It really sickens me to see such blind people make claims of the one and only church when God has left us with a very clear story to the truth. There was a reason for the protestant reformation. It didn't happen by chance. Either the protestants are wrong or it's the catholics. Which one? It has to be one or the other, right?

If you read your history books it becomes quite clear. Immediately following the reformation something happens in the world that happens to become maybe the most awesome thing God has done for a people since the deliverance from Egypt. Maybe it should be called the Exodus II. It seems quite interesting that a people who protest a certain church, and who were prior members, mysteriously find a new world and start the greatest nation on earth in the least amount of years. These people based their moral laws and government on the closest thing to God's government as is humanly possible. These people evaded the strong arm of the european kings and popes and found safety in a new promissed land full of milk and honey. Oh, yes, God does bless those that are in his flock. Moses had his time with pharoah too!

What was shall be, there is nothing new under the sun.

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 14, 2001

Answers

You are of course referring to the Mormons...?

-- well who else (could@it.be), January 15, 2001.

No, silly!
He wasn't referring to the Mormons.
He wanted to refer to WASPs who took control of a small percentage of the Americas, but instead he called to mind the Spanish, French, and Portuguese explorers and colonists who so beautifully brought the truths of salvation (through the instrument of Jesus's Catholic Church) to the countless troubled and wayward souls of the New World, still so much under the burden of ignorance and original sin. They brought the Baptism and the other sacraments to all of South America, all of Central America, much of the Caribbean, part of Canada, and the western and southern parts of what is now the U.S..
He wanted to refer to WASPs, but he instead called to mind the way that millions of Mexicans freely accepted Catholic Christianity, casting aside their bloody human-sacrificing paganism (especially after the miracle of Guadelupe).
Viva Cristo Rey!
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 15, 2001.

Israel is telling it as he sees it. The Church of Catholics (of the Apostles) was an obstacle to progress and prosperity in the western world. Once the Church was made subject to ordinary men like himself, new advances in medicine, science and all that became possible. Israel thinks we would not have toilet tissue if it weren't for the reformation!

He dismisses the fact that every great university in the western world, and many of its greatest scientists, came from the Roman Catholic Church. The discoverers of atomic energy, genetics, photography, vitamin nutrition, and many other modern miracles learned the basic sciences from great Catholic scholars.

He also doesn't realize Christ taught us to beware of the rewards of this world, and comforts in this life. We are not ants, or bees, who go about life gathering and storing up for the hive. We are God's children, who are destined to enter His Kingdom. The Catholic Church has always advanced the teachings of Jesus Christ. The reformation did some good-- (The Salvation Army, Lloyd's of London, Wimbledon, etc.,) If that alone is the measure by which Israel and the other champions of the ''reformation'' live-- they are not Jesus' true followers. They are in love with the world.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 17, 2001.

I for one, take issue with the assumption that the reformation is something inherently good. It has caused much division in the body of believers and has right there achieved only the most dubious of results. In my mind, I have always likened Martin Luther to Mohammed. Mohammed was either misled (ie his angel was not an angel), misunderstood his message, or was intentionally misleading people for personal gain. I make no attempt to advocate one of these as true, but it is clear to all of us that Mohammed's message is, for lack of a softer term, a false one. I feel that Martin Luther is in a similar position. While obviously not out for personal gain, he was a man whose heart was in the right place initially (he was simply advocating a crackdown on corruption moreso than theological reforms, and it took him a long, long time to advocate actually breaking with the Church). One must wonder what might have been if Luther had not met with such opposition to his proposed systemic reforms, He wouldn't have gotten to advocating a split. He only did that out of frustration. Perhaps there would have been no splintering of the church and none of the religious wars which followed.

I think we can all agree that the apostles knew what Jesus wanted them to do after He was to leave them. They understood His wishes and His instructions. They went throughout the world and founded early Christian communities. When they would move on to the next location, they had to appoint a leader for the fledgling community they were leaving behind. These people were known as deacons, although the office is now that of the modern-day bishop. As the bishops became too numerous to "micro-manage" by one person alone (ie Peter or any of those appointed as his successors, in short, the Pope) archbishops and cardinals needed to be appointed. It didn't take long to happen , and it doesn't take much to see, that the structure we know as the Church issued from apostolic practice and intention. Thus any break with this "structure," this body known as the Church is in direct opposition to Jesus' Will. We know it was His Will, because the apostles knew it. So if we're wrong, then they were wrong and I don't think any of us like the implications of that.

It was the nations who did not look to Rome for guidance that began slavery, and perpetuated it, and slaughtered the Jesuits in South America who were trying to stop it.

England succumbed to the reformation only because it had a gluttonous, murderous king who didn't like having to follow the rules. I hardly think England's route should serve as a model for religious reform.

England has been the most inhumane, racist, and intolerant government throughout history until the Nazis came on the scene (just ask anyone from India, Ireland, Afrrica, oh, the list goes on. They were disliked wherever they went).

The first English settlers were the puritains. Oliver Cromwell was a puritain, and embarked on a campaign of genocide and butchery of the Catholics in Ireland unparalleled until Warsaw in the 1940s. His intolerance still leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the Irish. It is also they who would be responsible for the witch trials. While all of Christendom took part in such behaviour, the Church's role in the inquisition (regrettable though it was) pales in comparison to the puritains and anglicans the world over.

The puritains themselves came to America to escape religious persecution. Who was doing the persecuting? It certainly wasn't the Church, being persecuted itself, but rather those adherents to what you seem to be putting forth as an ideal form of protestantism, the church of England.

And finally, the United States is a far cry from the greatest nation on earth. Now let me clarify: The US is one of the most powerful. It is one of the most influential, and one of the richest. Despite the problems overindulgence in these liberties may cause, it has the greatest tolerance and respect for individual freedoms and choices in government. That having been said, it is also one of the most materialistic and spiritually bankrupt nations of the world. And to demonstrate this, in the last thirty years has aborted the population of Canada (and unprecidented number anywhere in the world), and seems almost proud of the widespread belief that religion is the only thing wrong with the world. God forbid that the entire world should one day look like the United States! We have done some great things, but the world loves to emulate our faults as well.

