The Remnant Newspaper - Traditional Catholic News

[Margaret33]

I stumbled across this, have never heard of it and have yet to form my own ideas about it yet - am seeking opinions from those who may have heard about it, have read it or read it on a regular basis… (who do not consider themselves anti-traditionalist, for lack of better terminology)

Their statement of purpose:

remnantnewspaper.com/about.htm

Thanks,
M

 

[paramedicgirl]

I stumbled across this, have never heard of it and have yet to form my own ideas about it yet - am seeking opinions from those who may have heard about it, have read it or read it on a regular basis… (who do not consider themselves anti-traditionalist, for lack of better terminology)

Their statement of purpose:

remnantnewspaper.com/about.htm

Thanks,
M

I’ve read the Remnant lots of times. They are defenders of Catholic tradition and are not schismatic or sedevacantist. They link to good news articles on their sidebar.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You should avoid them like the plague. They are in error.

“Its fight encompasses scholarly opposition against such varied errors as Communion in the hand, married priests, women priests, the Renew Movement, phony ecumenism, the Protestantization of the Roman Liturgy, Liberation Theology, the Medjugorje “Industry,” the cover-up of the Third Secret of Fatima, the re-writing of Catholic history, and the ongoing Modernist-inspired changes to the Mass and Sacraments of the Church-- to name only a few.”

Communion in the hand is not an error. The Church cannot impose or permit a discipline that can lead the faithful into error. You don’t have to like the discipline, but you cannot call it an error.

Married priests: I think this is a bad idea, but it isn’t an error. We have had married priests in the Latin Rite before, we have some now, and a pope may rule that we will have them in the future. Also, the eastern Churches in Communion with Rome allow married priests and always have. Thus, it cannot be an error. Again, the Church cannot lead the faithful into error.

They’re right about women priests, but so was the pope with whom they disagreed.

The Roman Liturgy was not Protestantized. The Church cannot protest against herself. The Protestants were merely observers, not advisors, and it is an urban myth that they wrote or helped write the Pauline Mass.

The third secret thing has been answered over and over. Sr. Lucia said that the conditions had been met. You have to buy into a conspiracy theory (it wasn’t the REAL Sr. Lucia, for example).

As to the charge of modernism, the Council of Trent clearly stated that no discipline of the Church could lead the faithful into impiety. Modernism is a heresy. The Church is incapable of heresy. She is incapable of proposing heresy to the faithful. So the Mass and the Sacraments do not contain modernism.

If you’re content to read people who are so wrong about the Church, then I guess go for it.

 

[Genesis315]

Communion in the hand is not an error. The Church cannot impose or permit a discipline that can lead the faithful into error. You don’t have to like the discipline, but you cannot call it an error.

I wonder if Pope St. Damasus was in error for allowing this:

St. Basil the Great:
newadvent.org/fathers/3202093.htm
And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand.

 

[Christophorus]

Gracia et Pax Vobiscum,

I have a subscription to and read The Remnant which I find an aid in this world for the pursuit of the world hereafter.

Pax Vobiscum.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I wonder if St. Damaus was in error for allowing this:

St. Basil the Great:
newadvent.org/fathers/3202093.htm
And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand.

Well, he didn’t have Christopher Ferraro to advise him, did he?

 

[Genesis315]

Gracia et Pax Vobiscum,

I have a subscription to and read The Remnant which I find an aid in this world for the pursuit of the world hereafter.

Pax Vobiscum.

I read the Saints–especially the Doctors of the Church–their way is proven to get you there --the Remnant, not so much.

There’s an inexhaustible treasure from those who have won the race out that addresses the problems of this world–there is nothing new under the sun–but they don’t do it like the folks at the Remnant do…

 

[jj2011]

A little historical note: The Remnant began in 1967 when Walter Matt, formerly of The Wanderer, had a disagreement with his brother Al Matt and left to start a new publication.

