I still want to know why so many liberals in the RC Church

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

If JP II and clerics like Cardinal O'Connor are so "orthodox," then what are they doing about liberals like Andrew Greeley, John Meier, etc. who populate the RC Church. Where I live, there is an "auxiliary bishop" (whatever that is) who openly supports women priests. RC seminaries routinely teach higher criticism of the Bible. Not one thing is done about this. The charismatic movement is rampant w/in RC circles.

Let's face it you "conservative" catholics, your church was stolen by a bunch of liberals at Vatican II.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999

Answers

Steve,

You bring the truth in our Church which is often avoided by many but not this man. Many Bishops ours here for one are frustrated beyond belief for not having become Cardinals. It is termed Clerical Lust. It is not natural for a man unless he has came to grips within his heart to live a celibate life. Many of these many are twisted inside beyend belief.

As to Auxillaary Bishop I think that has to do with the Bishop being either retired or ill. This I am not sure of.

As to teachng methods in RC Colleges and Sems I was accepted by the Jesuits to enter but when I saw the affluent lifestyle I was sickened. I told the Superior I follow a man who wore tunic and sandals. He felt I did not have the proper attitude.

Hypocracy abound in the Curch as with any organized religious group. We come to the fore more often as being the oldest established and most vunerable. It is said by Greeley whom I think is great that more than 80% of the sitting Bishops have not read Vatican 11. They still want the comfortable known medieval mode. That mode is a thing of the past for we as a thinking and feeling Church need to evolve more and more towards being Christ like and leaving man's images behind.

Teilhard de Chardin a great thinker point this out more than a half century ago. He was black-listed. Greeley speaks the truth and he is cudgled by the " elders. " God forbid we learn the truth of how weak in areas we are.

Faith will not die in our Church and my hope is we come to-gether in love not as combatants over who is closer to Christ. He loves us all equally and that is a given for He is God of the Holy Trinity.

The Charismatic movement stems fro a '60 Pentecostal movement. I personall think they are hyper-neurotics. the Pope has never condoned the movement and is a Fathe being very patient with the children under his care. We have then in our parish and they do not attend First Friday Adoration or pray the Rosary. These are in part a very inportant elements for this Catholic who believes Christ live in the Tabernacle and Mary was a Virgin Mothers.

Got to stop my eyes are killing me. With love and peace - Jean B.

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 01, 1999.


Steve,I am new to this sight. Do you mind me asking what denomination you belong? It is really interesting how many people of other chuches are so concerned about the RC instead of their own problems. It must be true that all roads led to Rome, or does Rome lead all roads? "Thou art Peter and upon this ROCK I will build my church" This prophecy is so true. In the end the gates of hell will not prevail in her. That has to be true because She holds the life giving sacraments and liturgy and apostalic traditions.

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), July 01, 1999.

Steve,

First, I take exception to the use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in describing members of our faith. When asked a question using this terms, newly installed Archbisop George of Chicage said that there is no liberal and conservative in the Church, these are political terms, there is only orthodox.

The problem with dealing with scismatics and heterodox members of the Church is that they are very adept at causing the discourse to sink to their level. John Paul II has taken the approach of shining light on the Church by teaching orthodoxy and encouraging orthopraxy. He has taken harsh measures only when absolutely necessary - living the Gospel message.

Life offers a few problems that solve themselves over time. The problems of snow and youth cure themselves. The same with false teachers, scismatics, and heretics. Those that preach a message that is counter to the Gospel, or waters down the Gospel until is lukewarm drivel meant to tickle the ear of the secular society are a dying breed. Their message gains no converts, and the radical feminists and modernists that sought to distort the teachings of Vatican II for their own gain are like aging "flower children" of the 60's. The disobedient orders of nuns are dying out from lack of vocations, the radical priests are becoming old and bitter due to the surge of young, orthodox Catholics who have been energized by the authentic Gospel message taught by the Holy Father. These priests are encountering a new breed of Gospe reading, Faith inspired parisioners who are no longer fooled by the "Vatican II changed that" mantra and insist on authentic teachings and worship.

Fear not, this is an exciting time to be Catholic! Come to Steubenville, Ohio for a conference. Look at the growth of vocations in orthodox orders and orthodox diocese! Check out one of the Youth 2000 rallies that book up all over the country, taught by Fr. Benedict Groeschel's order of Capucin Fraciscans of the Renewal.

Our parish youth group went to Steubenville last year and were on fire for the Holy Spirit. Then they came home and went to a retreat put on by the touchy-feely/new age/modernist crowd from the diocese. You could tell by the looks on their faces when they returned that their Sense of Faith informed them of the difference - even if they couldn't put their finger on it.

We have turned the corner. Have faith. As the Holy Father prophesied, there is a new springtime coming in the Church! It is here now and is growing. The dissenters are like an old tree - they have always been dead at the roots, it was just a matter of time until the leaves fell and the wind of the Holy Spirit topples it.

-- ubi (ubi@petros.com), July 01, 1999.


Jean,

Theilhard was once an orthodox teacher, but he wound up doing much damage. Might I recommend a holy priest who taught a theology that was viewed throught the eyes of Faith and the teaching of the Magisterium? Fr. William Most wrote extensively and is available through Christendom College Press. Two books that I am familiar with are "The Consciousness of Christ", and "The Thought of St. Paul". Both offer a refreshing counter thesis to Theilhard.

Fr. Greeley is a strange bird. I remember e-mailing him a question challenging one of his treatises trampling the hierarchy and suggesting a dismantling of the papacy and a democratization of the Church. He never even dignified me with a response.

Dominus Vobiscum.

