Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 302287 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #495 on:** April 09, 2018, 11:57:50 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 09, 2018, 11:32:33 AM

I thought that a Tridentine dogmatic teaching was true for all ages.

So did I.

But since the pope, or the pope in union with all the bishops are always infallible, and since that obligates us all the "corresponding duty to believe whatever they teach", then each pope infallibly and independently decides what's infallible, and he may do so without regard to the teachings of previous popes - previous popes have nothing to say about it - this is according to your own false belief, as taught by some post V1 theologians whom you regard as the teachings of the infallible Church.

By quoting teachings of past popes and councils, all you are doing is proving that you have no faith in your own belief. Do you understand that?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #496 on:** April 09, 2018, 12:02:50 PM »

Quote

OK, so you give the Syllabus (a non-infallible teaching) as grounds for rejecting Vatican II (a non-infallible teaching). How do I know which one was right?

The Syllabus is not infallible entirely, but there are many errors it condemned which have already been infallibly condemned.

Quote

What if Pius IX, in his excessive zeal, went a little bit overboard, and Vatican II simply moderated his teaching?

Same answer as above.

Quote

So what if Vatican II was similarly correcting Pius IX? How do you know Pius IX was right and Vatican II wrong? What if Pius IX was simply condemning some very specific errors that were a little different than what Vatican II was teaching? What if the two can be reconciled by making the appropriate distinctions? How do you know that they can't be?

V2's errors are easily shown to have been infallibly condemned in the past. There are multiple websites out there, as well as many books, which prove this. V2 is partially condemned by the Syllabus, but mostly through previous infallible statements from Councils. The Syllabus is not the ONLY source which condemns V2.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #497 on:** April 09, 2018, 12:14:57 PM »

Catholic Encyclopedia --

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 of time, 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.

V2 did not change the constitution of the Church. Only those beliefs which are taught with "certainty of faith" are part of Church doctrine. V2 did not teach with a "certainty of faith".

Quote

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.

V2 did not corrupt faith or morals, because it's novelties are not "authoritatively taught, under pain of sin, with certainty of faith, as necessary for salvation." Any changes made to the mass and sacraments are not binding. In fact, they are illegal and sinful and violate Quo Primum.

Quote

The gift of 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. Nobody could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous.

(Pertaining to the sentence I underlined): V2 does not enforce, under any penalty, that anyone accept its errors. By definition, then, its novelities are not protected by indefectibility.

Quote

Quote

Does anyone think that the Conciliar Church meets these requirements?

No, the conciliar church is not the true church. As Our Lady said at LaSalette, "The Church will be in eclipse." The conciliar church has obscured, but not changed, the true doctrines of the Church. Thus, such novelties are not an affront to indefectibility.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #498 on:** April 09, 2018, 12:17:04 PM »

Quote

Also all other things taught, defined, and declared

V2 did not teach, define or declare in the same way as Trent, which taught, defined and declared truth "with certainty of faith, under pain of sin, as necessary for salvation". V2 does not carry the same moral weight; not even close.

Stubborn · « **Reply #499 on:** April 09, 2018, 12:31:09 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 09, 2018, 12:11:07 PM

This is the Council of Trent, regarding the errors infallibly condemned (including #29)

Quote
Quote
Also all other things taught, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ecuмenical Councils, and especially by the sacred and holy Synod of Trent, (and by the ecuмenical Council of the Vatican, *particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching), I without hesitation accept and profess; and at the same time all things contrary thereto, and whatever heresies have been condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, (and) which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold.

Here yet again Cantarella, you are quoting something 400 years old - since that time, the conciliar popes in unison with the totality of all the bishops did away with it some 60 years ago. That makes it null and void and infallibly safe to boot! Per your own belief, their disposal of this abjuration is an act of the Church's infallibility. Per your own belief, it is infallibly safe to abandon all thoughts related to your above obsolete quote. By their infallibility, your above quote is obsolete because they infallibly obsoleted it - does it comfort you to know that it was infallibly safe to obsolete it?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #500 on:** April 09, 2018, 01:37:45 PM »

Quote

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.