 

[Christophorus]

I read the Saints–especially the Doctors of the Church–their way is proven to get you there --the Remnant, not so much.

There’s an inexhaustible treasure from those who have won the race out that addresses the problems of this world–there is nothing new under the sun–but they don’t do it like the folks at the Remnant do…

Gracia et Pax Vobiscum,

Like the humble Franciscan lay brother, St. Paschal Baylon? Page 3 in the June 30, 2007 issue. Your presumption is telling…

BTW, I’m also reading Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska by Marian Press too. Again, your presumption and stereo-typing is telling…

Pax Vobiscum.

 

[DustinsDad]

Here we go again.

Communion in the hand is not an error…

Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi.

Traditionalists believe the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, developed the law of Communion in the Hand because of the respect it shows Our Lord and the very law strongly helps to transmit the faith of the Real Presense of Our Lord. Removal of the law has been accompanied by a tremendous crisis in this faith, this belief in the Real Presense.

It is quite legitimate to express the concern that this “giving in to the modern world” was a bad decision - a mistake and an error if you will - and to call for a return to the traditional practice.

Married priests: I think this is a bad idea, but it isn’t an error.

Saying it’s a bad idea is just another way of saying it’s a mistake or an error. Besides, what the world and the modernists are calling for is “allowing priests to marry”, not “allowing married to become priests”. There’s a difference. One might be allowed, one never can.

They’re right about women priests, but so was the pope with whom they disagreed.

They didn’t disagree with the pope about women priests.

The Roman Liturgy was not Protestantized.

The now ordinary form (N.O.) of the mass certainly “looks” and “sounds” more like a Protestant “worship service” than does the extraordinary form (TLM). And it’s back to the old Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi again.

The third secret thing has been answered over and over. Sr. Lucia said that the conditions had been met. You have to buy into a conspiracy theory

.

Conspiracies happen. The more I have looked into it, the more suspicious I am that this thing has really been answered completely.

As to the charge of modernism, the Council of Trent clearly stated that no discipline of the Church could lead the faithful into impiety.

Trent was defending the Mass and the liturgy from Protestants trying to make changes to conform to their new novel theology.,
CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

The fact that many of the changes in the Mass after VII are in sync - at least in their outward appearances - with the Protestant desires during the Reformation (and which Trent combatted) is problematic at best. If Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi is legit, and if a new* Lex Orendi* is accompanied by a crisis in the new Lex Credendi, perhaps we ought to have a little humility and return to the old, proven*, Lex Orendi. *

Modernism is a heresy. The Church is incapable of heresy. She is incapable of proposing heresy to the faithful.

The human side of the Church is quite capable of heresy, and there is a danger of transmitting these errors to the faithful. If this were not possible, Pope St. Pius X would not have warned against it. For crying out loud, this is just plain common sense:“That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom… what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who…thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church…put themselves forward as reformers of the Church” I have just read, and am re-reading this little book again ($5 from Tan Books). Sheds light on so many of the problems in the Church today - very eye opening. I, like Pope St. Pius X, recommend it highly…
ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DT0W40BKL.AA240.jpg

Peace in Christ!

DustinsDad

 

[Like]

You should avoid them like the plague. They are in error.

“Its fight encompasses scholarly opposition against such varied errors as Communion in the hand, married priests, women priests, the Renew Movement, phony ecumenism, the Protestantization of the Roman Liturgy, Liberation Theology, the Medjugorje “Industry,” the cover-up of the Third Secret of Fatima, the re-writing of Catholic history, and the ongoing Modernist-inspired changes to the Mass and Sacraments of the Church-- to name only a few.”

Communion in the hand is not an error. The Church cannot impose or permit a discipline that can lead the faithful into error. You don’t have to like the discipline, but you cannot call it an error.

Married priests: I think this is a bad idea, but it isn’t an error. We have had married priests in the Latin Rite before, we have some now, and a pope may rule that we will have them in the future. Also, the eastern Churches in Communion with Rome allow married priests and always have. Thus, it cannot be an error. Again, the Church cannot lead the faithful into error.

