The Remnant Newspaper - Traditional Catholic News

[Walking_Home]

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,

---

When a priest from the pulpit teaches heresy (it does happen) and/ or a religious instructor says it is not necessary to believe in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist—are we to chuck the whole Church. People seek Catholic formation from them.

People are called to discern. If they cannot do this in a publication–it can also mean they can be influenced by protestants.

 

[ncjohn]

---

When a priest from the pulpit teaches heresy (it does happen) and/ or a religious instructor says it is not necessary to believe in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist—are we to chuck the whole Church. People seek Catholic formation from them.

People are called to discern. If they cannot do this in a publication–it can also mean they can be influenced by protestants.

I’m really not sure what any of that has to do with anything I said, though I am now used to your need to disagree on some basis with anything I might say on any topic. I wish I understood that, but I guess some things I never will.

Be that as it may, the question doesn’t deal with protestants or priests. It deals with whether The Remnant can be relied on to provide reliable Catholic information. It can’t.

In saying that I’m not knocking the magazine. Just stating the facts that it is does not present exclusively Catholic teaching, though it implies that it does.

 

[tcraig]

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.

That was my experience with this publication, also, which is why I chose to stop getting it. I also found their overall “tone” to be very negative.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
When a priest from the pulpit teaches heresy (it does happen) and/ or a religious instructor says it is not necessary to believe in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist—are we to chuck the whole Church. People seek Catholic formation from them.

People are called to discern. If they cannot do this in a publication–it can also mean they can be influenced by protestants.

I’m really not sure what any of that has to do with anything I said, though I am now used to your need to disagree on some basis with anything I might say on any topic. I wish I understood that, but I guess some things I never will.

Be that as it may, the question doesn’t deal with protestants or priests. It deals with whether The Remnant can be relied on to provide reliable Catholic information. It can’t.

In saying that I’m not knocking the magazine. Just stating the facts that it is does not present exclusively Catholic teaching, though it implies that it does.

Originally Posted by ncjohn
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.​

My response was to what is included above. In todays Church —we cannot rely that all what is heard from the pulpit and/or taught via religious instruction is going to be orthodox. There is untruth being taught along side truth. Is this reason to cast aside the Church—because untruth is also taught within. We are to discern the truth from the untruth.

The same goes for the Remnant. Because there may be problems with part of it—does not mean what is orthodox cannot be of help to people.

My reference to the protestants meant–if someone can be confused by the Remnant—they can also fall prey to the protestants.

 

[srp643]

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.

Ditto here Christophorus. A great read and helps explain a lot of the problems the Church is experiencing. Dominus tecum.

 

[DustinsDad]

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…The Church’s practices cannot lead the faithful into impiety.

What traditionalists want, is not just that something not explicitly lead to impiety - but something that will actually lead the faithful to a greater degree of piety. Receiving on the tounge on your knees transmits the faith in its very action…both in the Real Presence and in the special role of the ordained. And this is something that receiving in your hands just doesn’t do - at best it’s neutral in these areas.

Receiving on the hand may not be “actively” leading to impiety, but it doesn’t help piety or transmitting of the faith either. In this battle we are all engaged in - especially nowadays and especially for the younger Catholics - I would think we would take all the help we could get. If it’s in this subtle little distinctly Catholic tradition and it helps - why in the WORLD would we do away with it??? Especially when Vatican II explicitly stated: “Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them…” This indult to allow Communion in the hand, therefore, seems directly contradictory to what was actually called for in the council.

(By the way, I also like the priest saying, “May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen” rather than just “Body of Christ”…not that there’s anything wrong with “Body of Christ”, but the other is more clear and transmits the faith better…certainly not something that the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required!!! But I digress…)

There is no reliable data that communion in the hand has lead to a falling off in the belief of the Real Presence.

And what exactly would you like to see as “reliable data”? That would be rather difficult to scientifically prove. Ah, but why take chances when souls are at stake? Shouldn’t we put on the full armor? Lex Orendi Lex Credendi again.

Except that it isn’t “giving in” to the modern world. It was a prior practice in the Church.

It was also a practice the Protestants adopted precisely to refute the Catholic faith. And are you aware of how this indult came about? I think it was a reluctant “giving in” to moderists and liberals within the Church. And now, well, it’s hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube once it’s been let out. I think it’ll happen one day. We shall see .

