The Remnant Newspaper - Traditional Catholic News

[OutinChgoburbs]

You should avoid them like the plague. They are in error…If you’re content to read people who are so wrong about the Church, then I guess go for it.

I agree strongly with Kirk for the reasons he mentioned.

 

[BobP123]

I agree strongly with Kirk for the reasons he mentioned.

Error implies a certain degree of heresy to me. Where is there heresy? Please educate me, but please don’t ask me read any more of Stephen Hand or Pete Vere.

 

[Traditionaldan]

It would be better for you to read the paper and weigh the arguments put forth in the Remnant against the Teachings of Holy Mother Church. Asking an open ended question will invite very non-specific responses.
I know several of the Remnant Writers personally and those that I know are all in good standing in the Catholic Church.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Basically, forward thinking, modern Catholics “avoid the Remnant like the plague” as they see no merit in it for their innovative, novel approaches to Catholicism, and traditional Catholics, as well as some conservatives will read it and see value in the articles that speak to preserving the traditions of the Church.

 

[childofmary1143]

I think I have only read the Remnant once and it was just after Bishop Bruskewitz had excommunicated SSPX members in his diocese. The editor there took the Bishop to task for that saying they are good Catholics.

Now I would like to ask the people here who like The Remnant if they feel that the Bishop was justified in his excommunication?

For the record I don’t hate anyone as that is a sin but I would avoid any group who’s status is outside FULL COMMUNION with the Church. It should be noted that group would include the members AS WELL AS ITS CLERGY.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I think I have only read the Remnant once and it was just after Bishop Bruskewitz had excommunicated SSPX members in his diocese. The editor there took the Bishop to task for that saying they are good Catholics.

Now I would like to ask the people here who like The Remnant if they feel that the Bishop was justified in his excommunication?

For the record I don’t hate anyone as that is a sin but I would avoid** any group who’s status is outside FULL COMMUNION with the Church. It should be noted that group would include the members AS WELL AS ITS CLERGY.

Then you must avoid all Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, atheists, Wiccans, agnostics…How is it you manage to surround yourself only with Catholics?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Basically, forward thinking, modern Catholics “avoid the Remnant like the plague” as they see no merit in it for their innovative, novel approaches to Catholicism, and traditional Catholics, as well as some conservatives will read it and see value in the articles that speak to preserving the traditions of the Church.

You know, PM, you’re painting with an extremely broad brush. Some of us who avoid the Remnant are just simply obedient Catholics who trust the Church (ie, not “modern” in the sense of modernist. There isn’t a teaching of the Church I reject). The Remnant doesn’t seem to trust the Church.

 

[historyb]

Basically, forward thinking, modern Catholics “avoid the Remnant like the plague” as they see no merit in it for their innovative, novel approaches to Catholicism, and traditional Catholics, as well as some conservatives will read it and see value in the articles that speak to preserving the traditions of the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

(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…)

Which goes to what I said about “common roots” in the liturgical heritage of all Christian bodies. The Anglicans/Episcopalians say very nearly this very thing,"The Body of Our Lord JEsus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life."
**Where did they get that? The NO Mass is NOT protestantized by the presence of the vernacular (the Mass had been in the vernacular originally, was switced to another vernacular, Latin, which eventually wasn’t the vernacular anymore, it isn’t necessarily Protestant to want the vernacular, nor ESSENTIALLY Catholic to insist on Latin, and the Council of Trent didn’t condemn the idea of the vernacular, it merely stated that it didn’t seem timely to switch to the vernacular), nor is it protestantized by a free-standing altar (I can see why “traditionalists” want the Tabernacle front and center, but cannot see why they object to a free-standing altar, esp. some of the big, permanent marble ones, where the priest can walk around the whole thing to incense it), nor it is protestantized by anything. If it has things in common with a protestant service, like the Lutherans or Anglicans, it’s because they didn’t throw EVERYTHING out. If we’re going to dispense with things that look “protestant,” then we’re going to be dispensing with a lot that is out of our own tradition. Bishops will have to stop wearing pointed hats and carrying fancy sticks, won’t they? AND Communion in the hand was a part of our own tradition. It’s a sneaky form of modernism, isn’t it, to say that we know better than at least the Patristic and possibly the Apostolic Church or that OUR practice is more reverent than theirs (I receive on the tongue, btw)? **

**It’s ALL distinctly Catholic because all of it that’s true is derived from US. **

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.

**See above. **

(More to come…)

 

[DustinsDad]

Now I would like to ask the people here who like The Remnant if they feel that the Bishop was justified in his excommunication?

