Fr. Ringrose Boldly Calls Recognize & Resist a Heresy. See the Latest Parish Posting from St. Athanasius' Chapel, Vienna, VA.
Your Excellencies, Priests, and Friends,
Here is a copy of Father Ringrose’s article that appeared in today’s Sunday Bulletin:
“An elaborate theological argument is worthless and false if it draws a conclusion that is contrary to there simple, straightforward teachings found in the Catechism. A detailed theological study can be useful in expounding these simple truths and shedding further light on them for those who have a sufficient grounding in theology, but such a study can never be used to undermine or contradict these truths.
For the average Catholic it is sufficient to know one’s Catechism well. Firmly believe the doctrines expressed there, for they are an expression of the Church’s infallible Magisterium. Reject anything, no matter how erudite it may appear, if it draws a conclusion contrary to that Catechism.
Every Catechism clearly teaches that the pope and the bishops infallibly teach us what we are to believe. This is the promise of Christ. If the pope and the bishops were to teach us any error whatsoever, it would mean that Christ has broken His promise and the Holy Ghost has abandoned the Church — which is impossible. (Baltimore Catechism # 3, [Questions 528 & 529].”
Now to another issue: it has recently been asserted by an R&R votary that Vatican II was a pastoral council and was not therefore binding, but out of the council came a "new religion with new doctrines" that if followed, would not be Catholic. So we [meaning R&R] do not follow the popes that received the Council.
If in fact a new religion and new doctrines were created at V2 [and they were], this religion / these doctrines are NOT Catholic. The Church being Indefectible and Infallible CANNOT change, CANNOT substantially alter its doctrines against Christ. Thus, NO Pope, NO council can change the Deposit of Faith left by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
R&R is the heresy that boldly dares to contradict Christ's own promise that the Church [Pope and Bishops] cannot err in teaching faith and morals.
Adversus solem ne loquitor
W. E. Platz
The argument stated above is valid, but, as far as I can tell, unsound.ReplyDelete
1. Christ promised that the pope and the bishops infallibly teach us what we are to believe.
2. R&R says that the pope and the bishops can err when they teach us what we are to believe.
3. Therefore, from R&R it follows that Christ broke his promise (which contradicts the Catholic Faith). (1, 2)
Premise 1 seems false. In support of it, Baltimore Catechism # 3, Questions 528 & 529 are cited. They read:
Q. 528. How do you know that the Church can not err?
A. I know that the Church can not err because Christ promised that the Holy Ghost would remain with it forever and save it from error. If, therefore, the Church has erred, the Holy Ghost must have abandoned it and Christ has failed to keep His promise, which is a thing impossible.
Q. 529. Since the Church can not err, could it ever be reformed in its teaching of faith or morals?
A. Since the Church can not err, it could never be reformed in its teaching of faith or morals. Those who say the Church needed reformation in faith or morals accuse Our Lord of falsehood and deception.
Does it follow from "the Church can not err" that "pope and the bishops infallibly teach us what we are to believe". It seems not. For altimore Catechism # 3, Question 530 states:
Q. 530. When does the Church teach infallibly?
A. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.
But that implies that outside cases in which the Pope and Bishops united in general council or the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals, a Pope or Bishop does not teach infallibly.
Therefore, according to the Catholic Faith, it while it is true that Christ promised that the Church would not err, he did not promise that a Pope or Bishop would not ever err. When a Pope or Bishop errs outside a general council, or when the Pope is not proclaiming to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals, this does not count against Christ's promise.
Fr Ringrose should take his own very good advice:ReplyDelete
"The second consideration is that he whose mind is strongly impressed with the truth taught in this Article, will easily escape the awful danger of heresy. For a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; BUT HE IS A HERETIC WHO, HAVING DISREGARDED THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, MAINTAINS IMPIOUS OPINIONS WITH PERTINACITY. Since, therefore, it is impossible that anyone be infected with the contagion of heresy, so long as he holds what this Article proposes to be believed, let pastors use every diligence that the faithful, having known this mystery and guarded against the wiles of Satan, may persevere in the true faith." (Catechism of the Council of Trent, article 9: The Church. Emphasis mine)
The argument maybe: has the Faith been explained to Francis to such a degree that it is impossible for him to be regarded as anything but pertinacious? Maybe.
Or perhaps the argument is: Is it reasonable to think that Francis was not a willing accomplice of the St Gallen Mafia thereby incurring an invalidating excommunication prior to being elected? Perhaps.
Or then again, maybe the argument is: Was BVI's abdication invalid, and is Benedict still the Pope as Fr Gruner maintained?
Wherever the argument is, one place it is not: That laymen, who's place is not to judge these things, and do not do so, could be called heretics. For they are not... even if they are ultimately wrong.
However, every catechism says we must avoid bad companions, Catholic or not. So, while the 'recognise' part of the debate is up for grabs, the 'resist' part remains a firm duty because Francie, pope or antipope, is a clear danger to the Faith.
Dr. there is quite a discussion over at Aka Catholic on the validity of Episcopal consecrations. One argues that consecrations are valid as long as the words are said and the matter is a male. Form and matter. We are dealing with the SSPX consecrations and specifically the archbishop who founded SSPX, who was consecrated by Lienart. Lienart has been revealed to be a confirmed freemason. Now Thomas begins his discussion of Episcopal orders by stating that no one can seek the office of Bishop, that to do so is unlawful, ie. invalid. So can the infiltrators of Vatican 2 who sought the destruction of the Catholic Church and Faith, by assuming Episcopal orders be valid? Did they intend to do as the Church has always done?Or rather did they intend by episcopal contivences to be wolves in sheep"s clothing? I think we are seeing the answer unfold before us. But what about the "trad-conservative" reaction against the modernist-judeo hirelings? Are they raising up before us false opposition against the masonic judeo operation? Is it all one big one deception?ReplyDelete
This doesn't make sense. How can it be true that 'the pope and bishops teach what is infallibly true' 'If in fact a new religion and new doctrines were created at V2 [and they were]?ReplyDelete
Because Paul VI was not a true pope?Delete
They were not popes or bishops! They lost their authority and office through heresy/refusing to carry out the good of the society they were appointed to lead.Delete
I'm sorry, where does Fr R call RR a heresy? Bill Platz uses the term heresy, and he is right. But Fr R says RR is "contrary to the teaching of the church." Fr R has never called RR a heresy. He has a RR priest in his parish (er, votary) so he can't call it a heresy. That would be a sin against ecumenism, hehe....ReplyDelete
What I meant was that the statement itself doesn't make sense. How can one person say that the pope...teach(es) what is infallibly true then add that the same person creates new doctrines?ReplyDelete