(More to come…)

 

[rwoehmke]

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. Peace in Christ!
DustinsDad

So which protestant service are we talking about. Having relatives who are baptists and having grown up in a family that included a lot of Missouri Synod Lutherans, I have observed worship services in both as well as weddings and funerals in a number of other denominations since being younger than ten… Nothing at all like the NO Mass. Now if we start talking some Lutherans and others in the past 50 years some have restored some of the ritual that was once left behind. In other words our NO did not copy a protestant service, but theirs have to some extent copied ours. Our Tridentine Mass resembles the High Church Anglican Service except for language and some wording of prayers, but one would hardly claim that our Tridentine Mass is based on a non-Catholic service, would one?

 

[DustinsDad]

(continued from above…)

Because they have common roots, in a common liturgical tradition, just like baptism, confirmation for some groups, etc…

With different doctrines, theologies, beliefs, etc (which have been condemned as heretical). Why blur the lines between the One True Church and (sorry if this offends) false ones?

I trust the Church (and Sr. Lucia)

On this question, I think it’s a matter of trusting the human beings inside the Church (of which I’d feel better if their story didn’t have so many problems with it. And which Sr. Lucia do you trust? (sorry, couldn’t resist ) And what do you think of the current happenings in Italy between Socci and Bertone? Interesting I say, very interesting!

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.

An interesting argument…but I suspect that if we are to read even Scripture in context, then perhaps reading Trent in context (seeing that they were explicitly rejecting Protestant* theology* which attacked the mass and the liturgy) will show that they were actually defending what traditionalists are defending - but maybe not defending every liturgical experimentation to come down the pike for all time. See:
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.
It isn’t these things the traditionalists are arguing aginst, it could be said that it is the lackthereof. Further, if no bad decisions could ever possibly be made regarding the liturgy, why would Pope Pius XI (while he was then Msgr. Eugenio Pacelli serving as Vatican Sec. of State) say the following:
I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. this persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul…I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past…(Roche, Pie XII Devant L’Histoire, pp. 52-53)
Was he lamenting about something that was impossible? And isn’t some of that which he mentioned come to pass? Now I will say it is impossible for the gates of Hell to prevail - but what is not impossible is for some very terrible battles along the way.

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.

I don’t think so…but he does sound like it’ is possible that the Magisterium could let their guard down - do nothing…
Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office. (Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1)
Lack of diligence is certainly something possible with the Magistarium. And according to prior saints - such as Thomas Aquainis and others - the faithful do have a right to petition their prelates - even the pope - when they see dangers to the faith spreading about the Church. I don’t have all the exact quotes handy, but I could find them. I’m sure you’ve seen them already.

Good talking to ya,

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[PepeRoni]

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.

The church can’t lead people into error? Since when? EVery impious worldly priest and bishop in Church history lead people into error if only by their example. Popes have signed heretically formulated statements of faith and excommunicated saints.

What the church cannot do is TEACH error as TRUTH. The idea that the Church can’t be wrong or do something either impractical or less sufficient for the advancement of the faith is a laughable modern innovation.

As to whether we now have less or a belief in the real presence,

“My first Communion was great. I got to taste the bread, but I did not taste the wine. I got to take pictures with the priest.” Yes, this actually appeared in a church bulletin’s collection of First Communicant reflections…and this one was better than some others featured in Mr. Maresca’s troubling “Scandals and Millstones”

Unfortunately you have to read the Remnant to get the article.

And I’d bet that if you polled the average Catholic they wouldn’t score very well on a test of Church teaching.

Heck, the average American can identify the century the civil war took place in.

 

[rwoehmke]

Its the same old story. We do it with newspapers. We do it with radio stations. We do it with Television Stations and Programs. We qall have a great propensity to gravitate to those outlets that agree with our own prejudice in matters and I don’t mean to use the word prejudice negatively. I used to read the Wanderer and the NCR in the same week. I decided after a year or two that neither was worthy of my time or money and sought other resources which in my opinion (prejudice if you will) presented a more reliable read. Anybody for the Sunday Visitor out of Indiana?

 

[PepeRoni]

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

Was that the teaching of the 1 Holy Catholic Church? It looks like a web site to me.

