Roman Catholic News

A place for good news! The Catholic Church is growing & full of hope. A diet of bad news & sin is not healthy, but bad news sells. Support the other side! Pax

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

Yes and that's great, was a neat idea and tradition to start, but before the tiara existed it was the same, the tiara represents the power, it isn't itself the power.... It was a great tradition, but it's not pertinent to the salvation of souls, a pope can bring on the tiara as a tradition to represent the 3 fold power of the pope, and a pope can just as easily take that away. Plenty of traditions rise and fall, they aren't Catholic dogma, give it a break. Let's focus our attention to bringing back more reverent liturgy vs worrying about this kind of stuff.

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

Read the bible, it sounds very protestant as well, but it isn't. I talk about Jesus and humility and I sound protestant? Read the history of the development of the tiara, regardless of whether the pope wears it or uses it, it does not take away from his authority. You can get worked up about it but God sure doesnt. I'm all for objects being blessed and becoming symbols to aid in the faith, like a cross, statue, bishops crosier, all the great Catholic items and symbols . . but they are not necessary for salvation. Also if a pope has the authority to make a really nice hat become a symbol of his three fold authority, and start a tradition, a pope has the power to remove it and end the tradition. Wake up my friend.

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

Are you kidding, one of the worst moments? The tiara wasn't always there and ever had to be. His authority is there regardless of this crown.... You think God cares about a hat full of gems? He cares about souls, wearing a tiara or not is political and symbolic, it doesnt help save souls, what the heck is wrong with this world. There are plenty other issues to focus on.....Jesus, the king of kings and 2nd person of the trinity wore a crown of thorns, born in a stable, died on a tree....at His ''worldly peak'' he rode a donkey instead of walking. For the love of God drop these ridiculous issues.

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

I have attended the SSPX for 25 years and I know for a fact that is not true, but that will just be he said she said stuff.

Im sure you are a great person and God bless you for keeping up the fight.

I like to pressure people who say the new mass is illegitimate or an offense to God,. I encourage you to read the text of v2 on the new mass, and even Michael Davis ''the new mass and vatican 11'' because when they examine it, it just isnt.

It is not the official promulgated new mas that is an issue and offense to God, but the abuses to the liturgy and lack of disciple, and possible infiltration.

The SSPX only says that because they have to in order to keep their position, otherwise they would just have to say a reverent new mass if they admitted the new mass was legitimate.

No one has ever offered a reason why the new mass is offense to God and intrinsically evil as the SSPX claims. They give reasons why the personally thin that is the case, but they dont have any Church teaching, canon law or catechism to back up their claims.

That is such a big claim to, to say that Christ's Church called upon the Holy Ghost and officially promulgated through all the proper channels and authority to all the faithful and bound them to a liturgy that was evil and offensive to God....all with just personal opinion, because it is not good enough, doesnt say enough times that it is a sacrifice etc....

I wouldnt put my soul on the line promoting that stuff.
Call out the abuses , please, but leave the actual text of the new mass promulgated by His Church alone, it fulfils all requirements! Here is something to read if you want to continue to make that claim. If you send me your email I can send you the entire article

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

Okay so all personal opinions then? Nothing concrete that is against any Church teachings that shows this is an offense against God or not a legitimatize mass?...you say I think it weakens, I think it does this or that, I think it shifts emphasis, and this person said this or that...and because all of that it offends God? That doesnt make any sense and does not prove the new mass is not legitimate in the slightest. People could use your reasoning and apply it to St Piux X when he shortened and changed the breviary. You could apply this when they promulgated the low mass, as a lack of due good....you could use your personal opinions to fight any change in the Church.....the Sede's due the same thing and make their own interpretations. The fact is that the new mass is legitimate and pleasing to God because it was officially promulgated by His Church and bound under pain of mortal sin to attend as a mass that fulfils your Sunday obligation.

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

No we did not go over why the new mass was offensive to God, you day it is, and I say prove it, and all you did was send videos of clown masses which is not a novus ordo mass. It is a corruption and abuse. What part of the new mass is offensive to God? and how is it illegitimate?

