Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440722 times)

drew · « **Reply #1075 on:** May 16, 2018, 09:03:44 PM »

Quote from: TKGS on May 16, 2018, 08:44:31 PM

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

drew · « **Reply #1076 on:** May 16, 2018, 09:14:19 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 16, 2018, 09:02:11 PM

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

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #1077 on:** May 16, 2018, 10:24:39 PM »

Cantarella, is there a reason why you always say "Ecunemical" Councils? Instead of Ecuмenical? Just wondering.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #1078 on:** May 16, 2018, 11:08:59 PM »

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.

TKGS · « **Reply #1079 on:** May 17, 2018, 08:47:05 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 17, 2018, 07:58:00 AM

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.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440722 times)

drew

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

drew

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

Maria Auxiliadora

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

Pax Vobis

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

TKGS

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