Repeatedly, I have heard people denounce Vatican II, yet praise John Paul II.

John Paul II attended all the session of Vatican II and was named a Cardinal by Paul IV after his work at the Council. He was instrumental in writing the Declaration on Religious Freedom. See http://www.cin.org/v2relfre.html.

Come on guys, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe in Papal Infallibility or you don't. Either you believe that four popes (John XXIII, Paul IV, John Paul I and John Paul II)were correct or not. You can't say that the teachings of Vatican II were not valid and have solid confidence in Pope John Paul II.

Just for the record, I believe that the Holy Spirit was/is very much alive and well in the reformation/renewal processes of Vatican II.

May the Church continue to move forward. God Bless, John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 25, 2003

Answers

John - In an earlier thread I stated the Church is likened to a beautiful ornate Roman chariot. Sadly some fool put square wheels on the thing and hence so much energy expended for forward motion.

Smile and keep the faith. We must remember what makes God laugh is when we attempt to understand what He is doing.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 25, 2003.

"Come on guys, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe in Papal Infallibility or you don't."

No no no, man, no way. You people need to actually pull yourselves up by the bootstraps and actually set some time aside to study the matter in detail, so that you can finally get a grip on what it what Papal infallibility is, and it's nature, and it's excercise, and what it actually means to be loyal to the Pope and exactly what the ordinary magisterium is and the supreme magisterium is, and its excercise, etc. etc.

I have come to the painful conclusion that the majority of you anti- traditional whiners have absolutely NO clue about the nature and excercise of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, and from whence it comes.

What's worse is I don't think anybody is even trying to find out because it's too much work.

Think you do? Then explain it, right here, right now and back up your position well. Until you can, all you've got going for you is argument by disdain. Slap me a Quad Erat Demonstratum. Give me something I can sink my teeth into.

I don't think you know what it means.

=)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 25, 2003.

Emerald - I am very amused at your statement of infallibility. Sadly there is so much infighting and politics in the Vatican. Have you never heard of the syndrome clerical lust being a replacement for a healthy sexual lifestyle?

To think these men are not power driven is very naive of you to say the least. An old priest I know who taught in Rome stated this to me many years ago. It began my re-awakening and turning to Christ for solace.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 25, 2003.

Hi jean...

You bet I think that some of them are power hungry.

We might not be in agreement about how and why, but yes I think some, a lot, are power hungry.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 25, 2003.

Hi Emerald it seems to me that if you ask 5 different Catholic scholars what it means,you may very well get 5 different answers on infallibility and the magisterium.

This is something I know very little about, nor pretend to. Seeing as you seem to have all the answers already Id love you to post your full version of

"what Papal infallibility is, and it's nature, and it's excercise, and what it actually means to be loyal to the Pope and exactly what the ordinary magisterium is and the supreme magisterium is, and its excercise, etc. etc."

There is catch with which you may struggle with. I need to be able to understand what you mean. No easy task I admit for me but you can help me by not writing in flowery, mythical poetry and riddles but straight forward simple language ( as nice and eloquent as it always is, it tends to cloud your true intentions and meanings) This is always a test of whether someone really knows what they are talking about and something I have not seen you do on this issue. Spell it out for all lazy clueless whiners !

So lay it out for us mere mortals please put your full and complete case forward and lets see how well you(the self confessed expert) stand up to closer examination! I suggest you do it on a new post.

I look forward to it especially the replies...hint Jake H Mateo Chris B and Paul you may be needed to settle this one once and for all! I await with intrest my friend and look forward to being enlightened!

Blessings Emerald

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 25, 2003.

alkdjf hgi eho lyeh lheoh?!?

Just kidding. I guess I could, but what I really wanted was to see someone else do it since they claim to have such a grasp on the matter, and I don't think they do... because of all the absurdities that arise out of their concept of it, the latest being 'what's the right thing to do in this war over Iraq'.

I don't know all the answers and I don't even want the job of knowing all the answers; having all the answers is just another way risking your eternal reward if you know what I mean. Have everyone agree with you all the time and before you know it, it'll be depart from me, I never knew you...

Maybe I should try, maybe I shouldn't. Who knows. Let me think about it?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 25, 2003.

Hi Emerald re reading my post it is a bit defensive... sorry, my apologies. I didnt mean to sound so snarky, the whole traditionalist thing just seems so pointless to me and I get rather fed up with the endless circular debates. Ignorance is bliss perhaps in my case :-). Blessings.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.

Somehow, I am not surprised that no one is biting. Should I? But you already know what I think, Emerald.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

Don't even worry about it, kiwi. I've been a lot more agressive than usual on the forum, and I probably need to back up from it for a while and stop poking and prodding people.

I do think Isabel is right, though, that we won't get any coherent answers in support of this generation of Catholic's concept of what it means to be a loyal to the Holy father and the magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is painfully and provably in error.