-- ubi (ubi@petros.com), July 02, 1999.


First, I am a Lutheran.

Second, I wish it were the case that liberalism is doing out. But from what I can tell of my "catholic" friends and the priests I have met, liberalism still seems to be the order of the day. Take JP II for example. How is his opposition to the death penalty consistent with Scripture? Why has he appointed as cardinals theologians who were once considered liberals like De Lubac & von Balthasar? Why does he engage in ecumenical events like the Assisi spectacle?

Someone said above that the pope only acts directly when he has to. Well, other than Curran, Kung, Schillebeecx & a couple of others, when has he disciplined any modernists in the church? Would he rather have modernists teach students at RC schools than get bad press?

As I said: the RC church was hijacked by a bunch of liberals at Vatican II.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.



[Well, other than Curran, Kung, Schillebeecx & a couple of others, when has he disciplined any modernists in the church? ]

Have you read the Papal document directed to those that teach in Catholic Higher Education? It basically said teach Catholic or change your name from Catholic to something else!

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), July 02, 1999.


I seem to remember hearing a couple years ago that the Vatican was going to do something about all the libs at its schools. Well, not much changed. I hope the Pope is serious about it this time.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.

In defense of My Pope I would like to point please he is part of a political process that fights him on many many issues. Jean Paul has pointed out the failures of the past and ths has fallen on deaf ears.

I admire the man very much and feel he will be brought to Sainthood soon into the new millinium. I am not asking for his death for sure. I hope he is Pope in 2010.

-- jean bouchardRay, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 03, 1999.


Steve, I am so glad to hear you are Lutheran because I think you could direct more of your energies into your church that is sinking in quick sand. Don't be offended because i know this to be a fact from personal experience. What synod do you belong? I know about the Missouri synod. I can confidently say that this group will not last. The very heart of the church of Peter kept them going for awhile now. These would include the liturgy, sacraments (2or3 at least) and SOMEof the apostalic tradition, (they refuse to believe any verbal traditions handed down). It is a fact that in these churches there is a general irreverence to the liturgy and the Eucharist because they have become optional in many of their church services. Their church is falling apart, Peter's church will never fall because it treasures the Gifts of God (LITURGY< SACRAMENTS
-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), July 03, 1999.

Steve, one more thing. Private confession found its death in the Lutheran church about 45 years ago, now even corporate confession and absolution is optional in the minds of many Lutheran popes.

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), July 03, 1999.


Lutheran popes?

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), July 03, 1999.

Yes, I am a member of the Missouri Synod (LCMS). It is not perfect -- it has its share of liberals and charismatics. All denominations do -- particularly the Vatican II church.

There is a lot of good that can be said about the LCMS. For example, 3 or 4 months ago Cardinal O'Connor had an ecumenical prayer service at St. Patrick's. At this event, a female "rabbi" led a prayer. There were also moslems and modernist protestants, too. Also, a LCMS minister was present. When the LCMS church was informed of his attendance, he had to apologize for attending an ecumenical prayer service with non-Christians.

Contrast this with the RC church. Did the Pope discipline Cardinal O'Connor for having a feminist lead a prayer? Of course not. One things for certain, you will not see the LCMS president at an Assisi- style spectacle or hear him tell Moslems that they are his "brothers in God" like the Pope has done!

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 03, 1999.


Steve, None of this really matters anymore. It doesn't mean anything. When the church looses its love for God's work< Liturgy< Sacraments Br. Rich, I was only trying to point out the hypocrisy held by many Lutherans about the issue of the Pope. No disrespect intended.

-- Pamela (rosylace@aol.com), July 03, 1999.

I am still waiting for an answer. No one wants to defend or explain what is done in the RC church, e.g. the "Assisi event," liberals in the seminaries, the charismatic movement, etc.

Let's face it you "conservative" catholics, your church was stolen by a bunch of liberals at Vatican II.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 03, 1999.


Steve,

I had atempted to approach some of these items on this very string. Please be patient with people as we are all atempting to communicate. = Peace = Jean B.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 03, 1999.



Vatican II was a Catholic church Council It had really nothing to do with the denominations within Protestantism.

[There is a lot of good that can be said about the LCMS. For example, 3 or 4 months ago Cardinal O'Connor had an ecumenical prayer service at St. Patrick's. At this event, a female "rabbi" led a prayer. There were also moslems and modernist protestants, too. Also, a LCMS minister was present. When the LCMS church was informed of his attendance, he had to apologize for attending an ecumenical prayer service with non-Christians.

Contrast this with the RC church. Did the Pope discipline Cardinal O'Connor for having a feminist lead a prayer? Of course not. One things for certain, you will not see the LCMS president at an Assisi- style spectacle or hear him tell Moslems that they are his "brothers in God" like the Pope has done!]

Are you trying to say that God does not hear the prayers of non- Christians or Females?

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), July 03, 1999.


Considering that the apostles and the early church were all "charismatic", I find it humorous to read charismatics listed among the "liberal".

Allow me tho ask a question, do you find charismatic Catholics to be liberal in terms of the way they treat personal sin, their prayer life, their knowledge of their faith and God's Word, their desire to be active in the church? In my experience, have found charismatic Catholics, in general, to be far more active, knowledgable, prayerful and passionate about the Lord that than average Catholic. If that's liberal, then praise God!!

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 04, 1999.


First, God hears the prayers of feminists and non-Christians when they are crying out for salvation.

Second, a Christian should not pray with a non-believer. Jews, Christians & Moslems DO NOT worship the same god. At the Assisi event (at which polytheists were present), JP II said that "we all prayed to the Lord." The Pope apparently thinks all religions worship the same god.