Decree definition: an official order issued by a legal authority.
Synonyms: order, command, rule, dictate, pronouncement

V2 did not do any of the above, contrary to all previous ecuмenical councils. Nothing from V2 is required, unlike previous ecuмenical councils. You've yet to accept reality about this fact.

Samuel · « **Reply #501 on:** April 09, 2018, 02:01:08 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 09, 2018, 01:22:28 PM

B. Define "whole Church". After an infiltration has occurred, yes I think it is possible for the majority of unsuspected bishops to follow an anti-pope, at least for a while. We know it is possible because it has happened before during the Great Western Schism. There is historical evidence therefore, that the situation may arise, and please keep in mind that all of the anti-popes actually professed the Roman Catholic Faith!

Will respond to A, as time permits.

The problem with this is that because of your answer #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.) , we are talking about the whole Church, i.e. all bishops and all faithful, without exception. I don't think that is possible. Not even during the Great Western Schism that has happened, and neither during the Arian Crisis, or any other time in the history of the Church, including Vatican II.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #502 on:** April 09, 2018, 03:03:11 PM »

The title of the V2 docuмents is not the same use of 'decree' that was used in the past. From the Catholic encyclopedia:

Quote

Decisions referring to dogma were called in the East diatyposeis (constitutions, statutes); those concerned with discipline were termed kanones (canons, rules),

In the West no careful distinction of terms was observed: canones and decreta signify both dogmatic and disciplinary decisions.

V2 issued no dogmatic decisions nor liturgical disciplines. One can call the docuмent a 'decree' if they want, but what matters is what the docuмent actually says or decides, which is in the case of V2, was nothing obligatory. This is different than all other ecuмenical councils of the past.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #503 on:** April 09, 2018, 03:55:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 09, 2018, 03:16:43 PM

Yes, we know. You claim that it's possible for the Magisterium to be totally corrupted by modernism and heresy ... so long as a small handful of dogmatic definitions remain intact.

You have a Church that has been taken over by the enemies of Christ, and defeated Him.

You can think your position is so much more righteous, pure, "Catholic" than his, but your head would be up a certain orifice that shouldn't be visited by any body parts, much less the head of the body.

But then again, considering your viewpoint, your "head" up that particular orifice would be apt.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #504 on:** April 09, 2018, 03:59:04 PM »

The word "magisterium" comes from the latin word "to teach". Ergo, your use of the word is incorrect when you apply it to the V2 hierarchy, because V2 did not teach in the same way as the Apostles did, who do so with authority, with certainty of faith.

Quote

You claim it's possible for the Magisterium to be totally corrupted by modernism and heresy...

I claim that the fallible magisterium, which is another word for the current hierarchy, can be corrupted because there is nothing in church history or tradition which says otherwise. A non-certain teaching, which is conditional and can be rejected without sin, having no bearing on one's salvation is NOT A TEACHING because it's not part of the faith. The UNIVERSAL magisterium can never be corrupted, of which V2 was not related to.

Only those teachings which are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN are part of the faith, which are relatively few, and can fit in a catechism and be memorized by a 5th grader. The faith is not complicated.

songbird · « **Reply #505 on:** April 09, 2018, 05:39:31 PM »

Christ said, "when I return, will I find Faith?" Do we know this answer? Remnant? Where is Faith? Mass, has the Deposit of Faith.

Should we not be looking for the Pelican? Our major concern is our Salvation is it not?! We should cry to Our Lord, "Where are You?" We more than need the Precious Blood! To have it, we need valid priests/clergy.

We must read prophecies and understand. The Mass will come to an end, Chpt 12 of Daniel. The enemy wants authority, Powers of the Blood, True Presence destroyed.
Christ is not present is the enemies goal. Is that not Marxist Communism" Sure it is! We should be crying, "Where is My Lord?!" This is what we should be is desire of right?

That is the root of this forum is it not?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #506 on:** April 09, 2018, 08:58:55 PM »

Quote

2) Your allegation that the Magisterium has been corrupted is heretical.

The Universal Magisterium can never be corrupted because these teachings are with “certainty of faith”.