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

Firstly, the sex abuse crisis is everywhere and the SSPX is a staple for moving arpund sex criminals who kept harming - https://t.co/gS0llKZpfb
So I wouldn't bring that one up.

Secondly, who is making excuses for the filth, I keep saying we are in a crisis, im just saying the abuses and filth you point out are not the novus ordo mass, but an abuse of the novus ordo mass.

Lastly, the immaturity comes from you constantly posting feelings and videos of people doing bad things as an actual argument. We already established there is a crisis from the beginning. This is what many SSPXers do, they keep sending links or posts of liturgical abuses, or of other peoples sins....as if there is a certain amount of sin and abuse to tip someone over. The quantity doesnt change the fact that we need to go back to V2 and use the liturgy that the Church rightfully establish.

The new mass was fine for the first few years ABML even let his seminarians attend, until abuses started becoming rampant.

Now the SSPX says the new mass is evil regardless of the circumstances, but no one, including you is able to defend that statement or give me their definition of illegitimate and how it is applied in their view to the new mass - I can answer for you, it is impossible. Its just a personal opinion, because the new mass iteslf does not offend God, its full of praise and covers all the needed parts to make it a mass.

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

We already established people are sinners...if you could just mature past being scandalized , the Church is in a crisis we know that. Doesnt mean you can do whatever you want. Also this represents abuses, not what was asked for or promulgated, not even close. I see you are ignoring my question on you proving the new mass is not legitimate, but dont worry, I know why. Thanks for helping prove the point.

[Louis Massett @LouisMassett]

To fully understand why Pope Benedict did so much to help free the Latin Mass and lift the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops, one must understand the "why" of Traditional Catholicism.

Why did why did Archbishop Lefebvre and a group of young seminarians and priests start the SSPX?

Why did so many Catholics glam onto the movement in the 70s and 80s?

The simple reason is that: Scandal.

They were scandalized by what some people were calling "The Spring time of Vatican II". But many saw it as banalization of liturgy and in many cases out right heresy and/or liturgical abuse.

All of these abuses coupled with a number of Marian Prophecies that out right stated or suggested a future apostasy was all many needed to pledge allegiance to the Lefebvre schism and call themselves "Traditional" Catholics.

Today, Traditionalists point to the demographics as proof, that this crisis was because of Vatican II and the introduction of the New Mass. They were certain they were both a product of infiltration into the Church by Communist agents and Freemasons.

Perception is reality. They believed this, and this belief drove them to the fringe.

The only solution is to alleviate this fear, which was what Benedict wanted to do. Sadly, Pope Francis only reignited it and fanned it.

As long as the Vatican shows a double standard in discipline (allowing heterodox practices everywhere with little consequence, and punishing orthodoxy) the Church will only see this division grow.

I have spoken a great deal this month about the dangers of the SSPX--because I have seen it. But the truth seems that there are real Modernists that have influence in the Church with bad theology, and this influence has had dire consequences.

https://t.co/Kwx48RmKJR

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

haha, firstly some of those are fake news and not happening at a mass. Secondly, you could post all the most horrible things you want, doesnt change the fact that those are abuses! I agree with you, lets stop liturgical abuses and go back to the original Vatican 2 text on the new mass. None of the abuses to the mass were written in the text....altar girls, moving the altar, communion in the hand, lay faithful helping with communion etc....

I could post many SSPX scandals here as well, but that wouldnt help would it?

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

Okay, but you believe the new mass offends God? How so, where are the offensive parts, what makes the new mass illegitimate and not? I'm asking because the burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim with the SSPX. So, how do you define legitimate, and how then is the new mass illegitimate?

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

@matthew161320 @SSPXEN @AlexPoe134 I asked to show me where in the new mass that there is an offense to God, where does it lose its legitimacy? Prove it using Church Teaching, and not ''oh protestants helped make it so its bad'' .

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

The documents of Vatican two (read by someone without an agenda) comes across as united with the rest of Church teaching and completely acceptable, although some ambiguous language, that should probably now prudently be changed, in my opinion.

Which is why the popes have come out and clarified everything, specifically saying they are not heretical or conflicting with previous Church teaching!