Third, there are similarities between liberals and charismatics. They (generally) put experience over Scripture as the norm of truth. For example, many early charismatics denied the Trinity. Most charismatic denominations (such the Assemblies of God) have women ministers.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.


Having studied for a period of four courses which involeved pre-med I recall anatomy being one of my fortes. If not all are praying to the same God who then? " Be they yellow black or white they are precious in His sight - Jesus loves the children of the world "

Regarding Charismatics I think as a whole they are hyper-neurotics based on a Pentecostal format of the 60's. Again I state our Pope has not brought this movement into the Church but we have been told to tolerate " them. " The Apostles were exposed and trained for a long while in disernment before they were given the gifts. = Peace = Jean B.

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 04, 1999.


I'd have to disagree with your generality Steve. I've been a charismatic for 15 years and while experience is an important aspect of our faith, it in no way is ever exalted over scripture. In fact, scripture is so important to us that we actually believe the Bible when it says that you should be filled with the Spirit, function in the gifts of the Spirit and that signs, wonders and miracles should be normative for the church of Jesus Christ. In my view, anyone who does not have powerful experiences in the Holy Spirit has insufficient faith in the Word of God which promises such experiences for all believers.

As to the "many" charismatics who deny the Trinity, there was/is a small group of charismatics who followed William Brahnam back in the 50's. They eventually developed a "Jesus only" approach to the Trinity. This fringe group (numbering less than a few thousand people) is properly treated as a cult by all other charismatic denominations whose members now number upwards of 400 million not including Catholic charismatics.

Just a note of clarification. The modern Pentecostal movement began around 1900. The charistmatic movement began around 1967 which swept the Pentecostal experiences into the mainline churches including the Catholic church. Many mainline denominations distrust and resent the charismatic movement because so many people who experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit left their churches (or were forced out). My last church had about 3,000 members, 80% of which were former Catholics including the associate pastor who was Catholic monk.

Just in case anyone is curious, in the 10 years I spent at that church, I cannot recall a single time when anyone from the pulpit discussed the Catholic church or its doctrines and at no time were people encouraged to attract people away from other churches. Our focus was and is 100% on bringing Jesus to people who did not know Him. That keeps us busy enough to mind our own business. We also did not have the opinion that we had the exclusive hold on the truth. Just that we were pressing in to know Christ and Him crucified.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 04, 1999.


I don't think anti-Trinitarian pentecostalists are limited to the Branham group. The United Pentecostal Church is quite large and anti- Trinitarian. Also, as I said, pentecostal sects like the Assemblies of God ordain women -- which makes them a false church.

The gifts of the spirit were given for a limited time to establish the church. In any event, speaking in tounges meant the gift of speaking a foreign language, not the mindless jibber-jabber of contemporary charismatics.

The pentecostal/charismatic movement is from the pit of hell.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.


Br. Rich Are these posts edited? You were much more gracious than I to Steve concerning his use of the word feminist. Now, you must understand that much despising abounds toward women (including Mary) in the LCMS. Poor dears, so scared of losing power and relevance they condemn women to second class status. It is a power thing. But in fairness to many in the LCMS women do read the Old and New Testament readings (legally)???? Many women led prayers publicly in the OT. I would really like to know how Steve defines feminism. What does he not agree with? Equal respect? Equal pay? Equal protection under the law? I do not think pro-abortion and hatred of men are feminist traits. I think that is just plain sinfulness. It is very possible to be a feminist (my definition) and be a good Christian. Do you hate people Steve? Hate the sin, but love the sinner???? Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy for I am a sinner. It is true that Christ is the only way to the Father we pray that all humanity will come to the truth. We plant seeds of Truth, let Christ be the judge of the hearts of people. Brothers of God is different than brothers in Christ. Christ only is the WAY the Truth and the life.

-- pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), July 04, 1999.

What's up with "rosylace"? Because I am against feminism, that somehow means I hate women & mankind in general?

The freaks are out tonight!

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.


Sorry steve, I just could not let this one go!!!! Ordained women makes a church false? Steve, Steve, Steve being a good lutheran you should know what Martin Luther said of such things. If there are no men available (either in body or mind) a woman must fill the need of the church. Do you consider the Latavian Lutheran Church false? They have had women pastors for years because their men had been taken and killed. The call of the ministry depends not on the gender of a person , but on the calling of God. If men are ABLE they are to lead for the sake of good order and the BURDEN of the priesthood is thiers. God holds the male gender more accountable for the sin of ADAM. However, due to the evils of this world it may be necessary to choose the lesser of two. A woman pastor or no pastor at all. This is Luther.s view. It may be different from the Catholic view. In a faithful Church the need may never arise. A false church is a church full of legalistic Pharisees who would say something like this. Oh Lord thank you that I am not like that sinner who has a female pastor at their church, or at that Church who has women distributing communion, we are so much better and we know it, we do everything you say. While the supposed false church may be not even feel worthy to look up to heaven because of the sorrow and repentance they have for thier sins. Have the heart of God instead of the reason of the Pharisees.

-- pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), July 04, 1999.

You got that right honey: a church with a woman pastor is a FALSE CHURCH -- A SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN.

Please provide the citation for your Luther reference.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.


Steve, Please answer the question. How do you disagree with my definition of feminism? Equal respect, equal pay, equal protection under the law. That is my total definition.

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), July 04, 1999.

I believe women should have equal respect and equal treatment under the law. Whether they deserve equal pay is another issue. Most women should be home with the kiddies rather than being at work having their self-esteem boosted.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.

