Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 302275 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #480 on:** April 07, 2018, 10:12:54 PM »

Quote

The Church is indefectible PERIOD.

What does this even mean, in the context of our debate? This is the most general, overly-simplistic statement I’ve ever read. It doesn’t answer any of the points I made.

To answer your comments fully, yes, I know the Church will never defect. What I’m arguing is that, per the encyclopedia, it says that this indefectibiity is ONLY in use when the pope is engaging his infallibility. When the pope is NOT engaging infallibility then he is NOT speaking as part of tbr official Church, but from his personal office as bishop/theologian. Ergo, in his personal offices, he is not protected from indefectibility either.

Not my words, but the encyclopedia.

Samuel · « **Reply #481 on:** April 08, 2018, 04:05:44 AM »

Quote from: Samuel on April 07, 2018, 04:38:53 AM

Thank you.

In that case, which of the following mutually exclusive positions do you believe is the correct one?

1. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.

2. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as an invalid pope, unless and until he is proven valid.

Cantarella,

Which position do you believe is the correct one?

drew · « **Reply #482 on:** April 08, 2018, 01:42:57 PM »

Quote from: drew on April 07, 2018, 07:35:20 PM

Ladislaus,

Just for clarification before a detailed response is offered, is this quote from Vatican I the evidence from which you have concluded that the Magisterium, that is, the "teaching authority" of the pope to engage the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority, is NOT part of divine revelation? Is this it?

Drew

Once more. Is this (reply 927) your evidence?

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #483 on:** April 08, 2018, 03:52:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 08, 2018, 01:08:32 PM

Catholic Encyclopedia --

Quote
Quote
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end oftime, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The giftof indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.

Does anyone think that the Conciliar Church meets these requirements?

Is the Conciliar Church this "school of holiness" which "dispense ~~to men the treasures of grace", not "corrupt in faith or in morals"?~~

I think the "Conciliar" Church still meets these requirements.

Quote

This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelationto the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.

The only close call is whether it has "set up a false and corrupt moral standard." As of now, it has not "set up" such.

I trust that God will not allow it to, which is why there are winds of change blowing, finally some response from true descendants of the apostles. Things are going to change dramatically soon - Bergolio will not continue with his wreckage.

I hope I am not alone here in believing that, but am prepared to stand alone on this.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #484 on:** April 08, 2018, 05:46:41 PM »

Quote

Pax, you avoiding this?

No sir, I will respond on the morrow.

Quote

there are winds of change blowing

I agree. There is MUCH evidence that a pushback against satanism in politics is happening in the US and on other parts of the world. Also, hopefully, in Rome. I think that Satan’s 100 years of special influence promised in Pope Leo XIII’s vision, is over. 1917-2017. Masonic power is still widespread but their path to victory will face a growing opposition, and of course, we know they’ll lose in the end. Although this opposition is hopeful, I fear the short term future for us will be chaotic, as the mason’s will be forced to use every demonic back-up plan they have to achieve victory. Our Lady will win the war, but the battles may be ugly.

forlorn · « **Reply #485 on:** April 08, 2018, 08:01:46 PM »

Quote from: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 08:16:46 PM

Thank you, that explains everything.

All the following quotes are from the Dimond's website (emphasis mine) :

And so are these quotes:

There are probably many more quotes that fit in either of the above boxes, but I'm sure any reasonable person will get the picture:

The Dimond Brothers use the translation that suits their theory of the day. And today's theory may well (and often does) contradict yesterday's theory.

1. In the first box they need to defend the Catholic Church from the arguments of Her external enemies, and so they teach that the Magisterium can indeed err, but not when authoritatively teaching.

2. In the second box they need to "prove" sedevacantism, and so they declare that the Magisterium is always free from error (i.e. authentic Magisterium).

It is so obvious, even after a 5 minutes look across their site, that I am indeed struggling not to become sarcastic.

Bellator Dei, like the Eunuch, you are in need of a reliable teacher, and the Dimond brothers do not qualify for that position.

He that walketh with the wise, shall be wise: a friend of fools shall become like to them. Proverbs 13:20

There is no contradiction there at all. Popes are not infallible in everything they say, nor are they guaranteed to always be right. A Pope can absolutely be a material heretic(although not a formal heretic). However, a Pope cannot be in error when speaking ex cathedra, and any teachings or dogmas defined as such are guaranteed to be true cannot be in error.

drew · « **Reply #486 on:** April 08, 2018, 08:26:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 08, 2018, 07:39:42 PM

I don't need "evidence". It's Catholic Theology 101 that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostles, that Magisterium does not reveal doctrine but safeguards and expounds it.

And, furthermore, I don't particularly care about what you have to say about this. It has precious little to do with the argument on this thread.