They’re right about women priests, but so was the pope with whom they disagreed.

The Roman Liturgy was not Protestantized. The Church cannot protest against herself. The Protestants were merely observers, not advisors, and it is an urban myth that they wrote or helped write the Pauline Mass.

The third secret thing has been answered over and over. Sr. Lucia said that the conditions had been met. You have to buy into a conspiracy theory (it wasn’t the REAL Sr. Lucia, for example).

As to the charge of modernism, the Council of Trent clearly stated that no discipline of the Church could lead the faithful into impiety. Modernism is a heresy. The Church is incapable of heresy. She is incapable of proposing heresy to the faithful. So the Mass and the Sacraments do not contain modernism.

If you’re content to read people who are so wrong about the Church, then I guess go for it.

Well! I’m siding with Jkirk & with the **1 Holy Catholic Church **on this group…Read for yourself…
catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3155&repos=2&subrepos=&searchid=28482

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

I read the Saints–especially the Doctors of the Church–their way is proven to get you there --the Remnant, not so much.

Everyone I know who reads “The Remnant” also attends an SSPX church, which is not in commuion with Rome. Maybe this makes me a Papist but I figure God gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter for a reason. So I’d stick with reading from people who are still in good standing with the rest of the Catholic church.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Everyone I know who reads “The Remnant” also attends an SSPX church, which is not in commuion with Rome. Maybe this makes me a Papist but I figure God gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter for a reason. So I’d stick with reading from people who are still in good standing with the rest of the Catholic church.

I read it and I don’t attend an SSPX church. So there ya go.

 

[stmaria]

JKirkLVNV… why do you think Pope Paul abolished the *Oath against Modernism *which was required to be said by every priest since 1911?

 

[Walking_Home]

Everyone I know who reads “The Remnant” also attends an SSPX church, which is not in commuion with Rome. Maybe this makes me a Papist but I figure God gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter for a reason. So I’d stick with reading from people who are still in good standing with the rest of the Catholic church.

---

So what. The Remnant is a newspaper available to the public. Any one can read it----even people who do not attend the SSPX chapels.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Traditionalists believe the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, developed the law of Communion in the Hand because of the respect it shows Our Lord and the very law strongly helps to transmit the faith of the Real Presense of Our Lord. Removal of the law has been accompanied by a tremendous crisis in this faith, this belief in the Real Presense. And Catholics with a CATHOLIC understanding of Church discipline believe that the same Holy Spirit maintains doctrinal integrity in the DISCIPLINES of the Church and that the Church cannot propose or permit anything that will lead the faithful into impiety. There is no reliable data that communion in the hand has lead to a falling off in the belief of the Real Presence.

It is quite legitimate to express the concern that this “giving in to the modern world” was a bad decision - a mistake and an error if you will - and to call for a return to the traditional practice. Except that it isn’t “giving in” to the modern world. It was a prior practice in the Church. The Church’s practices cannot lead the faithful into impiety.

Besides, what the world and the modernists are calling for is “allowing priests to marry”, not “allowing married to become priests”. There’s a difference. One might be allowed, one never can. I’ve never heard a traditionalist distinguish between allowing the married to be ordained and allowing priests to date. Thanks for clearing that up.

The now ordinary form (N.O.) of the mass certainly “looks” and “sounds” more like a Protestant “worship service” than does the extraordinary form (TLM). And it’s back to the old Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi again. **Because they have common roots, in a common liturgical tradition, just like baptism, confirmation for some groups, etc. **

.