I am NOT the moderator of this good board. But as a fellow member please don't let this go down into the mud if you know what I mean. As you both may know the Catholic Church has taken the stand that women cannot receive Holy Orders validly. Women are called into the many ministries within the Church that are open to them.

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), July 04, 1999.


I agree. This thread was supposed to be about what the RC church is or isn't doing about all the modernists at colleges, seminaries, etc. Let's stay "on topic."

By the way, Brother Rich, what do you think about the "Assisi event"?

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.


St. Francis of Assisi is the founder of my Order and to be honest I should have paid attention to the "Assisi event" but didn't.

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), July 04, 1999.


The Steve & Pam Show is starting to get a trifle boring. On one side is a person who wants to express their dignity and on the other is one who wants to control that same dignity. You chose the side in your own mind. As was asked let us not drag this into the mud for the string has lost it's focus.

This Catholic believes women are equal in every sense of the word. The acclaimed not proclaimed duties of both are established since the dawn of man.

In the beginning - no pun intended - man slew the beast and dragged the carcass home for the " little lady of the cave " to burn to the correct hardness the vitals. Grunt Gasps and Gas were the order of the day.

Now in this time frame we have learned that girls - God bless everyone of them - can actually think and be more productive than was thought possible. Victorian England placed " them " into a tried and true place of status. During that time though there were women who studied medicine painted composed music even and God forbid travelled abroad alone no less. Oh My Oh My!

The issue(s) of female priests I feel is a red-herring for many now as followers of Christ the Church and Christianity fall into a completely different frame of referance. These are God The Father's guidelines. Adam and Eve fouled up plain and simple and we are learning to rectify that gross error.

The women who were with Christ and the Apostles before and after the crucifixion were very special in that they left home and hearth to follow the intinerant trouble maker who was eventually killed by His own being the family of man.

When He visited Martha and her mom I think it was the one who sat with Him and listened was said to have chosen the better part. Think about that for this is one incident in which Christ raised women up. What a guy eh.

Could go on and on but for those who are disrespectful of women and are afraid of them it is your loss. For this man I thank God for women for without I would be a further mess then I am. = Peace = Jean

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 05, 1999.


Steve,

I agree with you. Vatican II was highjacked by a bunch of modernists. We are still reaping the fallout of that to this day. There, are you happy?

Now, three points.

First, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. She has faced dark times before. Is facing dark times again. She will face dark times in the future. We have to have the courage, indeed the faith, to see the Body of the Lord under the bruises, cuts, and nail holes.

Second, all councils have this sort of fallout. The Arian heresy got worse after the Council of Nicea!!! Jerome exclaimed that after everybody thought that such a decisive move would vanquish the heresy forever, behold "The world groaned to find herself Arian." So these things do indeed take time. But the modernists are dying out, if only because they are spiritual geldings; by rejecting the historic and orthodox Catholic faith they have ripped off their own spiritual viscera and so are incapable of reproducing. One only has to attend a "Call to Action" conference to see plenty of grey hair. One only has to attend a Defending the Faith conference at Steubenville to see young families with lots of children. Death by attrition, at the very least.

Third, I am always amused at folks in your situation who rail against disciplinary problems in the Catholic Church when, in fact, your sect has as part of its very raison d'etre two radical breaks with the Apostolic Tradition and rank heresies, namely sola fide and sola Scriptura. So, care to explain your own continuation in heresy while you're busy throwing rocks our way?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 05, 1999.


First, I am not throwing stones. I am simply pointing out to the "conservative" and "neocon" catholics that JP II is no great defender of orthodoxy.

Second, the Reformation is not part of the problem -- it is part of the solution. If there were no Reformation, who would be there to stand for the authority of scripture, the uniqueness of Christianity, and against the charismatic movement, etc.? Certainly not JP II and his supporters like Cardinal O'Connor.

Third, sola scriptura and sola fide are taught in Scripture. The doctrine that man cannot be justified by his works but must seek salvation in the finished work of Christ on the cross set millions free in the 16th century. It sets men free today.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 05, 1999.


"Third, sola scriptura and sola fide are taught in Scripture." I do know that it is specifically in Scripture "NOT by faith alone..." and nothing in the Scripture states the former. If one stands on the foundation that the Scriptures explicitly and clearly state all Divine Revelation. Then one is standing on an unstable foundation. The events of the 16th century mostly set people into confusion.

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), July 05, 1999.


Yes, absolutely Steve, if sola fide and sola Scriptura are taught in Scripture, start another thread to show us where. Now that would be a thread worth having.

Show us where the Bible says we are justified by faith alone.

Show us where the Bible says that the Bible alone is our authority in faith and morals.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 05, 1999.


Also, let's be sure to keep Steve's comments about John Paul II in perspective.

As I have pointed out several times, the Holy Father's comments about positive aspects of various non-Christian religions are balanced by his frequent statements that Christ is the only way. Steve wants both statements in the same sentence (or perhaps no positive statements about other religions at all) but, regardless of Steve's personal desires, the Pope's statements are balanced.

This pope has infallibly reaffirmed the Church's perennial teaching prohibiting women priests. Hardly the work of a closet modernist.

This pope has written powerful encyclicals against the culture of death and moral relativism in modernist philosophies. Not exactly the work of your average liberal.

Steve claims that John Paul II is oh-so-mean to "traditionalist" Catholics like Archbishop Lefevbre (sp?). But Lefevbre ordained a bishop without permission from the Pope, a terribly serious act of public disobedience. For this he was disciplined by excommunication. Rightly so. So no more cry-baby blubbering about the poor, disobedient Archbishop.