The ordinary, fallible magisterium does not teach with certainty therefore it can err. The pope, when teaching as a private theologian, (as when he says “there is no hell”) is not protected by the Holy Ghost at all, nor does he intend to be. Why do you refuse to make this distinction?

The word “magisterium” has multiple meanings because there are different levels of authority it requires. You use it too generally in order to misconstrue my argument, which is dishonest.

It is only within the last hundred years that modernists started “muddying the waters” and referring to non-certain, fallible teachings as the “ordinary magisterium”. If you took any time to research this, you’d see there’s all kinds of articles on this topic.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #507 on:** April 10, 2018, 08:49:30 AM »

Quote

So 99.5% can be completely wrong, corrupted, filled with heresy, and leading to hell any souls who submit to those teachings.

Never said that. You erroneously assume that the magisterium ONLY concerns itself with matters of faith/morals. In many previous ecuмenical councils, the topics were a wide variety, with many matters needing to be addressed that had nothing to do with faith/morals (i.e. liturgical abuses, jurisdictional or legal matters, etc.) These, by definition, aren't matters of infallibility, which only deals with defining faith/morals.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #508 on:** April 10, 2018, 09:48:05 AM »

Quote

Show me the dogmatic condemnation of Religious Liberty

A negative condemnation may not exist (I don't know), but the positive teaching (which does not allow religious liberty) DOES exist.
For example: To infallibly state that the sky is blue, logically disallows any viewpoint where the sky is said to be any color other than blue. It is not necessary for the Church to condemn every color that is not blue. This is not practical.

drew · « **Reply #509 on:** April 10, 2018, 10:54:55 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 09, 2018, 01:25:37 PM

Feel free to explain what you mean at any time with YOUR evidence, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Protestantism. It's Catholic Theology 101 that revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.

What unites Protestantism, on the contrary, is the notion that Dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... YOUR heretical principle.

You are correct in saying that it is “theology 101 that revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.” That is a dogma. But what is your point in repeating this fundamental truism? It is unrelated to the issue.

You are not correct in your claim that the “Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation.” It is a fundamental doctrine of Protestantism that the “Magisterium is Not part of divine revelation.” In this you are in agreement with at least someone but they are not Catholics.

Now since Protestants rejects the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ, they necessarily reject Dogma because the Magisterium is the necessary material and instrumental cause of Dogma.

The Magisterium is the “teaching authority” of the Church grounded upon the Church’s Attributes of Infallibility and Authority. When “Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt 28: 18-20), is a direct quote cited by the Church Fathers and the Council Father at Vatican Council I in support of the doctrine that that Jesus Christ instituted a “teaching authority” in his Church. He commanded all the faithful to hear this “teaching authority,” saying, “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth, me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16).

Vatican I says that the primacy of jurisdiction was conferred directly by Jesus Christ on St. Peter:

Quote

To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.
Vatican I

The Vatican I also says that the “primacy of jusridiction” includes the “teaching authority” of the Church saying:

Quote

“That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This holy see has always maintained this, the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and the ecuмenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.”
Vatican I

Your claim that the “Magisterium is not part of divine revelation” is grave error. It is a grave error that you have repeated many times. It explains why you reject Dogma as your rule of faith for if the Magisterium is not from divine revelation, it is not from God, and neither is dogma, which is the fruit of the Magisterium. That makes Dogma part of ecclesiastical tradition which, since the Church created it, the Church is free to reform it any way it likes. Which in end explains your charge that anyone who takes Dogma literally is guilty of “Protestantism” because they are following “private interpretation.” In the end, you have no problem embracing sedeprivationism that fractures the form and matter of the papacy thus causing a substantial change destroying the office because the dogma that it will continue until the end of time makes no impression on you.

Ladislaus, you really are rotten to the core corrupting the most elementary first principles of the faith.

Drew

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 302287 times)

Stubborn

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

Pax Vobis

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

Pax Vobis

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

Pax Vobis

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

Stubborn

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

Pax Vobis

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

Samuel

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

Pax Vobis

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

Jeremiah2v8

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

Pax Vobis

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

songbird

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

Pax Vobis

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

Pax Vobis

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

Pax Vobis

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

drew

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