Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440542 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #1125 on:** May 19, 2018, 07:16:33 PM »

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/events/event.dir.html/content/vaticanevents/en/2018/5/19/concistoro-ordinariopubblico.html

Quote

At 10.00 this morning, in the Consistory Hall of the Vatican Apostolic Palace, during the celebration of Terce, the Holy Father Francis held an Ordinary Public Consistory for the Canonization of the Blesseds:

- Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini), Supreme Pontiff;
- Oscar Arnulfo Romero Galdámez, archbishop of San Salvador, martyr;
- Francesco Spinelli, diocesan priest, founder of the Institute of the Sisters Adorers of the Blessed Sacrament;
- Vincenzo Romano, diocesan priest;
- Maria Katharina Kasper, virgin, founder of the Institute of the Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ;
- Nazaria Ignacia of Saint Teresa of Jesus (née: Nazaria Ignacia March Mesa), virgin, founder of the Congregation of the Missionary Crusaders of the Church.

During the Consistory, the Pope decreed that the Blesseds be inscribed in the Book of Saints on Sunday 14 October 2018.

drew · « **Reply #1126 on:** May 20, 2018, 02:34:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 20, 2018, 12:35:13 PM

I've put (a version of) this matrix out there before. Formatting is difficult in a forum post, but I think you can get the picture.

Vatican II Catholic | Vatican II Not Catholic

Magisterium Must Be Accepted Conservative NO Sedevacantists
----------
Magisterium Need Not be Accepted Liberal NO R&R

Ladislaus,

Yes, we "get the picture." You are the guy that did not know that the Magisterium is part of divine revelation and your are just trying to prove that you really do not know what you are talking about.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1981 on: May 13, 2018, 03:07:08 PM »

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #2107 on: May 18, 2018, 07:57:24 PM »

You use the word "Magisterium" equivocally again which is an error that routinely occurs in your posts. This is just further evidence that you do not even know what the Magisterium is. You are unable to distinguish the Magisterium grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority and the magisterium of churchmen grounded upon their grace of state.

One thing that everyone should take away this post of yours is that Conservative Catholics, who are buried in the errors of Neo-modernism, and S&Sers have a great deal in common. You both deny Dogma is the rule of faith. You both hold that the pope is the rule of faith and dogma is open to constant development never reaching its term. Conservative Catholics would agree with your claim that anyone who takes Dogma literally is guilty of "private interpretation" and is therefore a "Protestant."

I have already proved, not only be reasonable a priori arguments that force necessary conclusions, but by the Magisterium grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Authority and Infallibility in the Letter of Pope Agatho, that Dogma is the Rule of faith. You deny this truth just like all Neo-modenists. The end of all Neo-modernist and Modernist activity is the destruction of Dogma.

Your church has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, no moral compass and will never get them. It is not now and can never be the Catholic Church. The only difference at this point is the Conservative Catholics still have a pope as their rule of faith and you only have yourself.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1127 on:** May 20, 2018, 03:05:01 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 19, 2018, 09:37:27 AM

What's wrong, nay, more than wrong, heretical, is your assertion that an Ecuмenical Council can do grave harm to the faith and that the Magisterium can become this corrupt. It's one thing to say that not everything is, strictly speaking, protected by infallibility, and quite another to say what you're saying.

Ladislaus,

All this is based upon your conception of the Attribute of Indefectibility.

You maintain that Indefectibility is just a negative form of Infallibility that constitutes what you like to call "Infallible Security" where the pope possesses an infallible infallibility and a fallible infallibility at the same time.

And since you believe that the "office" is the "form" and the person of the pope the "matter" creating one and only one substance uniting the person of the pope and the office, these "infallibilities" become the personal possession of the pope.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1824 on: May 07, 2018, 10:11:08 PM »

That is why the pope is necessarily your rule of faith. And it is the same for Conservative Catholics with whom you hold this error in common.

But is Indefectibility just a negative Infallibility? No, it is not and this has been said many time before, but once again won't hurt.