Do modernists fare better? If their shenanigans get to be as public as Archbishop Lefevbre's then no. A Sri Lankan priest was recently excommunicated for publishing a heretical book. An auxiliary bishop of Detroit "resigned" a couple of years ago after his support of a homosexual group contrary to Church teaching was made public by a determined group of lay people.

Other points need to be made to gain larger perspective. Vatican II was an ecumenical council; its teachings are infallible and are fully in line with the deposit of faith passed on by the Apostles to the Catholic Church. When you find modernists invoking the "spirit of Vatican II" to justify their disobedience you can be sure that the actual text of Vatican II will be 180 degrees opposed to them. The "spirit of Vatican II" propaganda that has been deployed so successfully by the modernists is a code-phrase for "I wish it was in Vatican II, but it's not."

Finally, as I have mentioned above, the modernist are dying out, by attrition at the very least. They are spiritually sterile, incapable of reproducing. Modernist priests are rapidly aging; the newer generation of priests in training is overwhelmingly solid and orthodox. Bishops such as Cardinal George of Chicago are busy rousting the modernists from their seminaries. Dioceses with vocally orthodox bishops get a plethora of vocations while modernist dioceses get a trickle. Monastic and religious orders that have been hijacked by modernists are turning into old folks homes; newer orders are filling up with enthusiastic and orthodox young men and women.

Don't think I'm just a pollyanna about the mess the Church is in. I live the mess everyday; my own parish is dead as a doornail and it has truly been a cross for us to bear that wrenching loneliness that brings. But it took the Church 40 years or more to get into this mess; it won't get turned around in 4. Maybe it'll take 40 more to straighten out, after the modernists die off. Perhaps it'll take a time of tribulation and persecution to separate the wheat from the chaff. I don't know. What I do know is that the Catholic Church belongs to Christ and he will never leave her nor forsake her. You are outside the Barque of Peter, Steve, to your own spiritual peril. Come join us in the struggle; don't just stay outside throwing rocks.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.


David, Glad you are holding out in the lonliness. Steve should be more concerned about his own mess. Well, I am taken with the Pope and his caring for all people. You can't save people if you don't have a love for them. That is what Christ was all about. Faith comes from His love to us. This is our great example of true love. He came for the sinner. He wanted to sup with the tax collector. I am glad that the Pope stands for something. It is very true that Eve does not share the burden of Adam. The priest is the slave of the people. God did not create woman for this burden of responsibility. The Pope loves all and I'm sure he is for helping poor single mothers( Who's husbands have left their responsibility, to receive equal treatment of men in terms of respect and equal pay. The best thing Church can do is teach responsibility to men or for people like Steve to help these women stay st home with their children by paying for it personally

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

Concerning the Pope's view of non-Christian religions, I made the following points in my "Did the Pope Really Kiss the Koran" thread in detail: (1) the Pope has an almost entirely positive view of non- Christian religions (see, e.g., Redemptor Hominis 11.2); (2) in his addresses to non-Christians, the Pope never (to my knowledge) tells them their eternal destiny is contingent on whether they believe in Jesus; and (3) the Pope has never (to my knowledge) said Christians have an obligation to preach the Gospel to the Jews. These points were not refuted. While the Pope may say that Jesus "is the only way," Rahner also said that with his "anonymous Christian" thesis. The question is: Does the Pope teach that people must believe in Christ to obtain eternal life?

The Assisi event took place on October 27, 1986. "The practical realization of the Prayer for Peace of various religions took place in the following manner: One after the other, the Buddhist, Hindus, Jaines, Muslims, Shintoists, African tribalists, Parsees, Jews and Christians . . . commended their way of salvation and offered their 'peace prayers' before their divinity. The ways of salvation as taught by Siddhartha Guatama and the Shantiveda, the Shankra, Vardhamana Mahavira, Mohammed, Nanak Dev, the mythical Ancestors, Zarathustra, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth all stood in a line. One after the other and side by side, the following were presented before the eyes of the whole world as the "Highest Power" or a "God": Buddha, the Bodhisattvas, the divine Brahman, the Jina, Allah, the numinous Kami, Nan-Sat, the Great Thunder, Manitu, Ormazd, Yahweh, and the Triune God." Johannes Dormann, Pope John Paul's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi (Angelus Press 1994), pp. 9-10.

This weekend I will prove -- from the Pope's own writings -- that he is a modernist (as if the Assisi spectacle isn't proof enough).

Stay tuned.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.


This person is somewhat confused with the term " modernist " in these talks. If a modernist is one wants to see the healing of so many rifts of various religions and the family of man come to-gether as one under God The Father then I am modernist.

The Pope whom I follow I believe wants the Family of Man to join hands in love and charity. This what I feel makes him a GREAT man in our age.=Peace=Jean B.

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 08, 1999.


Steve Jackson - I sure would like to see you accept Dave Palm's challenge and show Catholics that Faith Alone and Scripture Alone are Biblical.

Then again Dave, you are asking an impossibility ;) . Keep up the good work!

-- Jorge (JTrujillo7203@hotmail.com), July 09, 1999.


Thanks Jorge.

Yeah, I think it's incumbent on Steve to do so, if he's purporting to be anything but a rock thrower on this forum. I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish with this diatribe against the Holy Father. Let's say for the sake of argument that he's right, that John Paul II is a modernist and no friend of orthodoxy. So what? He has officially taught only orthodox Catholic doctrine. The one time he has invoked papal infallibility was to quash the possibility of women priests, which is right in line with Catholic orthodoxy. Other popes in history have given scandal by their actions -- so did certain Apostles, namely Sts. Peter and Paul. That did not invalidate their authority as Apostles, nor their ability to write infallible Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit. So scandalous behaviour by a Pope (and I think we're getting a slanted view of what transpired at Assissi) does not invalidate either the validity of the papacy or the larger claims of the Catholic Church.