Even the founding fathers of the United States realised that a strong central authority was *required* to prevent splintering and chaos. And so it is with Christianity. It is important to remember that Jehova's Witnesses and mormonism were offshoots of protestantism, taking the break with the Church another step farther. How do you decide what step is over the line? How can someone who broke with the authority of the Church complain when someone breaks with *their* authority? What makes them so right?

This is especially questionable when practices, books and beliefs part of the Church for 1500 years are set aside and even argued against. Read about ancient Ephesus to see Marion devotion (*not* "worship," mind you), Confession as it is known in the present Church was present from the earliest accounts, and most importantly, trans-substantiantion.

If anyone wishes me to post the whole letter, I would be happy to in another thread, but it can be found in the CCC, 1345. In the passage, is an letter written by St. Justin to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius around AD 155 explaining the Mass. Aside from the fact that the account is virtually indistinguishable from a modern Catholic Mass, it concludes with the following paragraph: "When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the 'eucharisted' bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent." We still do this in the Church today. Aside from terming the subject "'eucharisted' bread," why bother taking the bread and wine to those unable to attend the Mass if there wasn't something inherent in the bread and wine itself? Why not just visit and bring the message instead of risking being caught with items that might mean a death sentence for no good reason? Answer: trans-substantiation is as old as Christianity. It has been handed down from Jesus to the apostles, from the apostles to the early communities, and from them to all

-- Anthony (antaine@aol.com), January 18, 2001.

I for one, take issue with the assumption that the reformation is something inherently good. It has caused much division in the body of believers and has right there achieved only the most dubious of results. In my mind, I have always likened Martin Luther to Mohammed. Mohammed was either misled (ie his angel was not an angel), misunderstood his message, or was intentionally misleading people for personal gain. I make no attempt to advocate one of these as true, but it is clear to all of us that Mohammed's message is, for lack of a softer term, a false one. I feel that Martin Luther is in a similar position. While obviously not out for personal gain, he was a man whose heart was in the right place initially (he was simply advocating a crackdown on corruption moreso than theological reforms, and it took him a long, long time to advocate actually breaking with the Church). One must wonder what might have been if Luther had not met with such opposition to his proposed systemic reforms, He wouldn't have gotten to advocating a split. He only did that out of frustration. Perhaps there would have been no splintering of the church and none of the religious wars which followed.

I think we can all agree that the apostles knew what Jesus wanted them to do after He was to leave them. They understood His wishes and His instructions. They went throughout the world and founded early Christian communities. When they would move on to the next location, they had to appoint a leader for the fledgling community they were leaving behind. These people were known as deacons, although the office is now that of the modern-day bishop. As the bishops became too numerous to "micro-manage" by one person alone (ie Peter or any of those appointed as his successors, in short, the Pope) archbishops and cardinals needed to be appointed. It didn't take long to happen , and it doesn't take much to see, that the structure we know as the Church issued from apostolic practice and intention. Thus any break with this "structure," this body known as the Church is in direct opposition to Jesus' Will. We know it was His Will, because the apostles knew it. So if we're wrong, then they were wrong and I don't think any of us like the implications of that.

It was the nations who did not look to Rome for guidance that began slavery, and perpetuated it, and slaughtered the Jesuits in South America who were trying to stop it.

England succumbed to the reformation only because it had a gluttonous, murderous king who didn't like having to follow the rules. I hardly think England's route should serve as a model for religious reform.

England has been the most inhumane, racist, and intolerant government throughout history until the Nazis came on the scene (just ask anyone from India, Ireland, Afrrica, oh, the list goes on. They were disliked wherever they went).

The first English settlers were the puritains. Oliver Cromwell was a puritain, and embarked on a campaign of genocide and butchery of the Catholics in Ireland unparalleled until Warsaw in the 1940s. His intolerance still leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the Irish. It is also they who would be responsible for the witch trials. While all of Christendom took part in such behaviour, the Church's role in the inquisition (regrettable though it was) pales in comparison to the puritains and anglicans the world over.

The puritains themselves came to America to escape religious persecution. Who was doing the persecuting? It certainly wasn't the Church, being persecuted itself, but rather those adherents to what you seem to be putting forth as an ideal form of protestantism, the church of England.

And finally, the United States is a far cry from the greatest nation on earth. Now let me clarify: The US is one of the most powerful. It is one of the most influential, and one of the richest. Despite the problems overindulgence in these liberties may cause, it has the greatest tolerance and respect for individual freedoms and choices in government. That having been said, it is also one of the most materialistic and spiritually bankrupt nations of the world. And to demonstrate this, in the last thirty years has aborted the population of Canada (and unprecidented number anywhere in the world), and seems almost proud of the widespread belief that religion is the only thing wrong with the world. God forbid that the entire world should one day look like the United States! We have done some great things, but the world loves to emulate our faults as well.

Even the founding fathers of the United States realised that a strong central authority was *required* to prevent splintering and chaos. And so it is with Christianity. It is important to remember that Jehova's Witnesses and mormonism were offshoots of protestantism, taking the break with the Church another step farther. How do you decide what step is over the line? How can someone who broke with the authority of the Church complain when someone breaks with *their* authority? What makes them so right?

This is especially questionable when practices, books and beliefs part of the Church for 1500 years are set aside and even argued against. Read about ancient Ephesus to see Marion devotion (*not* "worship," mind you), Confession as it is known in the present Church was present from the earliest accounts, and most importantly, trans-substantiantion.

If anyone wishes me to post the whole letter, I would be happy to in another thread, but it can be found in the CCC, 1345. In the passage, is an letter written by St. Justin to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius around AD 155 explaining the Mass. Aside from the fact that the account is virtually indistinguishable from a modern Catholic Mass, it concludes with the following paragraph: "When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the 'eucharisted' bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent." We still do this in the Church today. Aside from terming the subject "'eucharisted' bread," why bother taking the bread and wine to those unable to attend the Mass if there wasn't something inherent in the bread and wine itself? Why not just visit and bring the message instead of risking being caught with items that might mean a death sentence for no good reason? Answer: trans-substantiation is as old as Christianity. It has been handed down from Jesus to the apostles, from the apostles to the early communities, and from them to all

-- Anthony (antaine@aol.com), January 18, 2001.