I do know that in fact the answer does exist and that it can be understood, but I really do believe that answer is something that people don't really want to come to grips with. That's why I would like to see them explain it, since they are the ones using it to say that traditionalists are protestants... a serious claim that needs some serious backup, and a false claim that needs to be recanted.

Hey, I used to be there myself. I know what it feels like to hold untenable positions. It's burdensome and irritating. I feel a lot better and much more at home now.

That being said, yes, I sincerely wish to apologize to each and every person on the forum that I have attacked with my abrasiveness. I really mean it. I stand by what I've said, but it is true that if I press forward beyond people's patience I'll do more damage than good, so I'll back off. In fact, I'm surprised people don't go out of their way more to give me a serious lambasting because oftentimes I seriously deserve one.

My wife got on my case a little yesterday for my post to Joe in another thread, because she's his cousin. I struggle with truth like everyone else does.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 26, 2003.

Emerald, I'll put this in plain language.

Vatican II was a pastoral council as opposed to a doctrinal council.

Vatican II made no new statements on doctrine. Therefore, I concede your point that the Popes of Vatican II did not speak on any particular doctrine ex cathedra. However, if you believe in the teaching infallibility the magisterium and of the Popes, you have to concede that Vatican II was valid.

My only point is that Vatican II was valid, period. Granted some church leaders, priests, theologian and laity have taken liberty to go overboard. But, the spirit of VII was a renewal of the laity's activity within the Church.

It is unfair to blame the problems of the Church today on Vatican II. The Catholic Church is having many of the same problems all churches are having, such as, poor attendence, lack of clergy, etc.

But, I hate getting into the legalistics. Because then you get into all kinds of legal arguments that, unless you are a canon lawyer... Never mind, even canon lawyers argue like all lawyers. Endless debates.

Even if Vatican II is pastoral not doctrinal, there is a concept of submission to teaching authority that I think needs to be observed.

The people that have taken liberties beyond the scope of logic give all the clergy a bad name and I think we have to realize that they are a very small minority. Most parish priests and anyone on the pastoral level, have their plates full just trying to "shepard their flock". I guess that is why I get so defensive on the side of the priests.

I too am human and I feel the dire need to apologize for any distress I have caused. Please forgive me. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 26, 2003.

A question frequently received asks what authority Vatican II has and whether any Catholic is bound to it. The short answer is that according tot he popes, Vatican II has no dogmatic authority of its own and does not bind any Catholic.

In fact, it seems that the Holy Ghost may have intervened to make it easily possible any pope to wipe the Council entirely off the books, just as Pope Leo I rejected the Council of Ephesus (449), calling it a Robber's Council (Latrocinium), and just as Pope Pius VI rejected the Council of Pistoia (1794) as "injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God which governs her" (Auctorem Fidei). For further information, see the TRADITIO Library of Files for FAQ8: What Is the Authority of Vatican II?

Pope John XXIII made it clear when he called Vatican II that it would not involve itself with dogma, only with non-dogmatic pastoral matters. Pope Paul VI made it clear when he promulgated the Vatican II documents that they were not dogmatic. In fact, Pope Paul VI began just three years later to reject the fruits of that Council, even associating it with the "smoke of Satan." He issued not one, but several, startling statements to that effect. There are even reports, including a statement from the Cardinal Primate of England, that Pope John XXIII considered the Council to have strayed from Catholicism and that his last words were "Stop the Council! Stop the Council!"

In fact, the only things from Vatican II that bind any Catholic are those dogmata quoted by Vatican II from previous councils, mostly the Dogmatic Council of Trent.

So, when those Novus Ordinarians tell you that you must "obey" Vatican II, you can tell them that you have the pope's word there is nothing about Vatican II that requires obedience. That in fact Pope Paul VI himself said that the Council introduced the "smoke of Satan" into the Church!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

"...Novus Ordinarians..."

Oh dear, I'd better update my SSPX playbook to include this term. Is this part of that respect you recently mentioned for Catholics who choose to attend the mass in its current form?

You wacky schismatic...

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 27, 2003.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king! Figure that out for yourself.

-- Ed Richards (lozta@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.

Ed, Come on, this is what drives me nuts,if you truly believe that one should not accept any of the papers (teachings) from Vatican II, then no encyclical written by any pope should be a teaching worthy of consideration.

Making wild accusations about what John XXIII said about the Council is ludicrious. You need to read his encyclicals and a good biography about him. You have gone too far off base this time, my friend. May the Holy SPIRIT lead us toward the future, not back to the middle ages. God Bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 27, 2003.

In the land of monkeys, the guy with all the bananas is king! ;-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 27, 2003.

Mateo,

With all due respect, one so ready to whip out the sarcasm ought to at least take Emerald up on his proposition. Otherwise, as Emerald said, you don't have anything but disdain to stand on. Favourable or not, at least Ed is trying.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.

Isabel writes:

"Favourable or not, at least Ed is trying."

Ed just called anyone who isn't schismatic a "Novus Ordinarian." He does other stuff like "accidentally" forgets to capitalize the word "Vatican" when it is followed by roman numeral two. Where is Ed "trying" to do anything except lead people out of the Catholic Church?

