Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 204463 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

drew · « **Reply #1130 on:** May 21, 2018, 04:40:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 21, 2018, 08:32:25 AM

Before addressing this, I need to understand your terms.

You distinguish between Magisterium (capital M) and magisterium (lowercase).

So an Encyclical like, say, Mortalium Animos, which Magisterium do you categorize it as and why?

Ladislaus,

I have made clear to you in several posts which I can reference that I distinguish between the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Authority and Infallibility which can never err, and the magisterium, the teaching authority of churchmen grounded upon their grace of state which always has the possibility of error.

The Magisterium, can be engaged in two modes of operation: Extra-ordinary and the Ordinary & Universal.

Mortalium Animos is an example of Magisterium being engaged in its Ordinary & Universal mode of operation for at Pope Pius XI says in his encyclical, "for here there is a question of defending revealed truth."

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1131 on:** May 21, 2018, 04:48:13 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 21, 2018, 08:35:15 AM

This is yet another example of your general dishonesty.

So, here, you try to chartacterize this as something I made up, using the phrase "what you like to call". I did not come up with this notion. Msgr. Fenton explained this position and cited the theologians who also taught this ... as something that is intrinsically related to the indefectibility of the Magisterium.

Lad,

I can reference, if you like, the discussion where you defended the notion "Infallible Security." I have not attribute this notion to you as its author but as its defender. It is the grounds for the non-sense 'fallible infallibility' attributed to the pope.

It furthermore ignores that the primary act of the power of Indefectibility which is to preserve the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1132 on:** May 21, 2018, 06:30:18 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 21, 2018, 08:42:17 AM

And the thing that everyone should take away is that Liberal Novus Ordo Catholics and R&R have a great deal in common.

As for the last part, it's another lying straw-man distortion. Because the Magisterium is the rule of faith, this does not mean that it is "open to constant development". This is prevented by the Holy Spirit ... whom you malign with every post.

Then I guess you consider John of St. Thomas an idiot for saying precisely that the Pope is the rule of faith. In fact, every theologian, many of whom have been cited on this thread, who teaches that the Magisterium is the rule of faith, is just a blithering idiot ... according to the great and powerful Drew, The Decider and Judge of all that is Catholic vs. all that is not Catholic. Drew, Doctor of the Church, also denounces Bishop Guerard des Laurier as a moron who doesn't know Philosophy 101. Give us a beak. Your hubris knows no bounds. But that's only inevitable when one sets himself up as the ultimate rule of faith as you do.

Lad,

"Lying straw-man distortion?" The Magisterium is the necessary means by which Dogma is produced. Dogma is the end. The end is always primary in practical matters. When you make the "means" the rule of faith rather than the "end" then you are exchanging being for becoming and truth never reaches its term. This is a standard error of Neo-modernism.

I have already proven that dogma is the rule of faith. I have proven it by an appeal to reason that dogma as the rule of faith is necessarily derived from the definition of heresy. Why this necessarily follows may be over your head but that does not change that fact that it does.

It is also proven by the appeal to authority from the letter of Pope Agatho to the ecuмenical council that they must accept the dogma defined by Pope Adrian without discussion as their "rule of faith." The letter was formally accepted by the council along with the dogma defined by Pope Adrian. It is therefore a Magisterial act that dogma is the rule of faith.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #2000 on: May 16, 2018, 08:13:11 PM »

Bishop des Laurier's thesis of sedeprivationism postulates the separation of the form and matter of the papal office that would necessarily cause a substantial change in what we know by divine and Catholic faith, that is, Dogma, will last until the end of the world with perpetual successors. Apparently, des Laurier like you did not hold dogma as his rule of faith.

Now you have no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, and no rule of faith. You like to accuse others of heresy but you have no rule of faith by which to make any such judgment excepting your own wits. So let's call the "Wit of Lad your rule of faith?"

But as I recall, you are the guy that did not know the definition of supernatural faith. And then you postulated the division of the necessary attributes supernatural faith corrupting its definition. So maybe you don't need a rule at all.

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

SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2015, 01:17:43 PM »

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #214 on: March 17, 2018, 02:55:17 PM »

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1133 on:** May 21, 2018, 07:23:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 21, 2018, 06:51:03 PM

I guess that your proof must have escaped the notice of every Catholic theologian before you. No doubt you'd be declared a Doctor of the Church were it not for the fact that Luther came up with the idea before you did.