Boy, Anthony! You sure knocked this one out of the park! A great post; you double-posted by error I guess, and I was eagerly going on to read the next one, and realized the duplicate. I was actually disappointed not to find more. Good work! Naturally, there's bound to be the ridiculous question from a few: ''Where do you see all that in the Bible?''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 18, 2001.

thanks, I appreciate it.

-- anthony (antaine@aol.com), January 18, 2001.

Great answer, Anthony. And I would like to add more. Wasn't Columbus Catholic? I mean, he was Italian,commissioned by the queen of Spain. He could hardly have been Anglican. And one of his ships was even named the Santa Maria; I highly doubt a Protestant would sail in such a ship.

I never knew the government of the United States was fashioned off God; of course, the ideals of justice and liberty are, but the bureaucracy itself? I thought that was based off the ancient Roman and Greek republics, which, by the way, were pagan! Well, at least they were until Catholicism.

The Lady of Guadalupe always amazes me. The Church was abusing the native peoples in lots of places. At least a few of the Spaniards must have felt superior to them. And then Mary appears to an poor Indian, showing her love for ALL God's people, even the ones with dark skin. That miracle not only caused a lot of heartfelt conversions, but it reminded us of Mary's concern for the present-day problems in our world and combatted arrogance and racism.

By the way, it seems that Mary has been appearing a lot lately. Guadalupe, Fatima, Lourdes, etc. in the last few centuries. Did she appear this much in the Early Church or the Middle Ages?

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 20, 2001.

You're right, the US gov't was based on the Roman model, not the Church. I was using the example to illustrate the need for a support structure when trying to deal with great amounts of human being

-- anthony (antaine@aol.com), January 20, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, Hannah. I'd like to respond to a couple of things that you wrote.

"By the way, it seems that Mary has been appearing a lot lately. Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, etc. in the last few centuries."
Actually the appearances you mentioned were not terribly recent and not terribly close together -- 1531, 1854, 1917. Except possibly for one (Akita, post-1960), there have been no apparitions deemed "worthy of belief" in our lifetimes.

"Did she appear this much in the Early Church or the Middle Ages?"
No one can say for sure. There may have been fewer apparitions reported, but that does not mean that they did not occur. I should mention that, although the majority of Catholics believe that Jesus and Mary and other saints probably have appeared to people in the Christian era, that concept is known as "private revelation" and no one is required to believe that the events or what was allegedly said is factual (except those to whom the revelation is given).

Maybe it was just a slip on your part, Hannah, but I was troubled by something else you wrote: "The Lady of Guadalupe always amazes me. The Church was abusing the native peoples in lots of places. At least a few of the Spaniards must have felt superior to them."
I would ask one of our friends here, Enrique (of Mexico), to confirm (or deny) my belief that the Catholic clergy was not "abusing the native peoples" prior to the apparitions. [And it is, of course, always wrong to say that "the Church" abused anyone -- because it is not "the Church" (spotless bride of Christ), but rather individual memebers of the Church, who commit sins.]
Can you help us, Enrique? Thanks.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 20, 2001.

Dear Hannah, and friends,
To keep our discussion from wandering in another direction, let us consider the very first paragraph of this thread. Israel says it is sickening to him, our ''blind'' claims to the One Church. The mistakes in his rationale, are one thing. But his opposition to the Catholic Church is unmistakable, because he calls us ''blind, and sickening.''

He calls the ''reformation'' a New Exodus! --Doesn't this reveal the actual reason for his post? He is here to forward the claims of Protestantism. Not to inquire, or learn anything from ''blind, sickening'' Catholics. He isn't interested in reading about Marian devotions in Ephesus, or the letters of Saint Justin!

Why did he log on to a Catholic forum? To be ''sickened''? Maybe; but not to learn from us. Yet, our pursuit of these subjects is being seen at large on the World Wide Web. The other day a man posted here his message all the way from New Zealand! A sincere non-Catholic, without any axe to grind.

But-- we are going to receive many other postings, from virulent anti-Catholics. Our Lord expects us to simply *conquer their objections* and carry on. They may accept or reject our faith, just as Jerusalem was found wanting when Christ wished to gather them as a ''hen gathers its chicks under her wings.'' Let's give thanks if just one new viewer of this board, for every fifty Alex Jrs and Israels that are ''sickened'' by our message. In one phrase Israel hit the nail right on the head. Either the reformation was right, and it's Bible Christians that resulted from it; or the Church of the Holy Apostles, the Catholic Church-- is right. God preserve the Holy Faith!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 20, 2001.

Hannah, John's correct. Enrique will also agree. You made an innocent mistake saying in Mexico the Church was abusing the natives. If anyone protected the Indian from an overbearing Spanish occupation (from which I am descended, I might add) it was the good Churches and Convents and orphanages of the Catholic Church. It is true, Spanish Catholics with the approval of the priests, destroyed many Indian temples and monuments which the Indian people of today have reason to complain about. But these had the stigma attached to them of idol worship and horrible rituals-- which the Church rightly took to be diabolic.

When the Virgin Our Lady of Guadalupe came to embrace one Indian convert who loved her, the whole population of Mexico was convinced of the truth of *****Jesus Christ's death upon the cross for each and every one of them!*****

It was through Mary that this people, and their countless newer descendants came to God! Now we see Mormons and Southern Baptists and Adventists going to Mexico. They want to convert these Christians to the churches of the ''reformation''. The very first thing these ''missionaries'' preach to Mexicans is-- ''Mary was a sinner, and she was not the Mother of God.'' You want to know what is ''sickening''??? That's sickening!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 20, 2001.

You are certainly right, Eugene. About Israel's attitude, I mean. While it is decidedly unlikely that Israel will ever check back to read our answers, we should not shrink from such things. For one, responding to messages like this makes us think through our own beliefs and teach ourselves more. Second, I'm sure that many non-Catholics and fence-sitters frequent this page in the hopes of finding answers. They are the people for whom our answers are likely to do the most good. That is why we must not only answer, but keep ourselves reasonable and tactful as well.

-- anthony (antaine@aol.com), January 20, 2001.

Dear Anthony--
I have no choice except to agree with you. There's quite a lot of activity this week in our forum. In a way, it's just pie-throwing, nobody seems to willing to concede.

But, consider the long term benefit. We don't really know how God's grace works, from one personality to the next. An antagonist today might be a convert in the future, only because your words come back to him years later under the influence of grace. God is the One that converts men.