Isabel writes:

"With all due respect, one so ready to whip out the sarcasm ought to at least take Emerald up on his proposition."

Look, I'm quite a lightweight when it comes to sarcasm. The fact is that Ed has a high opinion of his intellect, as evidenced in his last post.

You schismatics seem to be nice people; but I've said it a million times: your "solution" to what you see as a problem in the Church only creates a worse problem. I feel sorrow for you all because of your blindness to your role as the cause of much of what you complain about.

Regarding Emerald's posts, he is speaking to "anti-traditional whiners." The last thing I would consider myself is "anti-traditional." If you and Ed honestly read some of my posts from a few months ago, you would realize this. I am 100% "anti-schismatic," which is entirely different. Because I don't believe Emerald's request applies to me, I haven't responded to it.

I'd also mention that I already admitted that I don't understand the nuances of Papal Infallibility/assent to the Ordinary Magisterium. My words from last week were:

"I fear my little brain will never really understand the nuances of what is and isn't required by assent to the Ordinary Magisterium. I know that people have poured a lot into trying to explain it; but there are limits to my brain's ability to understand some things, and well, this is one of them!"

So there you go! Enjoy,

Mateo

PS--In the land of the french fries, the man with ketchup is king!

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 27, 2003.

Mateo,

I had forgottent that you said that, until you reposted what you had said about your understanding of assent to the Ordinary Magisterium. Please excuse me there, but here is my problem with your posts:

Ed just called anyone who isn't schismatic a "Novus Ordinarian."

And by that remark you have just called anyone who is not a "Novus Ordinarian" a schismatic.

He does other stuff like "accidentally" forgets to capitalize the word "Vatican" when it is followed by roman numeral two.

That would be your perception, because that is what you want to think. But I have noticed, that Ed does not worry much at all about any of the proper grammer, punctuation rules. I could point out many other grammatical errors that have nothing to do with "Vatican". (Sorry, Ed.)

You schismatics seem to be nice people;

Ah, there's that accusation again. Can you prove that?

I feel sorrow for you all because of your blindness to your role as the cause of much of what you complain about.

So, it would be more acceptable to sit back and let heresy run its course? I would rather fight for the truth, thank you. In the same sense, I feel sorrow for all of you guys for your blind assent to the Magisterium.

The last thing I would consider myself is "anti-traditional."

But I think you knew what Emerald meant by that. And by your words, we (traditional) Catholics are schismatic.

Let's put it this way. Since you claim that we are schismatic, the burden falls to you to prove it. But since you admitted that you don't understand the nuances of assent to the Ordinary Magisterium, then I am at a loss how you can dish out the title of schismatic.

Give me a run for my money, I rather enjoy it sometimes. :) It usually makes me learn more, because I end up having to research something or other. Only, if I am a little sparse tonite, it is because my team is playing in the Sweet 16 tonite.

God Bless you.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.

Isabel I can only speak for myself but Im not intrested, the same rubbish just gets put forward over and over again. I can only admire your persistance!

To me its a credibilty issue, Ive highlighted before why I believe you are so far gone on these issues as to be beyond any practical help.

Look at poor old Ed, John says hes off base on this one, jeez the guy has been AWOL for so long he is well and truely MIA. ANd Emerald, I love him dearly but hes a sucker for a good conspiracy theory.

Ed In the ocean of the flying Malaysian purple octopus, the giant deep sea squid is king.

Sorry Mateo has got me being all silly, see ya

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 27, 2003.

Kiwi, they just loosened the straight jacket so I could laugh at the Bush story. As far as grammar is concerned, if you think she's sick, you should see grampar.

Anyway the guy who dies with all the toys wins. Or does he?

-- Ed Richards (loztr@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.

"ANd Emerald, I love him dearly but hes a sucker for a good conspiracy theory."

See? See that? They're all out to get me. They're all against me. It's all part of this secret strategy to do me in!! On the other hand... if they weren't out to get me, they could be planning something. Yeah, that's why their so quiet. They must be up to something!!

j/k

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 27, 2003.

Kiwi,

God love ya, buddy! I see where you are coming from, about the same topics being rehashed, but I think of it this way: It is so plain and simple to me; so easy to see; so blatant, that I find it very difficult to understand why others do not see it! All it takes is a little research on one's part. And a lot of reading! If only people would spend the time towards it, instead of thinking that God would not allow this. He most certainly would allow things as punishments to mankind, if we deserve it. And we certainly do.

To think that, while although His Church will never entirely disappear, He would not allow confusion to test the faithful is contrary to scripture, even. In scripture, He punished His chosen people in ways, many times, that they least expected it, because they had chosen not to live their faith or lay their faith entirely in Him.

