Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 76

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 302297 times)

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 11816
  • Reputation: +7392/-2170
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #510 on: April 10, 2018, 11:11:20 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Since the only thing in the Magisterium guaranteed to be correct are those .5% of dogmatic definitions, then 99.5% of it can become corrupt.  There's nothing to stop it.
    "CAN" become corrupt doesn't mean it will.  Secondly, there is more to infallibility than dogmatic definitions; you can have non-solemn infallibility, where church teaching is shown to agree with Tradition and the CONSTANT teaching of the church.  In this case, the magisterium is also infallible.

    Your fear-mongering of "there's nothing to stop (the corruption)" is just emotional.  You act like the Church would cease to exist and could never be resurrected, while the times we are living in prove the contrary.  You are THEORIZING and EXAGGERATING about a situation in which you have ACTUAL PROOF, since you are living through the ACTUAL situation you describe.  You THEORIZE that the Church would cease due to corruption, yet, the current ACTUAL times are proof that even in the worst situation possible (I can't think of anything worse than our times) the Church still exists, Catholics still know their faith and still practice it.  And even the apocalyptic V2 council is admitted by its authors to be 'conditional'.

    Finally, except for your Fenton quote, you have no facts to prove your assertion that there is such a thing as non-infallible infallibility.  I've posted 20+ quotes to back up my case.

    Quote
    When, some day, God willing, the Church is restored and we have a Pius XIII reigning uncontested as Pope, when he releases an Encyclical, how will formerly-known-as-R&R receive it?  Will they receive it with the docility of a Catholic hearing the Shepherd's voice ... or with skepticism, and subjecting it immediately to their judgment and even perhaps criticism?
    A non-infallible encyclical requires 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.  You still don't know what that means.  It means that we ASSUME it's correct, we ACCEPT the teaching as orthodox, unless questions arise, and we are allowed to ask for clarification.  It doesn't mean we totally ignore the docuмent and act like it doesn't exist. 
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11816
    • Reputation: +7392/-2170
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #511 on: April 10, 2018, 11:13:51 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote
    Fine.  Please cite that then. 
    No.  Not wasting my time.  There are so many websites/books dedicated to this topic; you can research yourself. 
    In fact, it would be a useless exercise since you agree that V2 contradicts Tradition.  We just disagree with the implications of this fact.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11816
    • Reputation: +7392/-2170
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #512 on: April 10, 2018, 12:02:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    No such solemn condemnation (or affirmation of the opposite) exists.  Period. 
    ??  So you think V2's "religious liberty" novelty is ok?
    Just because I'm not going to waste my time proving something that you can find in a 2 second google search doesn't mean I'm a liar.  It's like you're asking me to prove EENS.  Religious Liberty is so uncatholic it's ridiculous and it's been proven to be an error for the past 50 years.  So search google; I'm not going to hold your hand on something this elementary.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11816
    • Reputation: +7392/-2170
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #513 on: April 10, 2018, 12:06:01 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Ladislaus,
    Why don't you prove, outside of Fenton, that the pope is infallible in fallible things, i.e. that indefectibility protects him from error, even when infallibility is not in use.  Your entire argument rests on this case and if Fenton is your only source, and if it can't be shown to be a CONSTANT teaching, then it's a theory, no more no less, and one that others disagree with.
    Logged

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1430
    • Reputation: +1365/-142
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #514 on: April 10, 2018, 01:03:33 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: drew on April 10, 2018, 10:54:55 AM
    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:


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

    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


    ^^^This ^^^ Reply #988
    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11297
    • Reputation: +6281/-1087
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #515 on: April 10, 2018, 01:31:55 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 11:13:51 AM
    No.  Not wasting my time.  
    Anyone who continues to actively take part in a 67 page, 1,000 post thread has no problem wasting time.
    Logged
    Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2476
    • Reputation: +988/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #516 on: April 10, 2018, 01:50:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 10, 2018, 12:06:01 PM
    Ladislaus,
    Why don't you prove, outside of Fenton, that the pope is infallible in fallible things, i.e. that indefectibility protects him from error, even when infallibility is not in use.  Your entire argument rests on this case and if Fenton is your only source, and if it can't be shown to be a CONSTANT teaching, then it's a theory, no more no less, and one that others disagree with.
    The magisterium is free from error.

    Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18 ), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”

    Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “… the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”

    Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8 ), May 26, 1910: “… only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church… from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine…”


    Your belief that 99% of the Magisterium could be corrupted is completely false as is evident to anyone who does the slightest bit of research on the matter. Even a quick google search could show you how untenable and ridiculous your position is, and how contrary it is to what the Church has always taught(although I guess the Church's teachings matter little to you if you believe the vast majority could be false).

    You can whinge and whine all you like and try to get us banned for supposedly calling this site's userbase heretical, but we have not. The only accusation of heresy is the one from Pope Leo XIII against you. As I quoted him saying above, ANYONE WHO DEPARTS FROM AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM IS TO BE BARRED FROM COMMUNION. Here are some bonus quotes to really drive the point across, in case you still don't get it

    Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”

    Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle."
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11816
    • Reputation: +7392/-2170
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #517 on: April 10, 2018, 02:50:06 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    I'm demanding that you clarify your principles.  You claim that V2 is fallible.  If you cite previous Church teaching against Religious Liberty, then you need to be able to find some INfallible teaching that condemns religious liberty or defines the opposite as true  Otherwise, you're simply pitting one fallible teaching against another ... without any reliable rule to determine which one is right and which one is wrong.  Or could they both be wrong?  Or both be right?  You have NO way to prove it.  You just go by what you feel like believing.
    Ideal x is fallible and does not have to be held with 'certainty of faith'.  Therefore it has no bearing on my salvation.  I don't have to prove it has been condemned if it's not binding and part of the faith.  If it's not part of the faith, then i am only required to give CONDITIONAL assent?

    You're the one who says that V2 is binding, not me (and you've yet to prove it).  I'm saying it's not binding AND it's also been condemned.  I only need 1 of these to be true.  The previous condemnation is just icing on the cake, but not necessary.

    p.s. Religious Liberty is contrary to the doctrines of the 1) Social Kingship of Christ, and 2) EENS (at least these 2, probably more).  These truths have been taught CONSISTENTLY/CONSTANTLY throughout the ages of the Church and are thus part of Her infallible universal magisterium, because they agree with Tradition, even though never solemnly defined.

    V2 is not consistent with Tradition; ergo it's anathema (even if not declared so solemnly).
    Logged

    Offline drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 399
    • Reputation: +1122/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #518 on: April 10, 2018, 07:52:48 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 10, 2018, 11:35:58 AM
    My best guess is that your understanding of the phrase "part of Revelation" has Revelation meaning the body of revealed truths, and the phrase meaning that the existence of the Magisterium is revealed truth.  That's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about the process or act of Revelation ... as distinct from Magisterium.  No Catholic can dispute that the existence of the Magisterium is revealed.  It would be heresy to say otherwise.  But that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread or what we're talking about.

    You are a liar, Ladislaus.  You first claimed that the Magisterium was “extrinsic” to divine revelation so that it could stand outside of revelation to act as the judge of revelation.  This theory you unthinkingly lifted from the Catholic Encyclopedia.  

    You have repeated many times that the “Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation,” and now you want to lie your way out of it by pretending that others are not bright enough to understand your more nuanced interpretations.  This time your lie is even more stupid than your original error. You now say, “I'm talking about the process or act of Revelation ... as distinct from Magisterium.”  The Magisterium is part of the “act of Revelation.” Those that claim that the “Magisterium …. is distinct from the act of Revelation” are heretics.  

    You are one big lying phony.

    Your “magisterium is dormant” and therefore, so is your rule of faith. You refuse dogma as your rule of faith even going so far as to call anyone taking dogma literally as being “Protestants” for “private interpretation.” You are stuck with yourself as your own rule. You with yourself have made one erroneous claim after another.  You claimed that “not all things infallible are de fide.” You denied the correct definition of supernatural faith. You further corrupted the very definition of supernatural faith by dividing its two necessary attributes. You corrupted the papacy by cleaving its form and matter leading to a substantial change in what God has promised will stand to end of time. And you did not even know that the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.  

    Maybe at least we have seen the last of at least this one particular idiocy.