I wish I had your tact and sensitivity when I address some of these people who make a controversy here. I console myself with the idea that Jesus selected Simon Peter, who carried a sword sometimes, and was by nature impetuous. He cut off the ear of a man, once.

I'm not worthy to be compared to the Prince of the Apostles. But I'm 63 years old, and I'm crusty. I won't be cutting off anybody's ear tonight. But I'll speak my mind, confident in my Catholic upbringing. --No apologies!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 21, 2001.

Of course, I agree. I'm pasting a long article by Enrique Florescano about the "SPIRITUAL CONQUEST OF MEXICO" This excellent historian refers repeatedly to the work of French historian Robert Ricart. I read this book when I was young and I can tell you that it helped me to have a better understanding of Mexico's history. Unfortunately the article is in Spanish.

At the end of the mentioned article there is a bibliography with some works in English for those interested in learning more about this fascinatin topic.

DE LA CONQUISTA MILITAR A LA CONQUISTA "ESPIRITUAL" DE MEXICO Por Enrique Florescano En un análisis reciente de la literatura sobre la época colonial, Charles Gibson hacía notar el declinamiento de la saga de la conquista en los estudios contemporáneos. El carácter épico, el aura heroica y el sentido de acontecimiento central y fundador que tuvo este hecho en las crónicas coloniales y en las obras del siglo xix, casi han desaparecido en los estudios recientes. En los tiempos de la descolonización, pocos escritores se atreven a magnificar las guerras de conquista y la fuerza de las armas. La mayoría de los historiadores contemporáneos ha optado por indagar las causas políticas y económicas que condujeron a la era de los descubrimientos y conquistas, o se ha interesado en el estudio de las consecuencias sociales, económicas y culturales que produjo la conquista en la población aborigen. Otros han puesto su atención en los cambios estructurales que introdujo la conquista y han concentrado su interés en el análisis de las fuerzas que intervinieron en la construcción de la sociedad colonial, abriendo un debate sobre la caracterización y definición conceptual de esa nueva realidad. Este cambio en el interés de los historiadores que se ocupan del siglo de la conquista es muy notorio en las obras generales. La antes omnipresente relación de campañas y hechos de armas ha sido reducida en estos libros a unas cuantas páginas, en tanto el centro del relato lo ocupan las explicaciones acerca de las pugnas políticas y comerciales entre las potencias europeas y el análisis de las transformaciones geográficas, políticas, económicas, sociales y culturales que experimentó el mundo a raíz de la ampliación de sus fronteras. En el caso de México, aunque un numero grande de historiadores se concentró en la edición y estudio de las crónicas de la conquista, los escritos más significativos han seguido los caminos abiertos por la nueva historiografía mundial. Silvio Zavala comenzó a quebrar las viejas tradiciones cuando orientó sus investigaciones al análisis de las ideas políticas y las doctrinas jurídicas que justificaron las empresas conquistadoras, y definió nuevos rumbos en las obras que dedicó a explicar los efectos de la conquista sobre la población indígena (La encomienda indiana. Los esclavos indios, los sistemas de trabajo, etcétera). Estos estudios, junto con los que analizan los procesos de la evangelización y las transformaciones sociales y económicas, son hoy los predominantes en la historiografía del siglo xvi. Los nuevos estudios han roto también otra constante que venía de siglos atrás. Si antes de 1910 la conquista era considerada el hecho central de la época colonial, la de México-Tenochtitlan era vista como la conquista por antonomasia. Quien describía las hazañas de Cortés y la caída de la capital mexica daba por hecho que había explicado todo el proceso de dominación del territorio. Los estudios recientes prácticamente han abandonado la gesta de Cortés para indagar las diversas conquistas que en el tiempo y el espacio configuraron el ciclo completo de la conquista de México. Hoy no se habla de la conquista, sino de muchas conquistas, en reconocimiento a la variedad de enfrentamientos y formas de penetración que adoptó la entrada de los españoles a lo largo del siglo xvi. Con todo, es un hecho que la conquista de México-Tenochtitlan y la figura de Cortés seguirán siendo el prototipo de la conquista y del conquistador. Ningún otro hecho ni personaje llenan tan completamente ambas imágenes. Lo importante es que las nuevas investigaciones acerca de las varias empresas conquistadoras han mostrado la complejidad que asumió la penetración española y la resistencia indígena, rescatando procesos espaciales y temporales que antes ocultaba la visión centralizadora de la toma de Tenochtitlan. Más aún, estos estudios y los dedicados a conquistadores menores arrojaron nueva luz sobre la diversidad social y los diferentes destinos de los hombres que participaron en las empresas de conquista y en la creación de la primera sociedad colonial. Así, en lugar de la imagen estereotipada del conquistador coronado por el éxito y holgadamente recompensado por el botín de guerra y las jugosas encomiendas, los nuevos estudios señalan que sólo un puñado de los soldados de la conquista tuvo este destino, mientras que la mayoría se enroló en un proceso de sucesivas conquistas y fracasos, obtuvo recompensas eminentemente satisfactorias, reclamó encomiendas mejor dotadas, se convirtió en labrador o funcionario provincial, hizo oficio de capataz de ranchos e ingenios azucareros y terminó sus días haciendo peticiones y demandas, soñando en conquistas grandiosas y enriquecimientos súbitos. Con todo, hacen falta más investigaciones como la de Víctor M. Alvarez, Diccionario de conquistadores (1972), para penetrar en la realidad social de los hombres de la conquista. El cambio mayor en el conocimiento de la colonización lo introdujeron los estudios sobre la evangelización de los indios. Un libro: La conquista espiritual de