And about you highlighting facts portraying why you think we are 'so far gone'.......in all honesty, I never remember you laying out any facts. I never remember you stating anything but your personal opinions. In fact, I never remember anyone laying out any substantial facts to refute the stance that I hold. It has all been conjecture and opinion. Even when trying to refute dogmatic statements, I was refuted with personal conjecture, not other dogmatic statements. So, you see, I don't see that the case has been set before me with cold, hard facts. But, if you can do it, or think you can, I am all ears, and ready for the challenge. And I can certainly admit when I am wrong, if I can be proven so. That has not been done. And I am quite surpised at that, because there appear to be many here with more intellect that me. But since it has not been done, it leaves me no other choice but to remain solid in my stance. (Besides the fact, one can try to explain away doctrine all they want, but I will never deny it. If I did, it would be the cause of my damnation.)

About conspiracy theories........I read way too much. Just ask me about our government. :)

Hey Emerald, I have started reading "The Great Heresies"!! Wonderful, I have remained enthralled and am devouring it rather quickly. I, too read the first chapter, and then jumped to Chapter 7, but I am anxious to get back to Chapter 2, because I find Church history fascinating. Thanks again for that link.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.

Thanks Emerald ,I put Geat Heresies on disc. Isabel is correct, as you can never refute whata we say. The best that you can do is to call us pretty names. I think that deep down somewhere you guys are a bit shaken. We challenge some documents on Vatican II, but you reject everything before Vatican II. You deny it but you do. Dogma becomes something that the pope "clarifies with new enlightenment".Solemn encyclicals be come , "well a past pope can't bind a future pope". So it is possible tha in a few years V2 goes into the trash bin. Don't sound like it is built on a rock, does it?

Some people object that they don’t get much out of the traditional Latin Mass, that it is “boring” because they don’t understand the Latin, that the priest doesn’t make the service interesting by getting the people involved — that he even has his back turned to them most of the time, that there is no music or they would prefer more “upbeat,” modern music, etc. What they forget is that the Mass is not for them but for God. Worship is not a social gathering intended to give us a warm, fuzzy, neighborly feeling inside. It is an acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty and His infinite perfections, and an expression of our submission to Him as creatures to their Creator and Lord. As the catechism teaches, the purposes for which Mass are offered are:

first, to adore God as our Creator and Lord; second, to thank God for His many favors; third, to ask God to bestow His blessings on all men; fourth, to satisfy the justice of God for the sins committed against Him. The Mass is, moreover, the public worship offered by the entire Church to God through Jesus Christ Who, as the Eternal High Priest, offers Himself anew to His Eternal Father as He did on the cross. He is the Lamb of God, the spotless Victim Whose sacrifice takes away the sins of the world, “standing as it were slain” (Apoc. 5,6) — that is, offering to His Heavenly Father again the sacrifice of His life on the cross. The Mass, then, is the fulfillment of the prophecy: “From the rising of the sun even to the going down...in every place there is sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation” (Mal. 1:11).

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.

Isabel writes:

"And by that remark you have just called anyone who is not a "Novus Ordinarian" a schismatic."

"But I think you knew what Emerald meant by that. And by your words, we (traditional) Catholics are schismatic."

This literalistic interpretation would also result in my labeling Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and Atheists as schismatics. That's obviously not the intent of my statement. Ed seems to fall on the side of the SSPx side of the fence as opposed to groups such as FSSP. All faithful Catholics accept the validity of the current form of the mass (even those in the FSSP). SSPX advocates (at least on this forum) have waffled on their statements in this regard. It's a little Clintonesque. "Traditional Catholics" are not ipso facto in schism. Groups like SSPX are schismatic.

Isabel writes:

"So, it would be more acceptable to sit back and let heresy run its course? I would rather fight for the truth, thank you. In the same sense, I feel sorrow for all of you guys for your blind assent to the Magisterium."

My perception (from the posts I have seen) is that SSPX advocates are running from the problem, not solving the problem. Putting your head in the sand is not the same as "fighting for the truth." My opinions here are based on what traditional schismatics (Jake, Regina, Ed, and you) on the forum have told me.

Isabel writes:

"But I have noticed, that Ed does not worry much at all about any of the proper grammar, punctuation rules."

Ed has great grammar and punctuation, darn it! :-)

Isabel writes:

"Let's put it this way. Since you claim that we are schismatic, the burden falls to you to prove it. But since you admitted that you don't understand the nuances of assent to the Ordinary Magisterium, then I am at a loss how you can dish out the title of schismatic."

First, here's the dictionary definition:

schismatic \Schis*mat"ic\ n. One who creates or takes part in schism; one who separates from an established church or religious communion on account of a difference of opinion.

Now SSPX isn't schismatic? Come on, Isabel, I'm not "dishing out the title," I'm merely quoting the Church. If you haven't already been convinced, it isn't because we haven't provided supporting proof. Instead, it is because your ears/eyes are closed to such proof. I'll quote the Church statement (from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei) from 1998:

"While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X."

Ed writes:

"The best that you can do is to call us pretty names."

Now that's ironic that you claim to be the victim of name-calling! But that's just the opinion of a mere "Novus Ordinarian." LOL.