Conspiracies happen. The more I have looked into it, the more suspicious I am that this thing has really been answered completely. **I trust the Church (and Sr. Lucia). **

Trent was defending the Mass and the liturgy from Protestants trying to make changes to conform to their new novel theology., CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema. CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. The fact that many of the changes in the Mass after VII are in sync - at least in their outward appearances - with the Protestant desires during the Reformation (and which Trent combatted) is problematic at best. If Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi is legit, and if a new* Lex Orendi* is accompanied by a crisis in the new Lex Credendi, perhaps we ought to have a little humility and return to the old, proven*, Lex Orendi. *

**Read the above passage from Trent again, particularly the second one. It doesn’t say “for this time,” or “against these enemies of the Church.” It says “anyone” charging the Church with error in the discipline of her masses, saying that they could be incentives to impiety. **

The human side of the Church is quite capable of heresy, and there is a danger of transmitting these errors to the faithful. If this were not possible, Pope St. Pius X would not have warned against it. For crying out loud, this is just plain common sense:“That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom… what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who…thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church…put themselves forward as reformers of the Church” ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DT0W40BKL.AA240.jpg
Peace in Christ!

DustinsDad

Certainly we have priests, probably even bishops, who could well be outright heretics. But do you think that Pope St. Pius was talking about the magisterium. Do you think he meant that the living magisterium of the Church could transmit error to the faithful, could lead them into impiety, esp. in a matter so urgent to our salvation, the Mass itself? I’d bet Pius X did NOT mean that.

 

[ncjohn]

So what. The Remnant is a newspaper available to the public. Any one can read it----even people who do not attend the SSPX chapels.

While someone is certainly entitled to read it if they want to, that doesn’t make it good for them from a formation standpoint and can easily lead someone into error. There are many publications available to the public which are not sound reading for Catholics.

My experience with it is that it is a mixed bag with some very sound articles and some articles promoting ideas outside Church teaching. Because of the way it is mixed, if one doesn’t know what they are looking for and at, it is easy to get confused as to what actual Church teaching is on a subject. Unless one is willing to go double-checking each point they are not fully familiar with, they will almost certainly be better off sticking to a publication known to be in good standing with the Church.

Peace,

 

[paramedicgirl]

What I like a about the Remnant are the links on the right hand side to other news articles. That’s mostly what I read from them.

 

[Walking_Home]

While someone is certainly entitled to read it if they want to, that doesn’t make it good for them from a formation standpoint and can easily lead someone into error. There are many publications available to the public which are not sound reading for Catholics.

My experience with it is that it is a mixed bag with some very sound articles and some articles promoting ideas outside Church teaching. Because of the way it is mixed, if one doesn’t know what they are looking for and at, it is easy to get confused as to what actual Church teaching is on a subject. Unless one is willing to go double-checking each point they are not fully familiar with, they will almost certainly be better off sticking to a publication known to be in good standing with the Church.

Peace,

---

That is like saying we should not associate with the protestants. They are a mixed bag with some truth (ex. Divinity of Christ etc.) and also promote ideas outside Church teaching (ex. no need for the ministerial priesthood). They can be a danger to a person who is not willing to double check — therefore we are better off sticking to persons who are Catholic.

 

[ncjohn]

---

That is like saying we should not associate with the protestants. They are a mixed bag with some truth (ex. Divinity of Christ etc.) and also promote ideas outside Church teaching (ex. no need for the ministerial priesthood). They can be a danger to a person who is not willing to double check — therefore we are better off sticking to persons who are Catholic.

Not at all. It is saying that it is not wise to take everything one is told as fact, and if one is seeking *formation on Catholic teachings *one is better sticking to what is known to be reliable.

The corollary from the other side might be Richard MacBrian. There is much truth to be found in his work, but there is also much dissenting theology. One seeking Catholic formation would not be well-advised to use his works as a source for Catholic teachings.

If I’m talking to a protestant, I know that I’m not likely getting Catholic teaching, nor would I go to them looking for Catholic teaching. If I’m reading a paper claiming to present Catholic truth, but in fact parts of it do not present that, the danger of me accepting something as a Catholic teaching, which really isn’t, is much greater.

There is still interesting information in the paper. One just can’t count on it to reflect Catholic teaching.

Peace,