Bring Back Tradition ⚔️

“Watch and pray, watch and pray, fifteen mysteries every day.” ♰ His Excellency, Bishop Richard Nelson Williamson (1940-2025).

@UnTradCath @poperespecter1 This isn’t the argument you think it is. Grow up.

@BringBackTradIG @poperespecter1 It’s very telling that you described yourself as a layperson of the sspx, and not a layperson of the Catholic Church.

Breaking : The Protestant Organization "Novus Ordo Watch" is now paying for ads to push a fake stories about the pope. They hate it that people saw this fake story and yawned. 🥱

@realsedepicante Curious why you didn’t finish the Masters? Phil B.A here 🙏🏻

SedePicante, has a philosophy degree and completed all the coursework except the thesis for a masters in philosophy. I also have minors in theology and sacred music, organ concentration, from Franciscan University. vs Abbate dropped out of high school because horny and ill-tempered. @CardinalThuc I think I'm beat 🤣🤣🤣

@realsedepicante Has to be a teenage southeast Asian kid.. I’d place my bets.

You gotta hand it to PR, he is the perfect Bill Buckley conservative! He stands alone telling the whole world to stop.

@cathcrusader123 @FinnishZoomer I would say this reply earned you a follow, but I’m not quite sure what you believe in? 😭

@FinnishZoomer Thoughts in your head are prelest. Ignatius of Loyola invented having thoughts. It's western rationalism and emotionalism completely foreign to our phronema.

Anathema to thinking! Anathema to all things intellectual! Anathema to having thoughts in your head!

@RussianPapist @FinnishZoomer W bio mate

@FinnishZoomer If Augustine didn't thoonk too much we wouldn't have had lesbian Protestant pastors btw

The example you cited is in direct contraction to 200 years of prior Papal Encyclicals and the constant teaching of the Church. The human person does not have a ‘right’ to religious freedom, but merely free will that can be directed to false worship. Since God is our Creator and Sustainer, we have absolutely no ‘right’ to disobey him. If you genuinely believe that proposition, you are not a Catholic, but a 1789 revolutionary. The Church has always taught the principle of religious tolerance- that inconvenient minority groups of false religions may be tolerated, but restricted, within Catholic states. Nowhere has the Church ever deemed their false cults permissible. Nowhere is your sickening modernism more apparent than your condemnation of Ottaviani. His Holy Office was consistent with Catholic teaching, whereas your favourite heretics- condemned by the church of Pius XII- directly opposed the faith. If you, following in the footsteps of your heretical predecessors, cannot comprehend why Latin must be used in the Roman Rite, you are either stupid or ignorant. Not only was the Latin language perfected in ecclesial matters, approved for the Roman liturgy for many centuries, a Holy Language consecrated by Our Lord by virtue of His death on the cross, superior in expression to other languages, a preventative measure against mistranslations, but a sign of unity within the Roman Catholic Church. Your last paragraph is absolutely sickening, and thus, this will be my last reply to you. Please repent. The Catholic Church is not culpable for ‘murdering non-Catholics,’ whatsoever. If you speak of the Inquisition, the Church never directly executed anyone. They might’ve found someone culpable for heresy, but the punishment was for the state to decide. Regardless of what you think, being sentenced to death for heresy is a highly evocative process that allows the sinner to repent and at least have the possibility of making it to Heaven, whereas they would have no such guarantee if they continued to live, notwithstanding the fact that they could poison the minds of others as well. If you believe that the Catholic Church was not preaching ‘the way of Christ’ before Vatican II- which you understand to be non-judgmental acceptance of false opinions, which is contrary to the Catholic virtue of charity- you are a heretic yourself. The Holy Ghost approved 1900 years or so of Catholic practice, and Vatican II did not come along to correct everything that came before it. Do everyone a favour and log off. Kyrie Eleison. Fidelis Inveniatur.

The council did not say it never had the intention to bind, and in some places it very clearly solemnly defined doctrine, like for example with religious liberty: "This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom" Benedict did not propose a hermeneutic of continuity. He proposed a hermeneutic of reform with continuity and discontinuity on different levels. The entire council all together rejected Ottaviani and the Curia precisely because the Curia wanted the episcopacy to merely rubber stamp their own decisions and not be involved. The global episcopacy did not sign off, but actively insisted on their own intimate involvement, and when a group of bishops showed themselves ignorant, it was very often the conservative minority, like for example when they insisted on Latin in the liturgy while being extremely poor Latin speakers themselves, whereas the majority of bishops promoting vernacular were experts in Latin. Yes, the Council got things right. It was long past due that we apologized for murdering non-Catholics simply for being non-Catholic, that we promoted the way of Christ, that we stopped pretending every non-Catholic was in bad faith and lacked sincere subjective repentance towards God, etc.

How do you balance being critical of the Church with remaining faithful to it?