Lad,

"Every Catholic theologian?" Hardly. I have already produced quotes from several Catholic theologians that support dogma as the rule of faith. If you like, I will repost the links. They were not cited it the previous post because as an argument they are the least in authority. They are in fact not an argument at all but an excuse for not giving one. The letter of Pope Agatho is a Magisterial letter. It rests on the authority of God, the strongest of all arguments. You do not find this convincing because the Magisterium is not really your rule of faith either.

The belief that Luther held dogma as the rule of faith is so stupid that I will add it to my list of Ladislausisms.

Luther denied the Magisterium and therefore all Dogma. He held Scripture alone as the remote rule of faith and the individual believer as the proximate rule of faith. You like Luther have no pope and no magisterium and no rule of faith so you, more than me, can sympathize with this dilemma. Luther had to rely on the Wit of Luther for his rule of faith which is not any better than the Wit of Lad.

You can fix this all up when you become the S&Sers first pope.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1134 on:** May 21, 2018, 07:53:53 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 21, 2018, 07:35:39 PM

But Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X, in which the R&R position is explicitly condemned, isn't?

The condemned errors of Martin Luther are not quite infallible for Mr. Drew; but this Letter of Pope Agatho is indeed.

Cantarella,

You are immune to reason and Magisterial authority. Your will is fixed, determined in entering a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no moral compass, no rule of faith and no material or instrumental means to ever get them. Your church is not the Catholic Church.

This Letter of Pope Agatho concerns dogma, the rule of faith, and is addressed to an ecuмenical council which accepted the Letter. It is a Magisterial docuмent. The Magisterium is only your rule of faith as a means to turn your back on Dogma.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1135 on:** May 21, 2018, 08:33:49 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 21, 2018, 08:05:13 PM

Well...I guess then that your Church has manifestly defected in Her divine mission of preserving the Sacred worship of God, given the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass which the "Holy Father" himself has publicly said for decades, along with millions and millions of Catholics around the world.

Cantarella,

You are immune to reason and Magisterial authority therefore any exchange with you is a waste of time. This little trite comment of yours has been addressed repeatedly. Do you need specific references like Ladislaus to know which of your errors have already been corrected?

Indefectibility is a divine Attribute of the Church given to her by Jesus Christ that constitutes primarily a power to insure that His Church will always worship God and sanctify the faithful. The Indefectibility of the Church is proven by the fact that this has never been absent from the Church despite the heresy of conciliar popes. Those who keep Dogma as the rule of faith will always be able to negotiate these perilous times, but many will lose their souls because they believe the Church of Christ has "defected," they will look for a church of their own making to take its place.

The church to which you belong is of your own making. It is permanently defective of necessary attributes of the Catholic Church. Your church is not the Catholic Church. You are at a dead end where the only comfort is to see that as many as possible share your despair because, it is true, misery loves company.

Drew

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #1136 on:** May 21, 2018, 09:31:14 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 21, 2018, 07:35:39 PM

But Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X, in which the R&R position is explicitly condemned, isn't?

The condemned errors of Martin Luther are not quite infallible for Mr. Drew; but this Letter of Pope Agatho is indeed.

Cantarella,

For the benefit of others, I'll post all the links were he has replied already regarding Exsurge Domine.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606791/#msg606791

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606824/#msg606824

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg606998/#msg606998

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607063/#msg607063

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607156/#msg607156

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607419/#msg607419

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607495/#msg607495

Stubborn · « **Reply #1137 on:** May 22, 2018, 05:41:04 AM »

Quote from: drew on May 21, 2018, 07:23:56 PM

Lad,

"Every Catholic theologian?" Hardly. I have already produced quotes from several Catholic theologians that support dogma as the rule of faith. If you like, I will repost the links.

Falsely claiming that all theologians support his NO opinions is typically poor lad's main defense and first response, he does the same when he falsely claims that +ABL, Fr. Chazal, and whoever, all actually agree with is dogmatic doubtism. Your quotes proving the contrary do not matter to him, he simply says those quotes are all mindless babble. Same o same o.

Poor lad reminds me of another NO theologian wannabe I ran into 20 years ago, except this other wannabe had actually taken all the classes and earned his coveted masters degree in NO theology, whereas poor lad's confusion demonstrates that he apparently missed the last few semesters.

drew · « **Reply #1138 on:** May 22, 2018, 06:45:52 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 21, 2018, 10:53:35 PM

This is the end of the Letter. It confirms that the Pope of Rome is true successor of St. Peter and takes literally the place of Blessed Peter the Apostle Himself through living generations. As such, he will never lose the Roman Catholic Faith and become a heretic and a true enemy of the Church!.