Ladislaus,

You said:
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #927 on: Yesterday at 07:09:31 PM »

Quote from: drew on Yesterday at 03:22:29 PM

Quote

You do not even know that the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.

"That's because it's NOT. I guess that you are not capable of reading even the English translation of Vatican I."
Ladislaus

In support of this claim you cited the docuмents of Vatican I. All I have asked so far is whether or not the quote you offered from Vatican I was the evidence for your claim that the "Magisterium is not part of divine revelation." I actually am looking for all your evidence for this claim so it can be addressed in its entirety.

Now you say, "I don't need 'evidence'". But you most certainly do. There is not an accepted authoritative expert in theology that does not produce evidence for his claims and most often, the evidence is graded on its relative strength. So please don't try to muddle the question. You have claimed repeatedly that the "Magisterium is not part of divine revelation." That is the assertion of yours that I will be answering in detail.

So, if you have any other evidence for this claim I would like to have it up front to insure that the reply is complete in addressing all the grounds for your belief, the evidence against this your claim, and some of the important consequences that follow from your belief.

Drew

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #487 on:** April 08, 2018, 09:29:50 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 08, 2018, 07:40:54 PM

So, then, you're fine with . . . ?

You're fine with . . . ?

And you have no problem with . . .?

No.

Pay attention to your own language. You quoted a CE article about indefectibility, and then asked:

Quote

Does anyone think that the Conciliar Church meets these requirements?

I answered. The Church has not defected.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #488 on:** April 08, 2018, 09:39:17 PM »

Quote

So, then, you're fine with the fact that Bergoglio says that adulterers can receive Communion?

You're fine with the fact that the V2 papal claimants have all participated in and endorsed participation in false worship?

And you have no problem with their false doctrine?

Ladislaus, the pope and his new-rome hierarchy can say, believe or preach whatever they want. Catholic doctrine is only what is REQUIRED to be believed. New-rome has not changed, added to, or deleted any catholic doctrine AS A REQUIREMENT, using their APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. Therefore, their new beliefs are not part of the Faith.

You keep presenting this false picture where new-rome's heresies MUST be followed. Only those things which are taught with "certainty of faith" must be followed.

Samuel · « **Reply #489 on:** April 09, 2018, 02:33:46 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 09, 2018, 01:21:39 AM

I would say this one:

However, after some time (and this is when it gets problematic) I do think that it is possible for Catholics to begin discerning an invalid pope over his heretical external actions, even before an official ecclesiastical declaration occurs, and during this period, perhaps subtract obedience from him in good conscience, especially when the actions of the antipope are so evident and the Faith itself is endangered.

Actually, I could make the same question to you regarding your rejection of Vatican II Council and the R&R position.

After the promulgation of an Ecunemical Council (Vatican II), do you think a Catholic must treat it as a valid Council unless and until it is proven invalid?

Thanks for your answer to my question.

In answer to your question: the teachings of a Council, like any other teachings of the Magisterium, must be accepted with varying degrees of assent, corresponding to the theological notes attached to them. Anything that is infallible must be accepted without question, because it is guaranteed to be free from error. Anything that is not infallible must also be accepted unless one has a sufficiently grave reason for rejecting it. Contradicting Tradition is such a sufficiently grave reason.

So, the correct formula I believe is this : After the promulgation of an Ecuмenical Council, a Catholic must give his full assent to it's teachings, unless and until the teaching in question is proven to be questionable.

I believe Vatican II did not come with any theological notes.

Samuel · « **Reply #490 on:** April 09, 2018, 03:27:21 AM »

Cantarella,

Given that your position is that..

1. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
3. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.

.. what would you answer to the following questions?

A. Because a validly elected pope can not fall into heresy (#1), if ever we come across a pope that falls into heresy, it can only because he was never valid to start with. But since immediately after the election, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid or not (#2), the impediment that caused the election to be invalid must be a hidden or secret impediment. Can you give me an example of such a hidden impediment that causes a papal election to be invalid?

B. Since after the election of a Pope a Catholic may not be able to immediately determine whether the election was valid or not (#2), and since a Catholic must treat such a pope as valid (#3), do you believe that it is possible for the whole Church to follow an invalid pope?

Stubborn · « **Reply #491 on:** April 09, 2018, 05:46:25 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 07, 2018, 06:48:17 PM

Quote
I asked:
Cantarella, did you take some course? - or who/what/group did you get involved with? - or did you attend some NO classes within the last year or so or what is it? Something happened to you within the last year or so to spin your head as it did and I would like to know what it was so that I avoid whatever it was that changed you. I hope you will at least give answer to this.

It is very simple, really: I now have the certainty that General Councils ratified by a Pope cannot err. In view of this fact, the only way to say that Vatican II was not an Ecunemical Council of the Church is that the authority (pope) who promulgated it was false. Or, that it did not teach heresy.