Once again, a poor excuse of a reply and failing to address the fact that you think Catholics should follow a heretic condemned by our last normal hierarchy under a ‘traditional’ Pope. Many Council Fathers were swept up by the frenzy, fell prey to the propaganda of the Rhine coalition, as opposed to the Coetus Internationale Patrum, were Masonic infiltrators, or worse. St. Pius X of blessed memory told us within the first THREE paragraphs of Pascendi that the Church of his time was already infested with modernism, yet, you think it got better in the following years? Is not the Holy Office condemning heretics such as Congar, Teilhard de Chardin, Rahner, and their sudden approval by their friend Cardinal Roncalli turned Pope John XXIII suspicious enough? I’m aware of what the Magisterium is, thank you. I’ve read Msgr. Fessler’s commentary on Vatican I (approved by Bl. Pius IX) and Bishop Gasser’s Relatio. Vatican II was not binding because there was no intent to bind, it was explicitly deemed pastoral, did not define anything new, issued no anathemas, and is in contradiction with prior Magisterial documents. This much is clear by virtue of Benedict XVI’s ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity,’ which proposes that we interpret Vatican II in light of Tradition, because the Council is clearly not Catholic.

I would suggest that you study the council in its primary documents and from the people who were there. This notion that Bishops signed off ignorantly simply because the Pope approved is foreign to the actual event. Also, ecumenical councils by definition are infallible whenever they clearly and explicitly define a doctrine of faith and morals. In addition, the council was also an expression of the ordinary universal magisterium, given the documents were promulgated by over 90% of the global episcopacy in union with the Pope, which by itself, even if it wasn't a council, would amount to infallibility. So you want to embrace tradition, which taught these forms of infallibility, then you can embrace the council. Otherwise, you are already rejecting tradition.

Oh, you’re one of those Catholics. I suppose we shall remind you of the problem: the overwhelming majority of VCII Fathers blindly signed off on most documents simply due to the fact that JXXIII gave his approval. The Church was not in need of a humanistic and Masonic deformation based on post-WWII frenzy. Nonetheless, the Council was non-dogmatic and non-binding, and is in blatant contradiction with what was taught before. Let us not forget that the heretic Congar was forbidden from teaching or publishing from 1954 onwards, his books were forbidden under the pontificate of Ven. Pius XII, and then was suddenly unrestricted by John XXIII in 1960. You are deranged if you believe Congar should be followed in ANY capacity.

@BringBackTradIG @Catholic_bro the entire council, and the overwhelming supermajority of the world episcopate, all together unanimously peed on Ottaviani and the Curia, who were attempting to subvert the intentions of John XXIII and the purpose of the council. 🙂

@AmericanReform_ “So the Church has defected then?” No.

Instructive back-and-forth with Yarden, an IDF soldier, president of the “Hebrew Catholics” in Palestine and godson of Charles Coulombe.

@TLM_Ryan Mike Lewis is impossible to talk to.

I refuse to fight fellow Catholics who share 99% of my views when people like Mike Lewis, James Lindsay, Fr. James Martin, Cardinal Roche, Cupich and a thousand parish council Susans exist in this world.

@CristvoAnd111 @Catholic_bro How is that possible? Do you really think the Novus Ordo is a comparable liturgy?

Yves Congar was a heretic who peed on the walls of Cardinal Ottaviani’s Holy Office (twice!) because his ideas on religious liberty and ecumenism were completely heretical and he couldn’t stand that Card. Ottaviani actually preached Catholic doctrine. Never recommend Congar to anyone again 🙏🏻 thank you.

@Catholic_bro Yves Congar as a great book called "True and False Reform" that speaks to the necessary heart and disposition of the Catholic who believes there is need of some reform in the Church.

@LiguoriMilitant @Talonthepapist Msgr. Fessler is too high IQ for most modern Catholics.

@Talonthepapist There are few others like Monsignor Joseph Fessler, Cardinal Joseph Hergenrother, Francisco Suarez, and even Bishop Sanborn the sedeprivationist bishop said it CEAO is not binding. Furthermore, it was abrogated by the 1917 code of canon law

Good thing Fr. Coronata and many other theologians debunked this objection way before you guys brought this up:

@sspxcatholic1 @CathsAgainstJws “We accept Vatican II” is in their bio. Ironic how most groypers want to be ‘based’ but won’t read Nostra Aetate properly.

Getting blocked by @CathsAgainstJws for pointing out the jewish infiltration of Vatican II is wild. Controlled opp everywhere.

Got these a few years back. Very revealing on JPII’s thinking and development and how it opposed the traditional Catholic views. Like most who deviated from tradition, it was gradual. I just thought about them again and flicked through - definitely gonna re-read!

@FreeIrishman7 Bro is ratioing a celebrity 🤣🤣

“Get back to work Michael Knowles”

@PrayTheRosary We do not share any patrimony with Talmudic Judaism. Of course, Nostra Aetate was cited, because it is a vile departure from Catholic theology. Kyrie Eleison.

The USCCB has put out a video urging all Catholics to reject antisemitism

@FreeIrishman7 St. Simon of Trent!

I have found footage of Paul VI removing 305 Saints from the Roman Calendar in 1969! “Saint Philomena - afuera!” “Saint Christopher - afuera!” “Saint Valentine - afuera!”

EXCLUSIVE BREAKING JUST NOW! UNEARTHED: 1995 photo shows Pope Leo XIV participating in Pachamama ritual - LifeSite lifesitenews.com/blogs/unearthe…

Therapy was invented in the 19th century Confession has existed for over 2,000 years... It's when you examine your conscience, name what you did wrong, receive absolution, and make it right Freud took the structure, removed the resolution, and charged by the hour