They have a problem with the Novus Ordo as utterly insufficient and inferior to the last. I’ve never read anyone at the Remnant say its invalid as properly celebrated. But there are plenty of horrors associated with the mass. The “Spirit of Vatican 2” seems to allow Masses celebrated by priests dressed as clown and chickens, with little devils coming up for communion and ridiculous “liturgical dancers” jumping around like loons. Go to an Eastern Catholic liturgy, they would never allow what the NO has become. At best, it is simply a service that seems to stress no Catholic doctrine, least of all that the priest is offering a sacrifice to God which is the central purpose of the Mass.

What is so amazing about the average Catholic’s obsession with condemning SSPX and traditionalists in general is this obsession with “obedience”. What is so disobedient pointing out the blandness and inadequecy of the NO and the grotesque infidelity to Dogma shown by so many of the faithful? What is disobedient about pointing out how John XXIII and Paul VI both called Vatican 2 a pastoral council and that its fruits have been nothing but decline in the church (unless you know of some positive developments that the rest of us aren’t aware of)? THe idea that all councils are wonderful things that people can’t criticize is either ignorace or revisionist history and those of you that subscribe to it can read up on the first few councils and the turmoil created with the Christology debates.

Even more surprising is how easy it is for the Church to excommunicate a Bishop despite the fact he hasnt denied one dogma of the faith, yet John Kerry still receives communion and next to no liberal catholic organizations have been excommunicated.

By the way, the institution you seem to worship (instead of the Truth which its to stand guard), has already stated quite clearly that the SSPX are not a schismatic group, renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410

and the Pope himself calls SSPX as INSIDE the Church:

"I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. "

 

[Margaret33]

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 find this a little like saying all Traditional catholics attend SSPX…
far from true… and too much of a generalization to have any real weight in reality.

Yes, God gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom for a reason… but that doesn’t necessarily mean Peter had any way of knowing what doors his predecessors would choose to open them with.

 

[Margaret33]

Be that as it may, the question doesn’t deal with protestants or priests. It deals with whether The Remnant can be relied on to provide reliable Catholic information. It can’t.

I think that this misinterpretation was caused by my lack of clarity in the original posting, actually. I was interested in opinions from those who already held Traditionalist viewpoints, and not intending upon the resulting arguments from/between those who already believe those viewpoints are less than or anti-catholic…

(which I don’t)

(all matters currently not in communion with Rome aside - and in my opinion another topic entirely)

 

[historyb]

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

Me too

 

[st_bernard]

I read it too and I’m a very faithful Roman Catholic 'in full communion with our Holy Father".

Pax Vobiscum

 

[KofC660]

I read The Remnant, prefer the 1970 Lectionary, disprove of any Novus Ordo Mass that isn’t in Latin and ad orientum (not that I’ve ever actually seen one), have only attend the Vetus Ordo Mass twice in my life (45 minutes from my house, too far for me), support the SSPX, and never have stepped inside of one of their chapels, and have no plans to (despite living a few minutes from one).

I’ve heard some strange things in my life, but to consider The Remnant magazine something other than Catholic is among the strangest.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I read The Remnant, prefer the 1970 Lectionary, disprove of any Novus Ordo Mass that isn’t in Latin and ad orientum (not that I’ve ever actually seen one), have only attend the Vetus Ordo Mass twice in my life (45 minutes from my house, too far for me), support the SSPX, and never have stepped inside of one of their chapels, and have no plans to (despite living a few minutes from one).

I’ve heard some strange things in my life, but to consider The Remnant magazine something other than Catholic is among the strangest.

You’ve only been a member here for a short time. Hang out a little longer and you’ll hear plenty. Especially when it comes to the SSPX.

 

[KofC660]

You’ve only been a member here for a short time. Hang out a little longer and you’ll hear plenty. Especially when it comes to the SSPX.

Why are people hell-bent against the SSPX?

I’ve heard more hateful comments directed towards the laity that attend a SSPX Mass than I have towards heretics (aka “Protestants”).

 

[paramedicgirl]

Why are people hell-bent against the SSPX?

I’ve heard more hateful comments directed towards the laity that attend a SSPX Mass than I have towards heretics (aka “Protestants”).

It’s one of those mysteries.

 

[BobP123]

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.

The logic used here is bogus. The Council of Trent explicitly forbade any new rites being introduced into the Church, much less not leading the faithful through any new rites into impiety. All Trent bets were off after VII, so to speak.

The Church may be incapable of heresy, but Churchmen certainly are very capable. And if some group “within the Church” can convince everyone that modernism is OK, then certainly an innocent one can easily be led to believe that the Church is capable of heresy. In the short run, it’s what you believe that counts, not what is.