Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 302274 times)

drew · « **Reply #525 on:** April 11, 2018, 11:48:48 AM »

Just for completeness, for those who doubt that dogma is the "rule of faith," the Council of Florence in the decree for union with the Armenians offered to them the "rule of faith," the Athanasian Creed. This Creed like all others is a litany of dogmas:

Quote

Sixthly, we offer to the envoys that compendious rule of the faith composed by most blessed Athanasius, which is as follows:
Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this,...... Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Athanasian Creed

Again, the definition of heresy is failure to keep dogma as the rule of faith.

Drew

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #526 on:** April 11, 2018, 12:15:55 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 11, 2018, 10:55:56 AM

Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Today at 10:23:04 AM
Quote
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?

I can't make heads or tails out of this incoherent rant.

No wonder you can't. Blindness is usually a symptom with your disease.

Quote

I guess that the problem is that you, and many others, can't get their minds around the material-formal distinction about the Church.

There is no "material-formal" distinction. My gosh, you love to throw big words and concepts around, but you can't think through anything. Another symptom of what you have.

Quote

No problem with the bizarre R&R statement that the V2 "Popes" are simultaneously the heads of two Churches, the Catholic and the Conciliar ...

I know nothing of this "two churches" thing. Go discuss this with those making the bizarre statement.

Quote

but you're ready to have epileptic seizures at the mere mention of the formal-material distinction.

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep the watch out for that now.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #527 on:** April 11, 2018, 01:05:41 PM »

Quote

This is just garbage. Not even sure where to begin.

Great analysis. Very good facts you referenced. Excellent job of pointing out my errors.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #528 on:** April 11, 2018, 01:32:09 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 11, 2018, 12:17:00 PM

So the rule of faith for Catholics is exclusively the Athanasian Creed? What about the other dogmas defined by the Church, not contained in the creeds?

Now you are getting ridiculous. Of course not. To everyone, according to their particular heresy (dogma/s they deny) If the Greek Orthodox wanted to come back to the Church (in normal times) they would have to make a profession of faith in the Filioque, Primacy of the Pope, Purgatory, The Immaculate Conception of O. L. and the Indissolubility of Marriage because these (and more) are the dogmas they reject.

Drew's Reply #163 on page 11 (For the benefit of others):
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599170/#msg599170

Quote

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas ". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity : the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews ; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church ; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Quote

I am most particularly obliged to bless and thank God, for not having suffered the first professors of that doctrine (Jansenism), men of my acquaintance and friendship, to be able to draw me to their opinions. I cannot tell you what pains they took, and what reasons they propounded to me; I objected to them, amongst other things, the authority of the Council of Trent (DOGMA), which is clearly opposed to them; and seeing that they still continued, I, instead of answering them, quietly recited my Credo (DOGMA); and that is how I have remained firm in the Catholic faith.
St. Vincent de Paul regarding in dealing with the Jansenist

drew · « **Reply #529 on:** April 11, 2018, 02:03:48 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 11, 2018, 09:57:14 AM

No, Drew, you're just not very bright. You kept using the term "part of Revelation" without defining it. Revelation can refer either to the truths revealed or to the act/process of revealing. I made it clear which one I meant. And, despite that, you kept attacking me while using the term in the OTHER sense. I tried to untangle this several times.

Ladislaus,

Defining "part of Revelation" was not done because that should be self-evident by definition of the terms themselves. A "part" of something is anything less than the whole of the thing. To say the Magisterium is part of revelation is to say that it is revealed by God but is not all of God's revelation. To say as you did repeatedly, "the Magisterium is NOT part of God's Revelation" is to affirm that God did not reveal it. You came to this conclusion after reading the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia that said the Magisterium was "extrinsic" to revelation so that it could stand outside of revelation to act as its judge. Your effort to pretend that you meant something really profound by drawing a distinction between revelation and the act of revelation is ridiculous and just digs for yourself a deeper hole. You are not "bright" enough to know when to shut up.

As long as I can stay "bright" enough to spot you as a sham, that will be good enough for me. For you are a thief as well who would steal the faith from others by corrupting the fundamental elements of revealed truth.

Drew

forlorn · « **Reply #530 on:** April 11, 2018, 02:10:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 11, 2018, 01:56:30 PM

And you stubbornly persist in this Protestant error.

I think his error is just a misunderstanding of terminology. I doubt he believes in sola scriptura. If my understanding is correct, the rule of faith in Catholicism is scripture + the traditions of the Church. But these traditions are also dogmatically defined, so it not necessarily sola scriptura to say that dogma is the rule of faith.

drew · « **Reply #531 on:** April 11, 2018, 02:22:54 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 10, 2018, 11:35:16 PM

http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html

D. M. Drew comment

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.

All recognized Catholic Creeds are a litany of dogmas. The Protestants reject that the Magisterium ("teaching authority") of the Church is part of divine revelation. Every Protestant becomes his own magisterium. Regardless, they all reject dogma because they reject that God established a "teaching authority" without which doctrine cannot be authoritatively and infallibly defined.