Ed, most of your post is addressed at a straw man--your boogieman. Your position is dependent upon that straw man's existence. Your argument only thrives when you give the straw man life.

Ed writes:

"I think that deep down somewhere you guys are a bit shaken."

More wishful thinking? Really, I do feel sorry for schismatic traditionalists, and I am amazed that you don't see my main point. Honestly, my main criticism of you guys isn't your religious practices. I think the fact that you're a schismatic is a moot point, though even that isn't why I post. I post because your actions place you in self-perpetuating victimhood. Your actions are so contrary to your goals; it's really amazing that you continue in your schism! You are your own worst enemy. But hey...some people like victimhood.

I'll recommend this book again, Father, Forgive Me for I Am Frustrated by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ. I think it's relevant to this discussion.

Enjoy,

Mateo

PS--Emerald, did you ever suspect that your wife was in on the conspiracy? :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 28, 2003.

I knew she was out to get me... but, you know, it wasn't quite the same thing...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 28, 2003.

You can find no wrong in anything John Paul does. OK do you all for a line behind him to kiss the Koran, when it comes to your turn, or get the mark of Sheba on your forhead, or pray with Jews for the coming of the Messiah, or pray with Anamists, Shintos Budhists, (yes even let them put Budha on the Tabernacle)?... Yes it seems like the Pope will sit or stand with any religion in the world,EXCEPT, those celebrating the Traditional Mass. Well because that one is schismatic, and the pope would never think of doing such an evil thing. Sorry but I follow St Paul not John Paul on these incidental things. Read what the saint says about these acts.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.

Ed, our Lord shared a meal with "sinners" and tax collectors, but by doing so, he did not endorse their sinful behaviour, neither does the Pope endorse other religions, but wants peace to exist between religions.

John Paul II, is a very holy man, and we are lucky to have him. God bless him!

Your efforts would be better served in praying for the Holy Father, then spending so much time posting on this forum.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.

To add. St. Paul gave Peter the "what for" when he got out of line.. I'm sure he'd let this pope have it too.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.

Ed writes:

"You can find no wrong in anything John Paul does."

Ack! To whom are you addressing this statement? Who is "you?"

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 28, 2003.

Who is you? All of you except for Jake, Isabel and Emerald. Pray for the Pope? You bet I do,probably more than you who think he is so perfect. Jesus ate with sinners but wanted to reform them.. "Go and sin no more". This pope's message is "Youre ok, I'm ok, and let's leave it that way". "Other sheep I have that are not of this fold, they too must I bring". don't see John Paul bringing anybody. Why should they change , they are saved right where they are. Just ask a Muslm to kiss the New Tewtament.....Then duck.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.

No need to duck. Modern technology has graced us with the Kevlar battle helmet.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 28, 2003.

> "This pope's message is "Youre ok, I'm ok, and let's leave it that way"."

Ed your repeat this over and over again, but you never provide proof of this, that the Pope believes this or practices this. I think it is harsh to judge someone with falsehoods, and a very serious sin, and just because you believe this, does not make it right.

I think you should pray for yourself, as you need your own prayers, more than the Pope needs yours.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.

Let me chime back in.

For a while now, I have waffled on my personal assessment of the Pope.

Pope John Paul II is considered conservative to the liberals.

He is considered liberal to the tradionalists.

Maybe he's doing a good job --making corrections when needed and advancing ecumenical and evangelical issues.

He may just be Proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What a surprise.

God Bless all,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 28, 2003.

Gordon, the proof is in the pictures. That wasn't You or me kissing that Koran. What is in his head, I don't know, but I do know what was on his lips. What do you want, a signed confession? Sure I pray for him, he is after all a child of God. Whether he prays for me? I don't know. I do think that I try harder to make converts than he does. That's easy, because he doesn't try to make any.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.

I doubt I would be motivated to kiss the Koran, but at the same time, I don't see it as a sinful act. I'm sure the Pope was intending peace between our religions, after a history of so much conflict. The Pope is a man of peace, and if you think he is not interested in conversion, then you are living in your own reality.

Ed you are on a futile mission here, but I know you will not stop. I thank God, I don't live with you, as having to listen to this everyday from you would drive me nuts!

Ed, I take it you are quite young? Early 20's? Hot headed and believe you can change the world, if you shout loud enough and long enough.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