So what is Steve's agenda here? What does Steve want us to do, leave the Catholic Church for a schismatic or heretical sect? Forget it. Why would I trade Catholic orthodoxy for the unbiblical "traditions of men" -- sola fide and sola Scriptura -- that form the very foundation of your denomination?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 09, 1999.


David, just out of curiosity, what scandal were you referring to in regards to the Apostle Paul?

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blzaenet.net), July 09, 1999.

Glad you asked, David. I figured somebody would pick up on this.

In Galatians 2:11ff. St. Paul tells of St. Peter's behavior of kow- towing to the Jewish party in exclusion of the Gentiles. He rebukes that behavior (notice, of course, that there was no teaching involved with what Peter did so the notion of infallibility does not even enter into this). In Galatians 5:2 he has these strong words:

"I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."

So, Paul says that Peter was a hypocrite for acting in such a way as to favor Jewish sensibilities and that circumcision will actually render Christ null for you.

But in Acts 16:3 what does he do? "Paul wanted to take [Timothy] along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."

Now, tell me that St. Paul did not do just what he rebuked St. Peter for in Gal 2:11ff. I think it was highly hypocritical behavior.

Apostles (or popes, for that matter) can be infallible but they are clearly not impeccable.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 09, 1999.


David'

I think that the example is clear. Paul was appropriately applying and dividing Law and Gospel. In the first instance the people were wrongly assumimg that the law of circumcision of the Jews applied to salvation, since the new Israel is saved by Christ's grace alone through baptism. In the second instance as not to offend the cause of the gospel, Paul becomes all things to all people to show the love (gospel) of Christ, so Timothy would'nt hinder the gospel to the Jews he was circumcised.

-- pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), July 09, 1999.


First of all, my "agenda" is to preach the truthfulness of Christianity in age obsessed with pluralism, diversity, ecumenicalism & Assisi-style indifference.

On a lower scale than that, I want to warn RCs of the modernism & false ecumenicalism advocated by the Vatican. Many RCs would be shocked to learn that the pope thinks Moslems are his "brothers in God," etc.

By the way, how come no one has taken me up on my challenge to: (1) find a statement by the pope to non-Christians that their eternal destiny will be determined by whether they believe in Jesus; and (2) find a statement by the Vatican teaching the necessity of preaching the Gospel to the Jews? Since JP II has been pope for 20 years (I think), such statements shouldn't be hard to find if he is "orthodox."

Let's face you "conservative" catholics, your church was hi-jacked by a bunch of modernists at Vatican II. But -- by the grace of God -- many LUTHERAN churches have remained faithful to Jesus Christ.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 09, 1999.


So much bickering of who is right who is wrong. I for one have become very very tired of this site once again. Se you in the fall when the weaather allows heads to cool.=Peace=Jean B.

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 10, 1999.

Steve,

I have already pointed out that it is NOT necessarily required for a non-Christian to believe in Christ in order to go to heaven, if he has no access to such knowledge but lives in light of the knowledge he does have. So that "challenge" is a red herring. Can you find statements from every other pope prior to this one that the Jews should be preached to? If not then your again setting a silly standard.

You, on the other hand, have not ponied up an answer to our challenge. Where does the Bible teach sola fide and sola Scriptura? I contend that none of the Lutheran have remained faithful to the Apostolic deposit because they have as their very foundation these unbiblical traditions of men. So how about it?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.


<< But -- by the grace of God -- many LUTHERAN churches have remained faithful to Jesus Christ. >>

BTW, I'm resisting the temptation to go into the gory details of just how hypocritical Steve is here; talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Shall we really shine a search-light on Lutheranism as a whole, Steve?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.


I imagine there is not a statement from every pope that Christians have an obligation to preach the Gospel to the Jews. However, considering the evidence that I presented a while ago, I would like to see at least a statement from a Vatican big wig that Jews need the Gospel as much as everyone else.

Pope Benedict XIV quoted St. Bernard in A Quo Primum (1751): "Doesn't the Church every day triumph more fully over the Jews in convicting them than if once and for all she destroyed them with the edge of the sword. Surely it is not in vain that the Church has established the universal prayer which is offered up for faithless Jews from the rising of the sun to its setting, that the Lord God may remove the veil from their hearts, that they may be rescued from their darkness into the light of truth. For unless it hoped that those who do not believe would believe, it would be obviously be futile and empty to pray for them."

Would JP II quote this?

It would be good to debate sola scripura & sola fide soon, but those issues have been debated ad naseum. Ecumenicalism and the pope's modernism are "hot button" issues in my mind.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 13, 1999.


Steve,

While walking to the library to-day you entered my mind. My thoughts were it is astounding to me to think of the combination fact and fallacy that have been presented to you by whomever taught you Christianty.

So much hate violence predjudice is there I truly wonder if you are able to decipher fact from fallacy? Your mindset speaks of so much intolerance I wonder who would fit into your " Heaven ".

I think Satan has a strong hold on you confusing your love for Christ into a sword to harm others rather then a dove of peace. As a Catholic I trust in being told to have the eyes of a snake but the heart of a dove. Do you understand that in gentleness?

Your have a dark blotch in your heart of a tragic fundamental religion based on such a closed mind and heart I shake my head at times thinking just how much hatred there is in the world guised as love for Christ.

Christ did not judge He did not hate He did not demean others. He gave a spiritual prescription Rx for humanities suffering and loss of dignity. This is the road Catholics attempt to follow. Will you not consider joining us?