I agree with you in that Dogma is the end of the Magisterium and the Magisterium is the means. But what is important to remember is that the formal cause and final cause of Dogma is God. The Magisterium is the insufficient but necessary material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma. This is important to remember because Dogma is divine revelation. It is not the work of men. That is why Dogma is called, "the formal object of divine and Catholic faith." It is also why we can always deductively derive other necessary truths from any Dogma.

Take for example the doctrine of Religious Liberty. In its first principles it contradicts dogmatic truths. Those that hold dogma as their rule of faith have no problem seeing this. Those who hold the pope as the rule of faith (or, if you like, "the magisterium of the pope as the rule of faith") believe that dogma is just a product of mere ecclesiastical faith that was revealed merely by the Church and what the Church merely reveals, the Church can merely change. They then look to the pope to cipher the true and developing meaning of dogma that never reaches its term.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #532 on:** April 11, 2018, 02:32:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 11, 2018, 02:06:45 PM

Not at all. Revelation = "God's act of revealing." (my usage) vs. how you keep using it: Revelation = "What God has revealed."

Ladislaus,

"Revelation" is a noun. "To reveal" is the verb infinitive. Your "usage" is grammatically flawed as your thinking.

Which reminds me of my limerick that is worth remembering:

Nietzsche, who called himself,
"the philosopher with a Hammer"
said, "If you want to get rid of God,
you must first get rid of Grammar!"

Drew

drew · « **Reply #533 on:** April 11, 2018, 03:01:53 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 11, 2018, 02:37:05 PM

And you know those are dogmas because the Infallible Magisterium of the Church told you so. It's that simple.

Otherwise, you would not know them.

No kidding? It has been repeated several times already, but how about once more. The Magisterium is the insufficient but necessary material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma. God is the formal cause and the final cause of Dogma. Without the Magisterium, which is one of the necessary means, the end, that is, Dogma, would not be produced. "It's that simple."

Now you have been provided with three Magisterial docuмents that refer to Dogma as the rule of faith. You reject this "simple" truth preferring, the means over the end. That is you prefer the pursuit of truth over its actual possession. You prefer becoming over being. In the end you actually reject the Magisterium itself. For you, like Ladislaus, the "magisterium is dormant." That is, your rule of faith is "dormant" and the void has been filled with yourself. Unfortunately, you yourself as your rule of faith has delivered you into a church that is not Catholic. It is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ. This can be known because your church is lacking necessary attributes of the Catholic Church. What is worse, your church does not possess the material means or instrumental means to ever recover these necessary attributes. It is permanently defective. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and where you are, its only going to get colder and darker. Your magisterium is not really "dormant," its dead.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #534 on:** April 11, 2018, 03:14:50 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on April 11, 2018, 03:06:21 PM

Does the Magisterium go "dormant" when a pope dies?

Even if I were to grant you this inaccurate use of terminology that is misleading, there remains a huge difference between a "dormant" magisterium when a pope dies and the "dormant" magisterium of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism. In the former, the material means and the instrumental means to correct the situation remains in place. They simply elect another pope. For sedevacantism/sedeprivationism it is gone forever. It is not "dormant," it is dead. Dead and gone.

Drew

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #535 on:** April 11, 2018, 03:36:18 PM »

Quote from: drew on April 11, 2018, 03:01:53 PM

Quote from: Cantarella on Today at 02:37:05 PM
Quote
And you know those are dogmas because the Infallible Magisterium of the Church told you so. It's that simple.

Otherwise, you would not know them.

No kidding? It has been repeated several times already, but how about once more. The Magisterium is the insufficient but necessary material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma. God is the formal cause and the final cause of Dogma. Without the Magisterium, which is one of the necessary means, the end, that is, Dogma, would not be produced. "It's that simple."

Drew

Yes, simply ends and means, with the Magisterium the necessary means.

You would think people who believe water baptism is a necessary means for the end of salvation would easily comprehend this.

drew · « **Reply #536 on:** April 11, 2018, 06:07:28 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 11, 2018, 03:50:06 PM

You keep saying that as if you were in actual communion with the Pope of Rome you recognize.

Has it never occurred to you, that if Francis is indeed the Roman Pontiff, your situation before God may actually be more precarious than mine? For, at least, in my current reasoning, there is an actual impostor usurping the Seat of Peter whom I owe absolutely no obedience or submission. As a Roman Catholic, I am completely aware of my duties towards the Pope, not towards the impostor. Whereas you, fully recognizing and knowing in your intellect who the Vicar of Christ on earth is, still obstinately refuse to render him due obedience and personal submission to His God-given authority.

This has been, throughout history, the quintessential mark of the heretic.

I have no more problem with Pope Francis than the “man born blind” in the Gospel had with the high priest. I will not follow Francis in the corruption of the faith just as the “man born blind” did not follow the Pharisees in the denial of Jesus Christ. The “man born blind” did not fail in submission to legitimate authority, and he did not obey that legitimate authority when that authority commanded things outside their competency.

As “Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not” (Matt 23:1-3). Here, Jesus is speaking to His “disciples.” So you would claim the “man born blind” while “recognizing and knowing in his intellect” who was sitting on the Chair of Moses, “obstinately refused to render them due obedience and personal submission to their God-given authority”?