México, del francés Robert Ricart, presentó en 1933 (edición francesa) una evaluación vasta, profunda y minuciosa de la obra misionera en Nueva España, en los años fundadores de 1523 a 1572. De este libro brotó, por primera vez, un conocimiento claro de las variadas acciones y formas de organización que adoptaron las órdenes mendicantes en el ejercicio de su apostolado, y particularmente de los desafíos que les impuso la situación cultural del indígena y su dispersión en el extenso territorio. El análisis de Ricart va descubriendo las políticas, las estrategias y los métodos que discurrieron las órdenes para quebrantar las bases sociales y mentales que sostenían a los indígenas y las acciones que pusieron en práctica para crear un nuevo orden político, social y mental, que, gobernado por los religiosos, condicionó el desarrollo futuro de las comunidades indígenas. A medida que se avanza en la lectura de este libro se verifica la exactitud de su título: la conquista militar no se hubiera completado ni sostenido sin esta conquista "espiritual", también épica y espectacular, pero sobre todo, profunda, continua y singularmente eficaz. Ricart escribió su obra para esclarecer cómo nace, se constituye y organiza una nueva Iglesia y para mostrar la fuerza de esta Iglesia en la formación y desarrollo futuro del país que se llamó Nueva España y luego México. Para él, como antes para Alamán, el siglo xvi es el periodo fundamental de la historia de México. Esta idea, y su abierta simpatía por la obra misionera, lo llevaron a reconstruir los métodos de la evangelización aplicados a la población indígena y los fundamentos sobre los que se levantó la Iglesia novohispana. Ricart percibió casi todos los traumas y violencias que causó la cristianización entre los indígenas, pero en general minimizó estos aspectos por considerar que la conversión de los indios y los bienes espirituales y materiales que sobre ellos derramaron los religiosos superaron con creces la pérdida de su antigua religión y cultura. Su libro, aunque principalmente contempla la transformación de los indios desde el punto de vista de la expansión de la fe y la creación de una nueva Iglesia, abrió el camino para considerar el mismo tema desde el lado opuesto: la tremenda dislocación y reordenamiento de las bases materiales, sociales y mentales de la comunidad indígena que conllevó el proceso de evangelización. En el mejor estudio que se ha escrito sobre la arquitectura de la época colonial: Mexican architecture of the sixteenth century (New Haven, 1948, 2 vols.), George Kubler siguió el camino abierto por Ricart, amplió nuestro conocimiento del siglo xvi e introdujo nuevos enfoques y técnicas para comprender las grandes transformaciones que conmovieron esta época. Vio en el colosal reordenamiento urbano y en el febril esfuerzo constructivo que emprendieron las órdenes mendicantes, un vasto proceso de aculturación que modifica el espacio geográfico y humano de la Nueva España. Para comprender el sentido de esta enorme transformación y los medios que la hicieron posible, Kubler precisó primero la importancia que adquirieron las órdenes en el gobierno y conversión de los indios, así como los principios humanistas que dirigieron su apostolado y conformaron su idea de la sociedad que deseaban plantar. En un capítulo novedoso por los datos utilizados y por el tratamiento que aplicó a ellos, Kubler examinó la relación entre los tipos de construcciones edificadas por los frailes y el número de indígenas registrado en los pueblos; pero sobre todo, mostró la influencia de las epidemias en la acelerada disminución de la población y destacó el dislocamiento urbano y la reorientación de la cultura indígena como agentes de la gran catástrofe demográfica que redujo tan considerablemente el número de autóctonos. Relacionó estos datos con los años de aumento y disminución de la construcción de edificios y concluyó: "La urbanización de las poblaciones indígenas significó el dislocamiento y destrucción de los patrones de cultura indígena. A su vez, esta extirpación cultural produjo la decadencia biológica de la raza indígena. Así, la arquitectura que es el objeto de este estudio, fue edificada a expensas de una de las grandes configuraciones históricas de la sociedad humana. Cada edificio y cada artefacto colonial se alimentó de la destrucción de una cultura y del declinamiento de una raza". En los capítulos siguientes Kubler analizó el extenso proceso de urbanización que transformó el espacio novohispano, el diseño y supervisión de las construcciones, el trabajo, las variedades y características de la arquitectura religiosa. Sobre este último aspecto dejó una aportación sobresaliente: hizo una clasificación rigurosa de las diferentes construcciones, definió con erudición y claridad sus características arquitectónicas y estilísticas, y estudió con detalle los principales edificios, volcando muchos elementos de análisis en planos, plantas, perspectivas, fotografías y mapas. Por su amplia concepción histórica, por la impresionante cantidad de datos y fuentes que la nutren, por el rigor, la maestría y claridad de la exposición y por el gran caudal de conocimientos que nos aporta sobre el siglo xvi, esta obra se cuenta entre las más destacadas que se han escrito sobre el siglo xvi y la época colonial. A las obras de Ricart y Kubler debemos pues una interpretación más profunda y rica de la evangelización y del fenómeno religioso en la historia de México, al mismo tiempo que fueron portadoras de técnicas y procedimientos explicativos que ampliaron las capacidades del análisis histórico en nuestro país. La obra de Ricart promovió, además, una serie consecutiva de estudios acerca de la evangelización como "conquista espiritual". Las monografías de Fidel Lejarza, La conquista espiritual de Nueva Santander (1947); Pedro Borges, Métodos misionales en la cristianización de América (1960); Dionisio Victoria Moreno, Las carmelitas descalzos y la conquista espiritual de México, 1582-1616 (1967); Enrique D. Dussel, Les evêques hispanoamericains. Dêfenseurs et evangelisateurs de L’ Indien, 1504-1620 (1970); Jakob