I don’t know enough about the situation to know if the excommunication was justified, but certainly as a bishop he has the lawful authority to do such a thing. Whether he used his authority wisely, I can’t really comment - I just don’t have the information. Besides, there’s probably a whole lot more to this story than we’ll ever know. Alot of politics in the Vatican, alot of forces at play. A battle is being waged inside the Church…probably bigger than most of us realize.

As for the SSPX, I have never been to a chapel (and am blessed to be 30 minutes from the St. Louis Diocese where I discovered the TLM at an indult and now attend regularly at St. Francis de Sales Oratory). If not for the indult, I never would have discovered TLM. Yet it seems that if it were not for the SSPX, I would never have discovered the indult. So I’m a bit torn. If they really are cut off from the Church, then they can do no more good spiritually…for themselves or others…but if it’s really an unfortunate “irregular situation” that will be cleared up over time, then they’ll probably go down as one of the forces that God used to save His Church.

As for their positions - I am very sympathetic and feel they’re dead on on about 90% of the time from what I’ve heard them say - and they’re about the only ones who will say and point out such things clearly - they’re asking the questions most conservative and indult catholics “can’t” ask…even the indults seem a bit muzzled on just how clearly they can discuss certain things.

That’s all,

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Which goes to what I said about “common roots” in the liturgical heritage of all Christian bodies. The Anglicans/Episcopalians say very nearly this very thing…

No it doesn’t - and you really dodged the whole point of my statment.

And when we talk about the protestantization of the mass, we’re not talking about the Anglican services - God bless 'em for retaining more of the appearances and signs of the tradional ancient mass than even the N.O. Now* that’s* pretty embarassing.

Bishops will have to stop wearing pointed hats and carrying fancy sticks, won’t they?

Of course - we must do away with all “ornaments” that smack of popery.

AND Communion in the hand was a part of our own tradition.

Yes, and the Holy Spirit was being overly rigid when He guided the Church into the practice of receiving Our Lord on our knees and by the hands of His ordained ministers. Perhaps next we can petition the Vatican to let us hand around a tray of hosts and shot glasses with the Precious Blood. Better yet, let’s all just start doing it, call it a normative cultural tradition, and get a “scholar” to claim this was they way it was done in the early church - the Vatican will surely have to allow it then! Cardinal Mahoney will be on our side for sure - and Kasper too probably.

Alright - got a little sarcastic there. Sorry. But you doged my entire post…I thought you’d address the actual things I brought out.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by childofmary1143
I think I have only read the Remnant once and it was just after Bishop Bruskewitz had excommunicated SSPX members in his diocese. The editor there took the Bishop to task for that saying they are good Catholics.

Now I would like to ask the people here who like The Remnant if they feel that the Bishop was justified in his excommunication?

For the record I don’t hate anyone as that is a sin but I would avoid any group who’s status is outside FULL COMMUNION with the Church. It should be noted that group would include the members AS WELL AS ITS CLERGY.

Then you must avoid all Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, atheists, Wiccans, agnostics…How is it you manage to surround yourself only with Catholics?

---

I would hope he/she does not have family that is outside “FULL COMMUNION” with the Church.

 

[BobP123]

I would avoid any group who’s status is outside FULL COMMUNION with the Church. It should be noted that group would include the members AS WELL AS ITS CLERGY.

Well, I just put my house up for sale and quit my job. Anything else?

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
I would avoid any group who’s status is outside FULL COMMUNION with the Church. It should be noted that group would include the members AS WELL AS ITS CLERGY.

Well, I just put my house up for sale and quit my job. Anything else?

---

You forgot–the grocery store, department stores, places of recreation, etc. You know how those outside “FULL COMMUNION” with the Church like to hang around those places.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…
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.

I’ve been to hundreds of Masses offered with the use of the reformed Missal - & seen never a clown, bishop in improper vestments, priest muck about with the offertory, or any other such horrors. ​

What is so amazing about the average Catholic’s obsession with condemning SSPX and traditionalists in general is this obsession with “obedience”.

• Disobedience
• to the lawful authority
• of the CC
• in a major matter
• affecting the Church’s unity

• is an extremely serious matter; obedience is not the supreme virtue, but it is a very important means of practicing it even so. If the four bishops of the SSPX were in danger of damning only themselves, their crime would be serious enough; matters are made far worse by the fact that they are leading others astray.

This is not a matter of “mere” canon law, so to say - it’s little less, ***if ***less, than a sacrilege, because it rips apart the unity of the Church of Christ. And leading others to sin is nothing less than diabolical.