When everything is said and done, even if I were to grant any merits to your arguments, I can only be accused of disobedience to the pope while you have no pope to be, or not to be obedient to. And you will never get one because the church you now belong to has no pope, has no material means or instrumental means to ever get one, therefore you have no magisterium, you have no rule of faith. So, in the final analysis, I have to answer for only the possible sin of disobedience which is morally governed by several mitigating or exculpating conditions. You on the on the other hand, will have no excuses whatsoever. You have no pope to render submission and you will never have one.

By the way, the “quintessential mark of the heretic” is the denial of dogma. Such as the dogma that there will be perpetual successors in the chair of Peter until the consummation of the world.

Lastly, rational arguments do not make anyone a Catholic. They may help overcome rational doubts but ultimately it is a work of grace that converts anyone. The problem then with rational arguments to those who reject grace is that it leads to hardening of the heart because they know at the bottom of everything they are living a lie. The conscience has to be suffocated.

I can guarantee that the road you are traveling on will end in ruin. It necessarily leads to the denial of Dogma.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #537 on:** April 11, 2018, 06:14:48 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 11, 2018, 05:36:32 PM

You also keep saying this but it is because you do not understand that, at least in Sedeprivationism, those who are legally designated to ecclesiastical offices (in the College of Cardinals, for example) still preserve their legal designation until this designation is taken away from them by competent authority. They keep the right of designating or nominating therefore, even when they lose their authority or jurisdiction. In other words, possible electors of the pope still remain.

This merely material continuity is able to indefinitely continue, to the extent that the conclaves intend to elect a pope and that those elected intend to nominate electors.

The Cassisiacuм thesis focuses on the loss of Authority because of an impediment (namely, the habitual intention of doing harm to the Church); not the power of designation. The false popes can still designate electors and also bishops for the purpose of succeeding to sees of authority.

I will not repeat this to you again. I know you do not believe it or perhaps even understand it.

The philosophical concept of hylomorphism, that a substantial being is a compound of form and matter, has been indirectly dogmatized. This principle has been theologically incorporated into the Church’s sacramental theology and dogmatized at Trent. You cannot deny the philosophical concept of substance as modernists do and keep the faith. Sedeprivationism posits a separation of the form and matter of the papal office and thereby causes a substantial change in that office, which office, we know, by divine and Catholic faith, cannot change.

But again, you have rejected dogma as the rule of faith. When you reject Dogma as the rule of faith you have rejected any necessary truths that can be deduced from Dogma. Your magisterium is permanently “dormant.”

Drew

drew · « **Reply #538 on:** April 11, 2018, 06:55:04 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on April 11, 2018, 03:25:35 PM

How is it inaccurate?

How is it gone forever?

It is inaccurate because the Magisterium does not ‘sleep’ when the pope dies. The Magisterium is grounded upon the Church’s Attributes of Infallibility and Authority. Therefore, the Magisterium is one thing. Every pope from St. Peter to Pope Francis, when and if they engage the Magisterium, are engaging one and the same thing. It can only be “dormant” in the sense that there is no person to engage the Magisterium until the next pope is elected and accepts the office. But you could say the same thing even when you have a pope and he is not presently engaging the Magisterium but I just think there is a better way to accurately describe it. You wouldn’t call a sleeping man “blind” because his eyes are closed nor should you call the “teaching authority” of the Church “dormant” because it is not being engaged. And anyway, we know by divine and Catholic faith that there will be “perpetual successors” in that office until the “consummation of the world.”

Sedevacantism removes the pope from office on the grounds of heresy. They want to be the “lord of the harvest.” Having removed him, they have no means of replacing him. They like to refer to the conciliar popes as “anti-popes” but to have an anti-pope, you must have a real pope. They have no pope and no material or instrumental means to ever get. They do not even have the intent to get one.

Sedeprivationism destroys the papal office by positing a substantial change by fracturing its form and matter. Two problems: firstly anyone can kill a person separating the soul from the body, but only God can restore a life. Sedeprivationists have no way to put the form and the matter back together again. The other problem is that we know by divine and Catholic faith that the office will continue as established by Jesus Christ until the “consummation of the world.” What they posit is impossible.

Both are lacking the material means and the instrumental means to create a pope. It necessarily ends in heresy, which the denial of dogma as the rule of faith. We can more accurately call it Humpty-Dumptyism where “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again.”

Drew

Samuel · « **Reply #539 on:** April 11, 2018, 07:53:14 PM »

Quote from: Samuel 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?

Cantarella,

I haven't seen your answer to question A yet. I think this is an important question for you to think about, because I am not aware of any sedevacantist who believes that a secret heretic loses Church membership. And if secret heresy does not cause a Catholic to lose his Church membership, what secret impediment could possibly cause the election of a pope to be "secretly" invalid?

In other words, I think you will have to rethink your answer to #1 and #2 and change at least one of them, preferably both imho.

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 302274 times)

drew

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?

Maria Auxiliadora

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

drew

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

forlorn

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

drew

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

drew

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

drew

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

drew

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

Jeremiah2v8

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

drew

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

drew

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

drew

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

Samuel

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