Baugmgartner, Mission und Liturgie ein Méxiko (1971-1972); y José María Kobayashi, La educación como la conquista (empresa francisana en México) (1974), puntualizaron el vasto proceso de aculturación y cambio social que condujeron los misioneros y ampliaron el conocimiento geográfico y temporal que se tenía de su acción. En los últimos años los estudios acerca de la evangelización se han concentrado en la obra misionera que jesuitas y franciscanos dirigieron en el norte de México a fines de la época colonial. Los iniciales estudios de Hebert Eugene Bolton (The Rim of Chrisrtentom: A biography of Eusebio Francisco Kino, 1936; "The Mission as a frontier institución in the Spanich-American Colonies," 1917), fueron seguidos por una serie creciente de monografías que han iluminado el avance misionero en el norte de México, el carácter de las relaciones que se trabajan entre indios, españoles y religiosos, los métodos misionales puestos en práctica y la influencia de estos hechos en la postrera colonización que emprendieron los españoles en esta parte de América. Gerad Decorme. S.J., escribió un libro esencial para el conocimiento de la acción de los jesuitas en esta y otras partes de Nueva España (La obra de los jesuitas mexicanos durante la época colonial 1572-1767 (1941, 2 vols.), pero la evangelización del norte de México carece de una obra que, como las de Ricart y Kubler, muestre los métodos y características que asumió la obra misionera en la región septentrional, las relaciones y problemas surgidos entre las órdenes y entre éstas y los colonizadores civiles y militares, y el efecto de su acción sobre la geografía, la transformación de las tribus indígenas y la organización política y social de ese inmenso territorio. El número creciente de estudios sobre la evangelización, la conquista y la colonización del norte ha creado la acumulación suficiente para que pronto se tenga una obra más integradora acerca de esta región. Recientemente Daniel Ulloa (Los predicadores divididos. Los dominicos en Nueva España, Siglo xvi, El Colegio de México, 1977) y Lino Gómez Canedo (Evangelización y conquista. Experiencia franciscana en Hispanoamérica, Porrúa, 1977), agregaron nuevos conocimientos a la historia de la evangelización. Sin embargo, en la mayoría de las obras publicadas en los últimos años el acento se ha cargado en la acción de los evangelizadores y de manera harto formal. Es decir, se ha olvidado considerar, como lo hizo Kubler, el efecto destructor de la acción misionera en la sociedad indígena. El traslado y congregación de vastas poblaciones antes dispersas, la imposición de normas sociales extrañas, el secuestro y adoctrinamiento de los hijos de los principales indios, la coerción moral y mental y otras muchas acciones de los dominadores produjeron una dislocación gigantesca del mundo indígena que es preciso documentar y asumir. Bibliografía complementaria no citada en el texto Estudios generales sobre la época de los descubrimientos y conquistas. New Cambridge Modern History, edición española, Historia del mundo moderno, Ed. Ramón Sopena, Barcelona, 1970-1976, 13 vols.; P. Chaunu, Conquista y explotación de los nuevos mundos, Labor, Barcelona, 1973; J. H. Elliot, The Old World ond The New, 1492-1650, Cambridge, 1970; Ralph Davies, La Europa atlántica. Desde los descubrimientos hasta la industrialización, Siglo xxi, México, 1976; John Lynch, España bajo los austrias, Península, Barcelona, 1964, 2 vols.; Historia de España, Alfaguara, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 1973-1975, 7 vols; J. H. Parry, El imperio español en ultramar, Aguilar, Madrid, 1970; J. H. Elliot, Imperial Spain, 1469- 1716, Londres, 1963; Charles Gibson, Spain in América, New York, 1967; Carl O. Sauer, The Early Spanish Man, Berkeley, 1960; Silvio Zavala, El mundo americano en la época colonial, Editorial Porrúa, México, 1967, 2 vols.; y Guillermo Céspedes, América Latina colonial hasta 1650, SepSetentas, México, 1976. Robert S. Chamberlain, The Conquest and Colonization of Yucatán 1517- 1550, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, 1948 (hay traducción española en la Editorial Porrúa); Donald E. Chipman, Nuño de Guzman and the Province of Panuco in New Spain, 1518-1533, Glendale, California, 1967; Edward H. Spicer, Cycles of Conquest. The impact of Spain, México and the United States on the Indians of the soutkwest, 1533-1960, Arizona, 1962; J. Benedict Warren, La conquista de Michoacán 1521-1530, Fimax, Morelia, 1977; Alejandra Moreno Toscano, "El siglo de la conquista", en Daniel Cosío Villegas (coordinador), Historia General de México, El Colegio de México, México, 1976, tomo ii. G. Michael Riley, Fernando Cortés and the Marquesado in Morelos, 1522- 1547, University of New México Press, Albuquerque, 1973; C. Harvey Gardiner, Martín López, Conquistador Citizen of México, Lexington, Ky., 1958; del mismo autor, The Constant Captain Gonzalo de Sandoval, Carbondale, iii., 1961; Adrián Recinos, Pedro de Alvarado, Conquistador de México y Guatemala, México, 1952; Víctor M. Alvarez, Diccionario de conquistadores, México, Departamento de Investigaciones Históricas, inah, 1972, 2 vols. Obras sobre la evangelización en el norte de México Peter Master, Dunne: Blackrobes in Lower California, 1952; John Augustine Donohue, After Kino: Jesuit Missions in Northwestern New Spain, 1969; Michael B. McCloskey, The Formative Years of the Missionary College of Santa Cruz of Querétaro, 1683-1733, 1955; John F. Bannoon, Missionary Frontier in Sonora, 1620-1687, 1955; Maynard J Geiger, The Life and Times of Junípero Serra, 1959; Paul M. Roca, Paths of the padres through Sonora, 1967; John L. Kesell, Mission of Sorrows; Jesuit Guevai and Manje, Explorers of Sonora and Arizona, 1971; Charles W. Polzer, Rules and Precepts of the Missions of Northwestern New Spain, 1976; Daniel S. Matson y Bernard L. Fontana (ed.), Friar Bringas reports to the King. Methods of Indoctrination in the Frontier of New Spain 1796- 1997, 1977. Enrique Florescano. Historiador. Entre sus libros, Memoria mexicana y La bandera mexicana: Breve historia de su formación y simbolismo.