Perhaps a retreat in a Monestary with monks who are more aware of the world of men then most think. They are in touch with the nerves of this world. I hope you would consider this and take advantage of being away from the world where the bleating of the lambs is overshadowed by the roar of the lions.

Peace Be With You Steve

A Very Little Brother In Christ

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 14, 1999.


Jean and the rest of you good people:

sometime ago i posted something like this: let's look not at the things that separate us, but rahter to those that unite us.

WHY DON'T WE START FROM SCRATCH, FORGETTING ALL THIS NAME CALLING AND MUD THROWING ? There are so many beautiful things in every religion: love for oneanother, universal fraternity, honest seeking of ways to find God and live accordingly, prayer for oneanother, etc etc.

of course catholics have a right to defend their religion when it is attacked, but let's do it in a respectful and "christian" way, by that meaning that if you consider people from other faiths your enemies, you still to have to follow the gospel: love thy enemies and pray for them that persecute you.

I modestly ask: if in any of my postings i offended someone, please forgive me, and if in the future i deviate from the thoughts i'm expressing here, please admonish me.

THNK YOU ALL.

ENRIQUE

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), July 14, 1999.


Hello folks: I am somewhat reluctant to enter this debate, as unbending subjectivity in such religious thought patterns is generally the norm. However without entering it as an argument I will add my thoughts to the others. We as Catholics I believe must change drastically in our approach to the Catholic faith or we will die. For much too long, I believe we as a church have gone through the years with blinders on. I use the term church here, meaning all of us from the Pope on down. Society has changed drastically in the last 30 years or so and much of the church retoric we use only falls on Catholic ears that have felt for along time now that much of our tough doctrine is a non issue. The young people for the most part will not accept it and just leave our church. Many entering into a second marriage for example cannot and will not except the red tape of marriage tribunals so they leave the church. Why do we make it so difficult for them when our brothers and sisters in other denominations do not. In our diocese we have a very serious shortage of priests and churchs are now being shut down because of it. Why? Of course it is again, because of a very inflexable church, which will not move with the times and ordain married men and women. It is this same reactionary church that continues to restrict the possibilities of the priesthood of the laity. It is a church that continues to maintain a Vatican empire of worldly power that its founder I'm sure never wanted. Why do we need a Vatican state of 1000 people at the head of our church? Yes its nice for tourists, and it might feel good to wield that much power in the world but is this the gospel message? I believe it is time for Rome to wake up and smell the coffee. The Catholic Church is falling down around its ears and all the great encyclicals in the world wont change this. Only common sense will. It is time for objectivity and the removal of the blinders. Time for a Pope to really lead his Catholic Church into the new millenium.

-- Gordon Shaughnessy (Gordon.s@sympatico.ca), October 18, 1999.

Gordon - I am surprised at the statement of a new Pope needed. Our current Pope has brought forward many new changes and been constantly met with reluctance and rejection by the Magesterium.

I am in agreement with your view(s) of married priests as all Apostles except Joh were married I believe. Christ would not I am sure have chosen little boys to start His Church.

Also in agreement with what the Institution has become being very self-serving in many areas. Priest are no longer held in the high- esteem they once were due to their own follies being made public more and more. They are very little trusted by many and simply given lip- service in obedience by the laity.

As to Vatican 11 it is said as much as 80% percent of sitting Bishops have not read the document as they do not want to lose their perveived power hold on the masses. This is to their shame and detriment as we are now (laity) becoming more and more aware through education.

The deposit of faith has not changed I feel rather the stepping wawy from the mind-set of Pre-Antioch has been the folly of man. Our Pope I feel has attempted to point his out and has not gained support for doing so. He like many is a sheep sent out among wolves.

Christ is still the wonder counselor of whom I turn to in time of need. In Him I trust and often question the Princes of this Church.

Peace And Well Being - A Little Brother In Christ.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 19, 1999.


Well Gordon,

As G. K. Chesterton once said, a dozen times it looked like the Catholic Church was going to go to the dogs, but it was the dogs who died and the Church is still around.

Let me guess. You think contraceptives are okey dokey, that homosexual acts are not intrinsically sinful, and that remarriage after divorce ought to be allowed. All because our culture says so?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.


David - Briefly on the issue of marriage and divorce surely we have developed enough in our humanities to not allow a woman to suffer life-long due to mis-judgement as a youth and vice versa I ask?

I was once married and it was based on needs and not a giving love. As an adult now I realize my errors and have been told " caste your sins behind you as you are forgiven. "

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 23, 1999.


Hi Jean,

It's a matter of Christ's words, not our increased humanity. Our Lord Jesus said that marriage was permanent. If the Church determines that there was no sacramental marriage then of course one is not bound; but the Church cannot simply ignore what Christ taught.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), October 24, 1999.


David - In truth I am saddend to read you addition. Surely if a couple are not in union with God The Father then they are not recognised. I speak from a heart-felt road. Now that I feel in union with the Father through Christ should it be given I would accept another wife in His name asking she accept me in His name. +peace=

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 26, 1999.

Jean,

I understand that this is very personal for you, but the entire Christian Tradition says that once a sacramental bond of matrimony exists between a man and a women then only death of one spouse can dissolve that. This is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself; it could not be more clear in the Gospels. The Church cannot change the teaching of the Lord Jesus because of individual personal pain. There are very many couples who indeed "marry" without receiving a sacramental marriage. But that is for the Church to decide, not each individual. But I am sorry that it is a hard teaching and one that puts you in a difficult obedience.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), October 26, 1999.


:-( Note, " The Catholic hater, Jackson!

-- @@@@@ (@@@@.com), June 29, 2002.