Disobedience is not the way of Christ - He set His face to walk the way to the Cross; if we are His, we are not entitled to do differently. “He learned obedience through what He suffered” (Hebrews 5) - there is no clause letting us act otherwise. If we in His Body, then we go where He goes - not elsewhere. No matter how much it hurts.

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?

The Mass is God’s - not ours. If it pleases Him, as it does - then it is of little important whether we like it.​

Beauty is all very well, but external beauty is worthless without inward faith & obedience.

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)?

There are good fruits - but one has to have eyes to see them. It is simply not true that there has been nothing but decline. That reasoning would undermine Trent & Nicea I - they were both followed by lots of trouble.​

Councils are to be accepted whether pastoral or not - this distinction looks like a loop-hole for disobedience.

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.

That undermines your previous point. As for criticism - of what, with what tone, for what purpose ? To criticise the immorality of the German clergy, as St.Peter Canisius did, is not committing schism, as Mgr. Lefebvre did. Many criticisms in the past have been very harsh yet recognised as those of Catholics who desired the good of the Church - but how is the good of the Church served by tearing its unity ? That is the difference​

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.

He committed schism - so he was quite rightly punished for it. The objection would undermine many such excommunications. Besides, it is for the Pope, not the laity, to lay down the Church’s laws.​

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

Not “worship” - refuse to disobey​

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. "

That does not say the SSPX is not schismatic. It agrees with Ecclesia Dei, which excommunicated the men who tore the Church’s unity.​

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No it doesn’t - and you really dodged the whole point of my statment.

And when we talk about the protestantization of the mass, we’re not talking about the Anglican services - God bless 'em for retaining more of the appearances and signs of the tradional ancient mass than even the N.O. Now* that’s* pretty embarassing.

Of course - we must do away with all “ornaments” that smack of popery.

Yes, and the Holy Spirit was being overly rigid when He guided the Church into the practice of receiving Our Lord on our knees and by the hands of His ordained ministers. Perhaps next we can petition the Vatican to let us hand around a tray of hosts and shot glasses with the Precious Blood. Better yet, let’s all just start doing it, call it a normative cultural tradition, and get a “scholar” to claim this was they way it was done in the early church - the Vatican will surely have to allow it then! Cardinal Mahoney will be on our side for sure - and Kasper too probably.

Alright - got a little sarcastic there. Sorry. But you doged my entire post…I thought you’d address the actual things I brought out.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

I don’t think I dodged anything, DD, but if you’ll point it out, I’ll try to answer it. It boils down to this (and I say this with humility): I trust the Church. When the proper authority permits something, I genuinely believe that it is protected from misleading the faithful. I realize that popes are sinners, that the magisterium is given voice by men, expressed by men, but I believe that popes and the magisterium in the exercise of their offices of leading, guiding, and guarding the Church cannot lead the faithful astray. Even discipline enjoys a negative infallibility.

And loooooong before I was Episcopalian, I was Baptist…Congregationalist/Ana-Baptist/Calvinist worship bears NO resemblance to the Catholic Mass, the TLM or the NO. So you have to be talking about the Lutherans if you’re excluding the Anglicans and my point remains: common antecedents. The Methodists are somewhat similar, but that’s because they rose out of the Church of England.

I’ll be off for the rest of the evening. This is my mom’s computer and (can you imagine) she wants to use it!!!

 

[Unitas]

The Roman Liturgy was not Protestantized.

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” - Archbishop Bugnini, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

uh-huh.

 

[paramedicgirl]

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” - Archbishop Bugnini, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

uh-huh.

 

[childofmary1143]

Then you must avoid all Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, atheists, Wiccans, agnostics…How is it you manage to surround yourself only with Catholics?

---

You forgot–the grocery store, department stores, places of recreation, etc. You know how those outside “FULL COMMUNION” with the Church like to hang around those places.

The key word in my last post was “avoid any group”. I would not attend any SSPX mass. I would not attend any SSPX meeting. The same of course applies to SSPV. It doesn’t mean that I don’t talk with non-Catholics.

 

[KofC660]

The key word in my last post was “avoid any group”. I would not attend any SSPX mass. I would not attend any SSPX meeting. The same of course applies to SSPV. It doesn’t mean that I don’t talk with non-Catholics.

What do you think of the fact that a certain bishop excommunicated parishioners of SSPX chapels in his diocese has attended the “installation” ceremony of a Methodist “bishop”?

If a bishop excommunicates people for attending an SSPX chapel, isn’t it logical that he excommunicate himself for attending an “installation” of a Methodist “bishop”?