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), January 21, 2001.

Dear Enrique:

Thanks for explaining that the Catholic priests were not abusing the Indians. I had only read about the Catholic missions in history books, which spoke of the conquistadors and said that Indians were used as slave labor in the missions and that they were "forced" to convert to Catholicism. Now, I do know that some individual Catholics, who I think were laity, were cruel to the Indians. I was wrong to say that the Church was, though, because of course the entire Church was not hurting people; it is led by the Holy Spirit. But Our Lady of Guadalupe still seems for me a symbol of unity in the American church, between the "Old World" and the "New World." I know that is not the only inspiration available from her, but her appearance at Guadalupe reminds me of Christ's parable of the grape workers, where everyone who tends the field, even those who came late in the day, get the same, full reward. That is just my own idea, of course.

I have not read your article yet, Enrique, but I will ask my roommate to translate it for me when she gets up.

And thanks for reminding me of the time differences in Mary's appearances; I do not always remember dates very well. I was also thinking of the Medjugorje appearances, though the Church has not approved them yet.

By the way, was the Indian who saw Mary venerated or blessed or anything?

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 21, 2001.

Yes, Hannah.
As you know, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is December 8.
The Optional Memorial of Blessed Juan Diego is December 9.
The feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe is December 12.

There are various Internet sites about the Guadalupe events. At one I like, I found out this about Bl. Juan Diego: "His native name was Cuauhtlatoatzin, which could be translated as "One who talks like an eagle" or "eagle that talks." Though the site has a "home page" (www.sancta.org), the page dedicated to Cuauhtlatoatzin is this one.

If you'd like to see an interesting Eastern-style icon of Bl. Juan Diego, take a look here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 21, 2001.

I'm still here! As a matter of fact never left. I sometimes like to post and then let people air for a while then respond latter. Less argument that way! I'm not catholic, and I'm not protestant either.

Eugene, Exactly right! You got my point! Thats the first time I ever posted here and someone actually got it! Cheers brother!!! That's exactly what I was trying to stir up. Yes, it's either the catholics are right or the protestants! One or the other right? All the other follow up posts were meaningless to my question/statement. I will make one generalized comment to the other posts/posters: The Government I was refering to was not the bureacracy of the united states but the "Freedom of Religion" idea only that is prevailent in the USA.

Eugene, I would like to ask you or any other willing catholics and any lurking protestants or others to join in on a civil debate as to the answer of: Catholic or Protestant? Which one, it has to be one or the other right?

I have noticed a lot of catholic/protestant rivalry on this forum lately. Can we do this without any name calling or predjudice please!! I believe that if we take it nice and slow it is possible for the two opposing viewpoints to get a better understanding of one another and not hatred. I doubt we will probably change anyones mind but maybe we will have a more open view and can understand one another better. Obviously catholics and protestants were together as one at one point in time and maybe with more understanding of one another that breach could be healed, you think?

Let me first say that many of my ideas and viewpoints will probably come from a more protestant view but I also have views that agree with catholicism and many protestants will not agree. Here are a few:

1)I believe that we have the Bible today because of the catholic church.

2)I believe that all the words wrote in the Bible are true.

3)I do not believe in "sola scripture", meaning that the Bible is the only truth.

4)I believe that the catholic church can trace it's roots back to the apostles.

5)I also believe that the protestant churches can trace their roots back to the apostles.

"Sola scripture" seems to be the biggest dividing point, so how about we start this disscussion by ignoring it. In other words, lets start this civil debate for who is right, by for the time being, not allowing any scripture to be used in your questions or answers until we can exhaust the debate without scripture support first, then move on from there.

I believe if we all really try we can have a very great learning experinece by disscussing this topic. It can be an example to all who enter this forum and in the future maybe ward off all those hateful remarks that go back and forth from time to time on here. BTW, no one has to win here, we can just call it a stalemate or just simply say "now I understand where you are coming from". You don't have to agree but just try to understand how the other person gets there points of view. Is this reasonable?

If we can do this I believe it might be better to start another thread and maybe even have another thread just for people to introduce themselves before making any comments. You know like: Hi I'm ....... joe shmoe I'm of ........this denomination or whatever and I live in the........ of this country or part of the world and I would like to find out more about your beliefs and share our similiarities etc. Lets find out what makes each other click and why.

Is it possible people???????

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 22, 2001.

You are suddenly the new moderator of the forum in which ''blind'' and sickening people argue about the One Church? That's a switch. I got something right? The thing you insisted on? This place is having a ''rivalry'' between Catholic/Protestant?

Israel, come off it. ''No one has to win here?'' Why? If you can win here, my friend, go ahead and try. But it's not a basketball game. And you shouldn't ask to be the ref. Maybe you could start at the beginning again. Reduce this first, to who is sickening, and who is blind?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 22, 2001.

Yes, Israel. Eugene makes some very good points.
You would have had some credibility, and everyone may have seriously considered your suggestion, if you had started this thread with it, instead of with the offensive anti-Catholic (and pro-Protestant) comments with which you actually started it.

But even if you had begun the thread with this suggestion, most of us would have been unable to accept parts of it. Why?
1. Because "sola scriptura" is unacceptable to us Catholics and "nulla scriptura" (no Bible, as you suggested) would be unacceptable to almost all people of both sides.
2. Because at least one of your suggestions smacks of "indifferentism" or what Vatican II called "false irenicism." The first of these is an attitude of "any-denomination-is-as-good-as-another" (so there's no point in struggling to teach the truth). The second is an attitude of compromise, yielding part of the truth just to have peace and re-unification. We can't accept either of these.

Your idea about making introductions is a reasonable one -- a thread that would expand through the months and always float to the top. However, I predict that it will be ignored by half the people who come here. Some will have legitimate reasons for wanting to be "invisible," unidentified lurkers. The others who won't sign up will be some of the abusive, hit-and-run, Catholic-hating, Catholic-baiters. (Some of them are fundamentalists, while others are atheists.)

Israel, you wrote, "... maybe with more understanding of one another that breach could be healed, you think?"
A little of that has happened here (as you would see, if you were to go back far enough into the old threads). However, I believe that we who are Catholic already do "understand" the Protestants. We have heard the various Protestant points of view for decades, as they are so visible everywhere in our Protestant-saturated society. Catholicism gets little "air time" in our culture. When North American Protestants hear about Catholics, it is all too often via lies and half-truths from an anti-Catholic media, ludicrous rubbish from a radio or TV evangelist, published anti-Vatican filth (a la Chick or Boettner), or simply prejudiced comments from a pastor or family member. And so, it is Protestants who don't "understand" us -- and the majority of those who come here (especially this month) are not even interested in "understanding" us. [Note that I said "majority," not "all."] The majority simply drop in to persuade us to become (and even often to demand that we become) heretics. We would rather be martyred than do that.

Perhaps you would do better at another forum, sir. God bless you.
[St. James, pray for us. Immaculate Heart, pray for us.]
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 22, 2001.

Yes, Israel. Eugene makes some very good points.
You would have had some credibility, and everyone may have seriously considered your suggestion, if you had started this thread with it, instead of with the offensive anti-Catholic (and pro-Protestant) comments with which you actually started it.