Hey Mr. Jackson:

Greetings to you, and HAVE YOU GOT A GOOD LOOK AT PROTESTANTISM LATELY???

Let's see, we've got three branches of the Presbyterians; one conservations, two liberal. One branch just recently okayed late term abortions. (No wonder they call them the Split P's)

Let's look at the LUTHERANS; two conservative branches, one liberal.

Let's look at the Baptists; there's Southern Baptist, Freewill Baptist; Independent Baptist (which is really scary!)

Let's look at the Methodists; who are right on the brink of embracing homosexuality and have already begun marrying gays.

Let's look at all of the ZILLIONS of heretics on TBN masquerading as "Prophets of the Most High" while they spew heresies from the "Health and Wealth Gospel" to "Christians are EQUAL with God, and if you don't have a big pocket book its because you don't realize YOU'RE EQUAL WITH GOD."

Let's look at the so-called "Faith-healers" who have bilked MILLIONS out of their devotees, promising healings for the MOST desperate among us!

Apostasy is EVERYWHERE. So, Mr. Jackson, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

Gail

P.S. The enemy is having a FIELD DAY in Protestantism! So I wouldn't be TOO smug if I were you!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), June 29, 2002.


Steve,

I have been reading this thread from the beginning (1999) and am wondering - What is the Assisi Event you referred to way back in a 1999 post?

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 29, 2002.


Gail, Thanks for the great post. I'm surpised that Steve, who supposedly is well read, holds so dearly to his prejudices. He surpresses common sense when it threatens to break the glass palace that he's built for himself. His question here seems to be typical of most of his contributions: Steve perceives a corruption in the Catholic Church and he posts his complaints for everyone to see. Steve is a true Lutheran. 500 years earlier, Martin Luther saw religious abuses and had the opportunity to be a part of the solution to eradicate these abuses. Instead, Martin Luther chose not to solve the problem; but instead to post his complaints for everyone to see. He chose to identify these problems as a means to obtain the power he desired (promoting his wacky theology). In this sense, Steve is acting as the quintessential Lutheran, using attacks on others as an attempt to elevate his own self-worth. For those who are Morresey fans, here's something of interest: "We hate it when our friends become successful...
If we can destroy them
You bet your life we will destroy them.
If we can hurt them, well,
We may well.
" Jealousy is the devil's tool to destroy us as individuals and as a group. Martin Luther acted on his jealousy, even as a great reformation within the Church corrected the corruptions that many faithful Catholics saw. I also thought that last week's OT reading was germane to this kind of prejudiced attack: Jeremiah 20:10-13 - For I hear many whispering. Terror is on every side! "Denounce him! Let us denounce him!" say all my familiar friends, watching for my fall. "Perhaps he will be deceived, then we can overcome him, and take our revenge on him." But the LORD is with me as a dread warrior; therefore my persecutors will stumble, they will not overcome me. They will be greatly shamed, for they will not succeed. Their eternal dishonor will never be forgotten. O LORD of hosts, who triest the righteous, who seest the heart and the mind, let me see thy vengeance upon them, for to thee have I committed my cause. Sing to the LORD; praise the LORD! For he has delivered the life of the needy from the hand of evildoers. In Christ, Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 30, 2002.

Try number 2:

Gail,

Thanks for the great post. I'm surpised that Steve, who supposedly is well read, holds so dearly to his prejudices. He surpresses common sense when it threatens to break the glass palace that he's built for himself.

His question here seems to be typical of most of his contributions: Steve perceives a corruption in the Catholic Church and he posts his complaints for everyone to see. Steve is a true Lutheran. 500 years earlier, Martin Luther saw religious abuses and had the opportunity to be a part of the solution to eradicate these abuses. Instead, Martin Luther chose not to solve the problem; but instead to post his complaints for everyone to see. He chose to identify these problems as a means to obtain the power he desired (promoting his wacky theology).

In this sense, Steve is acting as the quintessential Lutheran, using attacks on others as an attempt to elevate his own self-worth.

For those who are Morresey fans, here's something of interest:

"We hate it when our friends become successful... If we can destroy them You bet your life we will destroy them. If we can hurt them, well, We may well."

Jealousy is the devil's tool to destroy us as individuals and as a group. Martin Luther acted on his jealousy, even as a great reformation within the Church corrected the corruptions that many faithful Catholics saw.

I also thought that last week's OT reading was germane to this kind of prejudiced attack:

Jeremiah 20:10-13 - For I hear many whispering. Terror is on every side! "Denounce him! Let us denounce him!" say all my familiar friends, watching for my fall. "Perhaps he will be deceived, then we can overcome him, and take our revenge on him." But the LORD is with me as a dread warrior; therefore my persecutors will stumble, they will not overcome me. They will be greatly shamed, for they will not succeed. Their eternal dishonor will never be forgotten. O LORD of hosts, who triest the righteous, who seest the heart and the mind, let me see thy vengeance upon them, for to thee have I committed my cause. Sing to the LORD; praise the LORD! For he has delivered the life of the needy from the hand of evildoers.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 30, 2002.


Mateo, I gave away who I am with the explanation point in wrong place! :-)

God bless you.

@@@@@.COM

-- Don't like Jackson (@@@@.COM), June 30, 2002.


Thanks, "@@@@@.COM", for bringing up this old thread.
Lately, Jackson has been on the attack, and I have pointed out that he has been doing that here for years. In case anyone doubted me, he/she has only to read this 1999 thread to see that I wasn't kidding.
How can anyone continue to be consumed with hatred like this for years on end? It's as bad as a Hatfields/McCoys-feud mentality, as damaging as grudges to which some cling.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 30, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