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].”
Fr
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

Comments

  1. 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
  2. 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
    Replies
    1. Because Paul VI was not a true pope?

      Delete
    2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Sister Lucy Truth Update: Michigan State Facial Recognition Lab Finds that Sister Lucy II (post-1967) was NOT Sister Lucy I (pre-1967). How Much Do We Need to Put Out Until the Crickets Stop Chirping?

More Than Metaphor: Our Lady at La Salette seems to have told us not only THAT the Church would be in "Eclipse," but WHEN IT WOULD GO INTO ECLIPSE, October 27th, 1958.

Long-Standing Fatima "Consecration of Russia" Narrative Implodes as Handwriting Expert Demonstrates 1980 Letter from "Sister Lucy" to Fr. Umberto Pasquale is Definitely a Forgery. Whatever the Real Sister Lucy Knew about the Requested Consecration of Russia DOES NOT Appear in this Letter. Fatima Center, Are You Listening? Report from Bart Baggett to be Posted Imminently.

Who Cares? The Remnant Moderator (Michael Matt?) Excises the Papacy from the "traditional Catholic Religion." Horrible Question to the 20,000 Pilgrims. Who do you see as a Rock of the Catholic Faith? Michael Matt's Remnant or "the Vatican of Pope Francis". Another little question. I thought "Counter-Revolutionaries" were Ultramontanists not Gallicans?

...una cum famulo tuo Michahel Matt et Christophorus Ferrara....Isn't it Strange How Francis Could Watch Athanasius Schneider Participate in the Matt/FSSP Catholic Identity Crisis Conference, without Censure or Disciplinary Action, Even Though Matt has Said that the "Remnant" "No longer accepts the Vatican of Pope Francis as a moral authority in ANYTHING." Strange. Just Sayin'

ALERT: World-Class Handwriting Analyst Demonstrates that the Writings of "Sister Lucy" from after 1957 Were Forgeries. Analysis of "Third Secret" Released by Vatican in 2000, Forged 1969 Letter Urging Obedience and Submission to Paul VI, Signatures on Letters from 1967 and 1969, Letter about Consecration of Russia From 1980, and Manuscript Released by Carmelites of Coimbra and Used as the Basis for Sister Lucy's Official Biography Published by the Blue Army WERE ALL FORGERIES. Follow the Links to the Sworn Testimony Below.

Revised and Updated Edition of Handwriting Analyst Declaration in which 1969 Letter of "Sister Lucy" Advocating Submission to Paul VI is Proven to be a Forgery. Soon to be Released on SisterLucyimposter.org. Includes Analysis of the Purported Third Secret Released in 2000. Socci's "4th Secret" Looking More Plausible. Folks, if Sister Lucy was around in 1969, she would have been able to write her own letters.