But even if you had begun the thread with this suggestion, most of us would have been unable to accept parts of it. Why?
1. Because "sola scriptura" is unacceptable to us Catholics and "nulla scriptura" (no Bible, as you suggested) would be unacceptable to almost all people of both sides.
2. Because at least one of your suggestions smacks of "indifferentism" or what Vatican II called "false irenicism." The first of these is an attitude of "any-denomination-is-as-good-as-another" (so there's no point in struggling to teach the truth). The second is an attitude of compromise, yielding part of the truth just to have peace and re-unification. We can't accept either of these.

Your idea about making introductions is a reasonable one -- a thread that would expand through the months and always float to the top. However, I predict that it will be ignored by half the people who come here. Some will have legitimate reasons for wanting to be "invisible," unidentified lurkers. The others who won't sign up will be some of the abusive, hit-and-run, Catholic-hating, Catholic-baiters. (Some of them are fundamentalists, while others are atheists.)

Israel, you wrote, "... maybe with more understanding of one another that breach could be healed, you think?"
A little of that has happened here (as you would see, if you were to go back far enough into the old threads). However, I believe that we who are Catholic already do "understand" the Protestants. We have heard the various Protestant points of view for decades, as they are so visible everywhere in our Protestant-saturated society. Catholicism gets little "air time" in our culture. When North American Protestants hear about Catholics, it is all too often via lies and half-truths from an anti-Catholic media, ludicrous rubbish from a radio or TV evangelist, published anti-Vatican filth (a la Chick or Boettner), or simply prejudiced comments from a pastor or family member. And so, it is Protestants who don't "understand" us -- and the majority of those who come here (especially this month) are not even interested in "understanding" us. [Note that I said "majority," not "all."] The majority simply drop in to persuade us to become (and even often to demand that we become) heretics. We would rather be martyred than do that.

Perhaps you would do better at another forum, sir. God bless you.
[St. James, pray for us. Immaculate Heart, pray for us.]
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 22, 2001.

Eugene,

It seems that you would rather I be a catholic basher than try to civily disscuss a topic that has been going on. It seems as if you would rather play hard then soft, is that the case? Is that the catholic way? I think you are afraid of doubt. That really shows how strong your religion is, you know. Are you afraid that a catholic will turn protestant? Can't you calmly disscuss with a person and prove your religion is the right one? If your religion is the only truth then what do you fear? If your religion is truly based on Jesus Christ then why can't you do as he did? Jesus had many dissagreements with people and not once have I read where he IGNORED or got HATEFUL with the other party. If people didn't understand his speech than he supported his ideas with things that are so simple minded(parables etc). He showed example after example after example how things testify of him. I'm trying to find out WHY you believe. Why do you believe this document that such and such wrote is true?

What sickens me? Who is blind? My oppinion the whole church-catholic and protestant.

I wanted to have a disscussion without using scripture references first because I thought that it might shed some light on your beliefs. By using scripture I can prove and you will dissagree that catholicism would fall to the ground and die. It is based from one verse concerning Peter and the rock, without it it has no feet and is a total discredit in the eyes of people. Can you prove catholicism is the one and only true church without using that verse? I gaurantee you CAN NOT!!!! Please show us your insight and prove to the protestants that catholicism is the one and only church that Jesus Christ started without using that Peter and the rock verse. Surely if it is, there will be just like Jesus and God testimony after testimony to the truth!

Jesus' message to a church: "I STAND AT THE DOOR AND KNOCK"????????? WHAT DOOR? TO WHAT BUILDING? WHAT CHURCH? JESUS!!!!!!! WHY AREN"T YOU INSIDE WITH US?

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 23, 2001.

How unseemly, Israel! Stop that pleading and whining and blaming Eugene. As I already explained to you, you destroyed your credibility by attacking our Church. You never even apologized for that. You are prejudiced against Catholicism -- and you are not the impartial "mediator" you are pretending to be.

You say that you are not a Protestant, but I assure you that you are, unless you are of an Eastern Orthodox church.

I would say that the chances are quite good that you are a "messianic Jew," perhaps a product of Jews for Jesus. (I say this because almost no Gentile Christian refers to "Yeshua.") It would be good if you would contact "Remnant of Israel," so that you could become a "completed Jew," a Catholic of Jewish ancestry, who can actually receive the Body and Blood of his Messiah.

I very well understand that you would not want to use the term, "protestant," because it is linked to so many bad connotations, but that is the term that history assigns to a person in your position (if you are not Orthodox).

You wrote to Eugene, "I'm trying to find out WHY you believe. Why do you believe this document that such and such wrote is true?"
Before he considers answering, I think that you need to explain WHY you want to know these things? In other words, are you considering becoming a Catholic? Or are you simply here probing and jabbing (and occasionally insulting) in order to get us to leave the Church and be "just a believer," like you?

I found your ranting at the end of your last message to be in poor taste. You have no right to demand that Eugene "show us [his] insight and prove to the protestants that catholicism [sic] is the one and only church [sic] that Jesus Christ started without using that Peter and the rock verse." Though it most certainly can be done, it does not have to be done ... because the verse is there. We don't need a hypothetical Christianity.

St. James, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, beloved mother of God, pray for us.
God bless you.
John


-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 23, 2001.

Dear Israel-- You shouldn't have a cow just as we may be arriving at some sort of crossroad. I have an aversion to ''sweet'' Catholic-bashers. It looked as if that was you; because you knocked the ''establishment'', the Roman Catholic Church before the reformation.

I still claim the ''reformers'' only hurt themselves, notwithstanding any real causes for reform in Christ's Church.

Our Lord promised He was with us all days; and he addressed this promise to the Church. Jesus knew His people were weak and He promised a Paraclete-- The Holy Spirit; the One who could prevent error from attaching itself to His Church. Our own human strengths aren't enough to combat error, ina Church that's meant for all time! It is completely dependent upon God the Holy Spirit. A Pope by himself is useless; even Peter's succesor. He is mostly the *signal tower* on earth. The Holy Spirit promised by Jesus Christ makes a Pope infallible. He isn't born infallible! We believe the Pope because he has God the Holy Spirit with him. There can be no error where God is. That is why the Catholic Church is eternal. Not because Catholics love it, or approve of priests and bishops and Popes. Jesus is its Founder. It serves Him through love and human efforts now for 2,000 years, and will always serve Him, however poorly!
***By the holy intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and James the Holy Apostle, may Our Saviour bless this humble endeavor. Amen! ***

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 23, 2001.