Also, Popes have done many horrible things, reading Church history really helps. Esp when you realize that there horrible things done in the past by popes were all before social media and a camera in everyone hands, who knows how much more would have been brought up had their been.

For me to sit there and say that Pope has lost his authority because he is a heretic, he said something heretical,....oh and now he is the Pope again because he said that what he said was not heretical and he didnt mean for it to be interpreted that way, okay so he is good now and has authority again, oh now he has lost authority again...

You can sit there and read every article and news posting to wait and see if the Pope has lost his authority or has gotten back again.

I get it, I was a sede for a while, its an easy way out that makes you feel like you are one of the only TRUE Catholics left, and you love the real Jesus and are following Him! The reality is the Church suffers, no one is perfect.

When healing the lepers, Our Lord told them to go show themselves to their priests, to follow the law, even though the Jews were corrupt and evil men.

King David committed horrible sins, but he didnt lose his kingship. The 1986 Assisi meeting, or the kissing of the Koran does appear to be scandals actions, I agree.
That doesnt mean beyond all doubt that they believe a heresy or deny Catholic teaching.

What infallible document are you referring to that clearly is heretical and deny's a teaching of the Church?
The v2 council did not define any new dogmas or overturn infallible prior teachings. The Pope actually said it was a pastoral council.

Successive popes have extensively addressed and clarified exactly what the Second Vatican Council meant by both ecumenism and religious freedom, specifically responding to accusations that these concepts contradicted past dogma

The V2 popes clarified that Vatican II’s declaration Dignitatis Humanae changed the Church's political application, not its dogmatic truth. https://t.co/XoJ2pLTQYc

Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II emphasized that religious liberty does not mean all religions are equally true (the heresy of indifferentism). Instead, it means human governments have no right to force or coerce anyone's conscience in religious matters.

The popes repeatedly clarified that ecumenism does not mean merging Catholicism with other denominations into a compromised, generic Christianity. John Paul II and Benedict XVI reaffirmed that the fullness of the Church of Christ uniquely "subsists in" the Catholic Church.

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

I see, I apologize if I offended by not saying Bishop, even if illicit, I usually write to save time. In any case, The concept of sedeprivationism did not exist until the late 1970s.

No saint is history has held this during any crisis or at anytime , it was simply made up. People justify holding this position because it allows them to reject the modern changes of the Catholic Church while mentally preserving the legal existence of the papacy. It is an intellectual survival mechanism. And they quote theologians hypothetical scenarios, which is not church teaching. Where in Church teaching can his position be justified? And if you quote Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a Pope was a heretic before being elected.

The bull specifically addresses someone who was a heretic before being elected Pope, and you know why the pope at the time said all of this, im sure you have read the historical context.

It does not provide a legal mechanism for what happens if a legally valid, orthodox Catholic is elected Pope and then allegedly falls into heresy afterward, and again, every time a pope is question on some ambiguity they say ''I wasn't teaching anything new, this is not what I meant''. No v2 pope has rejected an article of the faith or taught any heresies infallibly.

Also, The document is no longer active Church law. It was legally replaced and abrogated by the 1917 Code of Canon Law (and later the 1983 Code), which treats papal elections and penalties differently.

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

@stephenheiner @Branen1977 So which sede group is sanborn a part of? The ones who have already elected their own pope? When private judgment is involved, how is the sede position ever going to end well

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

@Branen1977 @stephenheiner Same as Pope Liberius. Pope Liberius was a heretic and appointment other heretics, who then had the authority to elect valid pope.

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

@stephenheiner Using Church teaching and past examples, what were the uses of supplied jurisdiction in the past approved by the Church?

[Roman Catholic News @R_Catholic_News]

They asked not to consecrate bishops, that was all. And to dialogue. Also , let's play it out and start with your first concern, what is wrong with Phil acceptance of Vatican 2 in light of tradition? Since Rome has constantly said they have not taught anything new, and have not gone against any previous teachings. Bishop felays deal in 2012 was the perfect deal, had everything they wanted. Also, using cannon law, catechism, Church teaching, please tell me how the new Mass as it was written is not legitimate? Don't respond with personal opinion or feelings, prove that it is not legitimate