith.
    I've noticed a lot of amateury theologians have a desire to coin new terms and theories in order to attempt to explain the Crisis since the standard terms and theories the Catholic Church has used for centuries simply doesn't satisfy their personal desire for absolute clarity.  So, in order to make things clear in their own minds, they muddy the very doctrines they are trying to understand.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16