Faith cannot contradict reason. If a true successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth appointed by God, can lose his Faith and lead the Universal Church into error, then Roman Catholicism is false.

Cantarella,

This post and the previous suggest that I question the universal jurisdiction of the pope and/or that the faith of Rome could ever fail in that the pope would ever engage the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind doctrinal and/or moral error on the faithful. This I deny.

What you are demonstrating is that the Letter of Pope Agatho to the Ecuмenical Council is a Magisterial docuмent. That is what I am affirming. It is a Magisterial docuмent that imposes the Dogma defined by Pope Adrian on the universal Church. In the Letter he informs the Fathers of the Council that they must accept without debate or question the Dogma defined by Pope Adrian and that they must make this Dogma their "Rule of Faith." The Letter was formally accepted by the Council without question and incorporated into its docuмents. Remember, the Magisterium is the necessary means by which Dogma is produced. Dogma is the end. "The end is always principle in practical matters" is a proven philosophical axiom. When you make the "means" the rule of faith rather than the "end" then you are exchanging being for becoming and truth never reaches its term. This is a standard method used by Neo-modernists. This is how they employ the Nietzsche goal of the "transvaluation of all values" as recently explained by Peter Kwasniewski.
https://onepeterfive.com/the-new-synthesis-of-all-heresies-on-nietzschean-catholicism/

There is nothing in all this Letter that suggests that the pope possesses a personal never-failing faith and that he therefore cannot become a heretic. There is nothing in this that suggests that a heretical pope may not lead others into heresy without faith of Rome failing. All that is being affirmed is that he cannot make his heresy a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith.

A quote previously posted taken from this same source defends Church and the Faith of Rome against the charge that the heresies of Popes Liberius and Honorius prove the faith of Rome has failed.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1987 on: May 16, 2018, 11:51:45 AM »

This is an interesting quote because he outlines the burden of proof those making this charge must meet. I will post the quote again because it is the same burden of proof S&Sers must meet to prove that the Faith of Rome has failed under the conciliar popes. This is why S&Sers are repeatedly making claims that Vatican II was infallible, the pope has a personal never-failing faith, etc., etc. in an effort to prove the faith of Rome has failed. It does not work.

Quote

Before answering the accusation (that Popes Liberius and Honorius were heretics and formally taught heresy), we must once more remind our opponents that, in order to overturn our thesis (of papal infallibility), they must prove not merely that Liberius or Honorius has spoken or written what is contrary to faith, or denied it, but that he did so as Pope, teaching in matters of faith or morals, and thereby binding the Universal Church. If they cannot prove this, they prove nothing, for the fallibility would then be only personal and private, and would no more affect the infallibility of the Pope as Universal teacher, than the denial of Peter in the Court of the High Priest injured his infallibility as Prince of the Apostles. They must, then, first produce good, historical evidence of the fact; secondly, they must prove that it was a definition or teaching contrary to truth in matters of faith; and, thirdly, that the Pope intended, by his teaching, to bind the Universal Church to believe it.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope, when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a General Council

S&Sers end up in a dead-end and can contribute nothing to the defense of the faith because in the end they deny Dogma just as much as the conciliar popes and the rest of the Neo-modernists. They end up being scandalized in Jesus Christ Himself. According to the Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia;

Quote

Scandal is the movable stick or trigger in a trap, that is, any obstacle or snare designed to make another stumble or fall. Thus, Christ is figuratively said to be a rock of scandal, because the Jєωs who expected a political Messias were scandalized and stumbled at the suffering and crucified Christ, and consequently failed to obtain justification.
Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia

The life of Jesus Christ is recapitulated in His Mystical Body. "Blessed is he who in not scandalized in me" said Jesus Christ and I will add to this, "Blessed is he who is not scandalized in His Mystical Body."

You might find rereading this earlier post useful for a better understanding of Dogma.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1555 on: April 29, 2018, 09:23:24 PM »
Reply to Obscurus

Drew

Moderator Edit:
This thread is going nowhere fast. Since it has devolved into personal insults, accusations of heresy, and the discussion equivalent of "Are not!" "Are too!" "Are not!" "Are too!"
I think it's time for this thread to be put to rest. So I'm locking the thread.