Cantarella, the truth is, you only *say* that you have "the certainty that General Councils ratified by a Pope cannot err", because if you actually trusted that idea, if you actually had faith in that idea, if you actually believed that idea yourself, if that idea is actually what the Church teaches, then being a General Council, V2 did not err, rather V2 was infallible and it is you in fact err by claiming V2 erred or was not a General Council.

Do you understand that? Do you understand that if it is a teaching of the Church, then the only thing you are proving with certainty, is that it is you who are terribly wrong?

If the Church teaches that all General Councils ratified by a Pope cannot err, then V2 did not err, because that is the teaching of the Church. If *for any reason whatsoever* you say that V2 was not a General Council or that V2 erred, then you are word for word contradicting the infallible teaching of the Church. That's the way that works.

The fact is, the Church has NEVER taught such a thing. The NO believe it is a teaching of the Church because it *is* a NO teaching, that's why there are so many NOers - they *really* believe it is a teaching of the Church - but it is not a teaching of the Catholic Church - V2 itself indisputably proves it is not a teaching of the Church.

Quote

Given that the Council of Trent is your true Rule of Faith, then what do you have to say about the following Tridentine dogmatic truth which directly condemns your position:

Quote
Quote
Condemned:

29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of Councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved, or disapproved by any Council whatsoever.

I say that according to your understanding of the above condemnation, that you indisputably prove that you are absolutely guilty of "weakening the authority of [the Second Vatican] Council, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved, or disapproved by [the] Council.

According to your own idea that you say you hold with certainty, you have convicted yourself of being absolutely guilty of the above condemned error.

Once again, you are taking the above condemnation out of context, the same as you have taken other teachings out of context. As I told you already - "Please note that you will find this to always be the case whenever you come across papal encyclicals regarding the necessity of our submission to the decrees from Councils - they will *always* be referring to past councils - not to future councils. It is important for you to always make this distinction and always remember this."

drew · « **Reply #492 on:** April 09, 2018, 11:06:03 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 09, 2018, 07:43:35 AM

No, I don't need evidence because this is a non-issue for me. And I'm not going to spend any of my time digging up quotes to prove it to you.

This is like asking me to prove that Our Lady was immaculately conceived.

No Catholic theologian disputes the fact that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. Magisterium does not reveal anything but proposes revealed truth to us for belief, explains it, and guards it.

Ladislaus,

You have affirmed several times that “the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation.” Now you claim that you “don’t need evidence” for this opinion and that it is a “non-issue” for you. So why are you trying to muddy the question by stating an uncontested truth that “revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle”? That has nothing to do with your claim that “the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation.”

And evidence should not be hard to find if what you are claiming it true but, then again, it’s hard to find evidence to support an evident error.

This is not like “asking you to prove that Our Lady was immaculately conceived”! That would present no problem for me. I would simple quote Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffability Deus on the Immaculate Conception, 1854, and for those who accepted dogma as their rule of faith, it would be received as overwhelming evidence “that Our Lady was immaculately conceived.”

No, it would more like my asking you to prove that “Our Lady was NOT immaculately conceived.” That would be impossible to prove because it is not true.

Your belief that the “Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation” is a doctrine that is professed by Protestants and unites all Protestant in a common profession.

The implications of your error are manifold and uniformly destructive to all divine revelation and go a long way in explaining your defense of the errors of sedeprivationism.

You offered only one quote from Vatican I as evidence for you belief that “the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation.” I will assume then that that is all you have.

Drew

Stubborn · « **Reply #493 on:** April 09, 2018, 11:24:41 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 09, 2018, 10:32:02 AM

I am afraid you do not understand. What we say is that Vatican II was NOT an Ecunemical Council at all; because it lacks papal approbation, which is the crucial element that makes the Councils infallible. (Given that the pope who promulgated it was false, an impostor).

I completely understand. I know that you decided that the pope was not the pope and it was not an ecuмenical council, that's a terribly lame opinion to have in light of infallible teachings that all councils are infallible.

So you think God let a fake pope have the power to thwart God's own infallibility? That is where your belief, which is to say, that is were your complete lack of faith in your false idea of the Church's infallibility, leads.

Stubborn · « **Reply #494 on:** April 09, 2018, 11:25:26 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 09, 2018, 10:35:17 AM

Are you, Stubborn, from all people, really telling me not to trust in this Tridentine dogmatic statement, as written?

How could I ever take this "out of context"?. This is a dogmatic teaching and it is clear as water. Are you telling me I have to distrust the Council of Trent as well, or that, as Modernists do, accommodate the teaching to the appropriate context?. Perhaps this Council was not infallible, either?

"Please note that you will find this to always be the case whenever you come across papal encyclicals regarding the necessity of our submission to the decrees from Councils - they will *always* be referring to past councils - not to future councils. It is important for you to always make this distinction and always remember this."