Mateo,

SSPX advocates I will assume you mean me, correct me if I'm wrong. But in the case that you do let me explain exactly how I stand. You call me a SSPX advocate, well that depends on exactly what you mean by that. First of all, while I am not opposed to attending their Masses, I do not attend a SSPX Mass very often. It is quite out of the way for me. I have a Tridentine Mass within 5 minutes of my home. (This spring, though, I will travel 1 1/2 hours to have my children Confirmed in a SSPX chapel, so they can be Confirmed in the Tridentine rite.) While my parents sent me to St. Marys in Kansas for my last two and a half years of high school and I am very devoted to them for giving me back the faith (which I was very much in danger of losing completely), there are things I do not agree with. I do in a sense support SSPX, insofar as their devotion to the Tridentine liturgy, their schools (because the children attending actually learn their catechism), and their 'promotion' of devotion, (most chapels I have had the occasion to attend have daily rosary, frequent Benedictions, Vespers, Compline, etc.) But there are points even I do not agree with, which are mostly doctrinal. A couple of examples: I was taught (in high school there) a more 'modernist' opinion on the doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. In that, those totally ignorant of the faith might still be saved. (To see my stance on this issue I should refer you to the thread titled "Outside the Church There is No Salvation" instead of going in detail here.) I was also taught that there were two possibilities concerning creation: one is 'absolute' creation. The other was evolution leading up to 'creation' at the point ape finally evolved into man, then a human soul was breathed into him. This, even then, sounded totally contrary to Church teaching, to scripture and sound reason to me. I had to reject it, and still do. By accepting that teaching, it would call into question the validity of the Bible. This I could not and can not do. Now, whether the Society as a whole teaches this, I cannot say. I only know that this is what was taught me. Now, after this overly lengthy explanation, I can say that I support the SSPX, in their devotion to and promotion of the Tridentine Rite.

Groups like SSPX are schismatic. Let's examine this closely, since I knew eventually this would be brought up by someone.

What constitutes a schismatic act? Consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate? The 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offense under Title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers) and not under Title 1 (offenses against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section.

COUNT NERI CAPPONI,D.CN.L. - LATERAN (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW),LL.D. - FLORENCE (DOCTOR OF LAWS), Professor Emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence, Accredited as an Advocate of the Holy Roman Rota, Accredited as an Advocate of the Apostolic Signatura (the Holy See's highest appeals tribunal) "The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic."

REV. FR. PATRICK VALDINI, J.C.D., Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris "It is not the consecration of a bishop that creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission [which Abp. Lefebvre never did]."

Now let's examine the pertinent paragraph in Ecclesia Dei with my notes in []:

In itself, this act was one of disobedience [disobedience does not resort to schism] to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, [but, in Canon Law, the consecrating of bishops without papal permission is listed under usurpation of ecclesial authority, NOT under offences against religion and unity of the Church] such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy [disobedience does not imply the rejection of the Pope, per se, just a weakness on the part of the offender] - constitutes a schismatic act. [So if you disobey your mother, are you necessarily trying to seperate yourself from her? No, it shows a weakness in obeying her orders, but not a denial in who she is or her authority.]

Now, Archbishop Lefebvre has said that he consecrated the bishops to carry on his 'traditional' order as he was aging and thought his time on earth may be coming to an end. He was extremely worried and fearful he would not have a bishop to carry on the ordination of the priests in his order. Rome would not grant him a traditional bishop. (Look at all the modernist bishops we have in the Church today, why would they not grant him a good faithful one?) So, in context of that, we have this canon law:

No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls (Canon 1324, 4°).

Now, in light of all this, the schism could at the very least be doubtful and/or debateable. And again, you have called me a schismatic, when in no way can you prove that!

May the Holy Spirit be with you and yours.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

Hi Isabel,

I do appreciate you sharing.

You write:

"Now, in light of all this, the schism could at the very least be doubtful and/or debateable. And again, you have called me a schismatic, when in no way can you prove that!"

The definition I quoted matches quite well with your position. I don't know what else to say.

I am curious, how many SSPX bishops are there? Is there an SSPX bishop who will confirm your children?

Regarding your need to use the term "disobedience" instead of "schism." I suppose we should rename the beginning of the Orthodox Churches as the "Great Disobedience." Because, who could prove that the Orthodox were in schism? They just had a difference of opinion...wait, what was the definition?

schismatic \Schis*mat"ic\ n. One who creates or takes part in schism; one who separates from an established church or religious communion on account of a difference of opinion.

It's a simple definition. As long as your eyes and ears are closed, rest assured you will never be convinced that you (or SSPX) are in schism. :-)

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 29, 2003.

In all honesty, Mateo, that's pretty much what I have come to find out. In fact, Isabel's last post is almost word for word what I have come to figure out, most of the details of the truth being stitched together since I've been in this forum. But this is the first time in a year of being here that someone has laid out something like Isabel just did above, and until she posted that, I did not know that her exact take on matters. In other words, it has that character of one having stumbled upon a solid reality.

The people that are figuring out what is actually going on in the Church are doing so in an independent manner; not independent in the bad way as in a deviation from Catholicism, such as true schism or heterodoxy, but in the sense of coming home to the real thing. What I mean is, it isn't as if this misguided, deceived leader somewhere has the deviant idea about "what the right way do be a Catholic is" and others are falling in line with it. Instead, it is that people who do not know each other, and each one not referencing a single source, are coming to the same conclusions independently about the truth of a matter. This in and of itself lends credence to the conclusions themselves.