The Attributes of the Church are Infallibility, Indefectibility and Authority. They correspond to the three functions of the Church that were identified by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that is: to teach, to worship God and sanctify the faithful, and to govern. These Attributes belong primarily and necessarily to the Church. They are divine Attributes, and are Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. They belong to the pope only secondarily and accidentally. There is a real formal, and not just logical, distinction between the pope and the office. Therefore, there Attributes are not the personal possession of the pope. He and he alone has the authority to engage these Attributes but they always remain primarily Attributes of the Church.

The Attributes have overlapping areas of operation but also they have their individual focuses of operation. The primary focus of Indefectibility is the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful. It is NOT a negative infallibility attending the person of the pope for his "Infallible Security." In spite of the great apostasy since Vatican II, the true worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful has never been absent from the Church. This is the proof of the Indefectibility of the Church. Indefectibility is not as you believe a theological lollipop called "Infallible Security."

Drew

Stubborn · « **Reply #1128 on:** May 21, 2018, 03:56:07 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on May 18, 2018, 06:21:28 PM

Please explain how that is N.O. thinking.

Poor lad's NO thinking:-------->"When you introduce a time element, what you're essentially saying is that the [Novus Ordo] Church can defect at any given time."

It is NO thinking because Universality, i.e. the element of time, has always been the avowed enemy of the Novus Ordo Church - which is why to introduce a time element would destroy the NO church. Were it otherwise, the entirety of the NO structure as we know it would not exist because there is no Universality whatsoever to it. So to say what he said, is in fact absolutely true if he is referring to the NO church, but heretical or at least grave error if he is referring to Christ’s Church.

Look at it this way: without the Church's Universality, i.e. the element of time, all your papal quotes from 100s or 1000s of years ago trying to prove what the truth is and always will be, all your quotes from Church Fathers, and all thinking the least bit traditionally Catholic, are altogether useless since the only purpose they serve, are merely useless and inconsequential, historical proofs of how things used to be but are now useless – you know, NO thinking.

This is foundational, NO mentality - the elimination of the element of time to all things is wholly necessary to the NO lest it self-destruct, i.e. “defect”. It's not called "Modernism" for nothing.

The NO’s very existence is altogether dependent upon the absolute elimination of the time element from all of its doctrines, laws and practices – this has always been the case and is nothing new to trads, the same as the element of time, i.e. "Universal", has always been present and completely saturated in all of the Church's doctrines, laws and practices. Being universal is how we know truth from error, orthodoxy from heresy.

drew · « **Reply #1129 on:** May 21, 2018, 04:14:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 21, 2018, 08:31:02 AM

So you open every post by repeating this lie. This is getting really pathetic.

As I've explained probably twenty times by now.

That the Magisterium is part of Revelation in the sense that it's revealed, concedo.

That the Magisterium is part of Revelation in the sense that it is part of God's act of revealing, nego.

My denial of the second is based on the dogma, which you admitted, that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, and the persistent papal teaching (including Vatican I), that the role of the Magisterium is to safeguard and explain the Deposit of Revelation, and not to reveal new doctrine (cf. Vatican I).

Yes Lad,

You are the guy that did not even know that the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1510 on: April 27, 2018, 01:25:21 PM »

Here you are again denying that the Magisterium is part of God act of revelation. The Magisterium is just as much a part of the act of God's revelation and it is a part of content of God's revelation. God's act of revelation, as explained before about twenty times now, is an action. To reveal is a transitive verb requiring a receiver. God's act of revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle but is ongoing and will continue until the last person receives the revelation.

And who is the liar? You initially denied that the Magisterium was part of the content of divine revelation. This is proven by the fact that you claimed that the Magisterium was "extrinsic" to divine revelation so that it could judge the content of divine revelation. This idiot idea you lifted from the Catholic Encyclopedia and repeated several times before you tried to shift the assertion to being extrinsic to the act of revelation. That did not work any better than your first error.

This is just another of your grave errors you refuse to correct. Until you do, I will keep letting everyone know. And this is just one error on a growing list that will make evident that you do not know what you are talking about.

Drew