    Drew
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11816
    • Reputation: +7392/-2170
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #519 on: April 10, 2018, 08:11:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    You're too lazy to actually read Fenton ... because he cites the prior theologians who hold the same position.
    Did Fenton cite EVERY theologian of his time?  If there wasn't a consensus then and also agreement with Tradition, then his theory is just that, a theory and no more.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11816
    • Reputation: +7392/-2170
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #520 on: April 10, 2018, 08:33:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    My argument is based on papal teaching (often repeated) that the Magisterium is free from error.
    Let me re-phrase this whole question.  
    1.  The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church.
    2.  Only the Pope can teach INFALLIBLY to the Church (whether solemnly or non-solemnly).
    3.  The Magisterium, outside of the pope, cannot teach INFALLIBLY.
    4.  The Magisterium, outside of the pope, can only re-teach "that which has always been taught" since they do not have the power to clarify or define truths 'with certainty of faith'.
    5.  Only the pope's magisterium can declare teachings that have 'certainty of faith'.
    6.  If the pope is not infallible and indefectible in all things (and he's not), then the neither is the Magisterium.
    7.  The magisterium is only infallible/indefectible when SOLEMNLY declaring a matter 'with certainty of faith' or that it is 'consistent with Tradition'.

    Ergo, your belief that the magisterium is 'free from error' only applies if you are talking about the 2 situations in Pt #7.  Outside of these situations, the Magisterium CANNOT be infallible/indefectible because IT IS NOT ABLE TO CREATE NEW DOCTRINES.  So, if a teaching is new or novel (like in V2) it is not "free from error" because that's impossible.  If the Magisterium is to be free from error, outside of infallibility, IT HAS TO PROVE THAT THE TEACHING IS CONSISTENT WITH TRADITION.  If it cannot prove this, then IT'S NOT AN APOSTOLIC TRUTH, and thus, IS NOT CATHOLIC.
    Logged

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #521 on: April 10, 2018, 11:35:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html

     D. M. Drew comment


    Quote
    It is calumny to assert that I "reject the Magisterium of the Church." That would be rejecting dogma which I have already explained to you is the "proximate rule of faith.


    How can dogma be a rule of faith? It's one thing to say the Apostles Creed, or the Athanasius Creed is a rule of faith, and another to say dogma is that rule of faith.

    How do we differentiate ourselves from Protestants? They claim, do they not, to believe in dogma? They seek it through scripture, while Catholics seek it through the magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church.

    To say the magisterium and dogma are equivalent is to say we obtain our dogma from dogma; it's nonsensical .

    Teaching authority and dogma are two related, but distinct things. The latter proceeds from the former.
    Logged
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #522 on: April 10, 2018, 11:47:10 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • How do we reference a dogma?

    Do we not quote this and that council? Do we not quote the pope?

    Pope IX declared the Immaculate Conception, I believe it.

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino", I believe it. 

    etc.

    What heretic would object to dogma to being the rule of faith? It's where he seeks that dogma that counts.
    Logged
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1430
    • Reputation: +1365/-142
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #523 on: April 11, 2018, 09:10:25 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0


    • trad123,

    Im sure Drew will reply as time permits. In the meantime,  you may want to read:

    Reply #128  page 9
    Reply #163  page 11
    Reply 200 page 14


    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Jeremiah2v8

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 51
    • Reputation: +44/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #524 on: April 11, 2018, 10:23:04 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 09, 2018, 04:54:52 PM
    Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on April 09, 2018, 03:55:33 PM
    Quote
    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. 

    Of course it's been taken over.  What's your point?
    So you concede that the Church has been taken over by the enemies of Christ? When was this? Vatican 2? Under Paul VI? 

    Your position is so inconsistent it's incredible. And yet you go around calling people heretics, blasphemous, clueless, etc. 

    You have the "Conciliar" Church defecting, which is how you know it's not the Magisterium. And yet you have the Conciliar Church's Novus Ordo liturgy being a liturgy protected as one used by the "indefectible" Church such that it can't be an incentive to impiety per Trent - https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/is-the-sspxsspx-resistance-crypto-sedevacantist/msg600712/#msg600712  

    Which is it? Has the Church been "taken over" by Christ's enemies or is the "Conciliar" Church the "indefectible" Church of Christ which is protected from "defection" when it uses a liturgy, to the extent that said used liturgy cannot be an incentive to impiety?

    Is the Church now partially indefectible too? With its partially-pope pope?



    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 76
    « previous next »