In this particular case, the conclusions are more Catholic rather than less Catholic or deviant from the heart of Catholicism. It is a return to an understanding of true Catholicism. This is what real seekers want, Mateo, they want the truth. If they are going to pure their heart and soul into something, they want it full strength.

That being said, I certainly do understand what you have refered to in the past about people becoming part of the problem instead of taking a more charitable role in being a part of a Godly solution.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 29, 2003.

Gordon, I am not shouting, just speaking. What has my age got to do with it? The Apostles varied from about 40 to 19 or so.I am not questioning whether the pope is a holy man or not. Again that is for God to decide. I just say, from what can be seen by the eyes and heard by the ears, that he is harming the Church.

John Paul put all those archbishops into positions whre they either are part of the pedophile agenda, or cover for it. They consecrated the bishops under them.

Example, who made Roger Mahoney an archbishop? There are others too many to mention.

I am not accusing him of willful evil, but then he has to be held for horrible administration. It's one or the other.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

> "Gordon, I am not shouting, just speaking."

You are saying the same thing over and over again. It's really a form of harrassment on this forum, as you will not give up. You start new threads, so you can continue promoting your ideology on this forum.

> "What has my age got to do with it?"

Because you are behaving exactly like a young person would behave. You think that harrassing people with your ideology you will get a conversion out of them. Tell me, how many people have you converted to your way of thinking? One? Two?

> "I am not questioning whether the pope is a holy man or not."

You always cut him down! You don't think the Pope is a holy man at all! You do judge a holy man, and as a result, the judgement against you will be harsh. Too bad for you, but you have been warned repeatedly, so I don't feel all that sorry for you.

> "I just say, from what can be seen by the eyes and heard by the ears, that he is harming the Church."

You are harming God's Church, and yet you cannot even see that.

> "pedophile agenda"

An agenda? Ed, I think you have lost it. I mean, to say there is an agenda is a very unbalanced thing to say, and here is another thing you have no proof for. An agenda would imply a conspiracy among the religious, but no proof of this exists.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

Hi Emerald,

I know that Isabel thinks she's finding the truth by leaving the Catholic Church; but just as other non-Catholics (Protestants, Muslims, etc) who think that they've found a better truth, she (and they) are wrong.

Isabel is looking for technicalities in Canon Law to try to justify her support for SSPX. The excuses don't hold water. The SSPX and its sympathizers are factually in schism with the Catholic Church.

Just for fun, I went over to the SSPX website, and began looking through their FAQ. It has questions like: "Can a traditional Catholic go to confession to a Novus Ordo priest?" What one who looks at their website finds is the following attitude: non-SSPX practices are "guilty until proven innocent." In other words, it is assumed that the real Church (non-SSPX) is administering sacraments invalidly (or teaching improperly) unless the SSPX proves otherwise.

I recall a while ago when Jake told someone to avoid their Church's youth group because he assumed that Catholic youth groups would only alienate the young from the faith. The same thing above: a non-SSPX priest should be avoided because (according to SSPX) they most probably have an incorrect understanding of the nature of sin.

It's all over the place. And there's a reason: the SSPX thrives on attacking the Catholic Church. If it didn't demonize us, it would cease to exist. So here's my first problem with SSPX and its sympathizers:

1) They are happiest when they can throw mud at the Church. (see the supposed "pedophile agenda" above).

Further, their own behavior validates the actions of the liberals who illicitly have masses. The Dancing girls? Their dances are validated. The ex-priests who left the priesthood to marry yet still use their faculties? They are validated. It's all just illicit. And, hey, "illicit" isn't bad, right? That's what traditionalists say.

2) They validate the actions of liberal abuses of the Mass.

Lastly (for today), I would repeat something I wrote a few months back. If you've got 100 Catholics, and 10 of the most traditionalist believers leave to join a SSPX church, is it any wonder that the remaining 90 people are more liberal on average than the original 100?

3) Their actions are self-fulfilling prophesies.

OK, time for household chores! :-)

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 29, 2003.

One man alone, the holder of the papal office, has full authority over all patriarchs, cardinals, and bishops but fails to discipline in assocxiation with the example set by Pope Saint Peter: "When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him." [Acts 5:5-6] John Paul II posits and worships a fickle god of diverse requirements for salvation and damnation. A true God has a single set of standards for acceptable association with Him. Anyone who accepts varying standards in relation to the truths of God is worshipping a false god. JPII is also a desecrator of the most Holy Eucharist. By omission (failure to remove cardinals and bishops known to protect pedophiles, etc., facts that a man in his position would absolutely know about) he is an accomplice in all offenses against God and therefore is just as guilty as those who commit these acts under his jurisdiction. He has full power to remove all of these offending cardinals, bishops, and priests from office. He fails to do so. Sharing in his guilt are numerous prelates (high ranking clerics), heads of government at all levels, police and other public officials, cooperating voters, self-centered, and self-absorbed lovers of evil.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

I keep repeating: He not only does not remove them, he PUT them there.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

Ed, I see you avoided my question about your age. I assume then I am right, that you are very young, and assume earlier 20's. That explains alot about your behaviour. I find interesting that you consider your age a secret here.

I agree with you Mateo, that SSPX church is in schism with the Catholic Church. That's why I will never have anything to do with them.

> "He has full power to remove all of these offending cardinals, bishops, and priests from office."

Guilty of what Ed? I mean this is just nonsense, as you do not provide any specific charges that these religious are guilty of. It's just a blanket condemnation, that we have to accept because you say so. Again no proof on your end. It's the same story with you over and over again. You're obsessed with your own opinion, and we have to accept it like you are the Pope or something. Again, all indications that you are very immature, and driven by your emotions.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

Through a misguided desire for having legal unity in the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II has allowed --through omission-- apostasy, schism, and heresy to fester, to grow, and to become a major part of life within the Church. Of what value is a visible and decaying unity when the Church is self-destructing through lack of discipline and through lack of recognition and acknowledgment of real (de facto) schism, heresy, and apostasy that exists within the legal (de jure) unity of the Church?

No proof Gordon? All those fellows in handcuffs and on TV and newspapers were not Muslim terrorists.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

Mateo,

The definition I quoted matches quite well with your position

Let's see, the definition says: One who creates or takes part in schism; one who separates from an established church or religious communion on account of a difference of opinion.

Now, by the first part of that definition, you then would have to prove a schism. And the second part is saying that the person(s) are seperating themselves from the established religion. Archbishop Lefebrve did not try and seperate himself at all from the Catholic Church, he simply wanted bishops to carry on the order that he started. That's it. As pertains to myself, I have never, nor do I have any intention whatsoever of leaving the Catholic Church. I simply only attend the Tridentine rite (which seems enough for some to label me as schismatic) and adhere to undefiled Catholic teaching, and support any and all who do the same. That is not formal adherence to the schism, if indeed there is one. It has actually been ruled on by Cardinal Ratzinger (in Honolulu) that even soley attending a SSPX does not consitute formal adherence to the schism. Therefore, if you want to consider labeling me as schismatic, without proof, then you do yourself a grave injustice.

I am curious, how many SSPX bishops are there?

There are four.

Is there an SSPX bishop who will confirm your children?

Yes, there is. Like I said, though, I have to travel 1 1/2 hours to have this accomplished.

Regarding your need to use the term "disobedience" instead of "schism."

My need? Ecclesia Dei: In itself, this act was one of disobedience .....Hence such disobedience

And then you write to Emerald:

I know that Isabel thinks she's finding the truth by leaving the Catholic Church

Explain exactly how I have left the Church. I follow all the laws of the Church, submit myself to the Roman Pontiff in all that he keeps in accordance to the Deposit of Faith, the only thing is I exclusively attend the Tridentine Rite. Does worshipping in the same manner as all the great saints and martyrs of the Church constitute leaving the Church?

Isabel is looking for technicalities in Canon Law to try to justify her support for SSPX. The excuses don't hold water. The SSPX and its sympathizers are factually in schism with the Catholic Church.

You know, technicalities in judicial law get people 'off the hook' quite often. :) You say the excuses don't hold water, and say SSPX is factually in schism. Please explain how then. Because if you know that they are factually in schism, you must know. And if you simply say, 'Because Rome says so.' Then I will simply say, that you are guilty of a faulty assent to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Like I said, I support any order/society that promotes the Tridentine Rite, even FSSP, as well as SSPX. It does not mean I support everything about the Society, or everything they teach. Same as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. But in their effort of adhering to the Tridentine Rite, in this, I support them.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

PREFERENCE for BODY rather than SOUL One should recognize that a good spiritual relationship with God is of far more value than any materialistic legal relationship. Culpable moral separation, from the teachings of the Church, is more offensive to God than purely legal separation. Separation of the mind and heart from unity with God, and the authority of His Church, is the key to destruction. Merely legal separation from authoritative teachings may not, under certain conditions, ultimately be destructive of the soul and the spirit in Hell. A formal schism should be seen as preferable to an informal schism. When a schism is made formal (de jure) the facts regarding the schism are made clear. This should be much preferred over a de facto festering schism wherein confusion increases exponentially. Over a period of time, because of confusion, many otherwise faithful people lose hope, become disenchanted, and quit going to Church.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

Ed, I knew you would not provide any proof against a specific Archbishop, but you have no problems slandering them all, to try and strengthen your own schismatic faith.

How would you feel if you made claims about you, without providing any proof? Did you know in a court of law, you would have to provide proof when you make serious charges someone?

I'm beginning to think this forum, is some kind of emotional outlet for you, and nothing more.

You never provide any proof, beyond your own opinion, beyond your own beliefs. All I can say, your constant slander against God's Church, Pope, and Archbishops, will carry a heavy price with you. It is sinful, as it is slander.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

The third reason for amazement is Pope John XXIII's other statement in his inaugural address: "Doctrine is one thing-the formulation of the doctrine is another: it can change." But, since one cannot present the doctrine without its formulation, the formulation protects the orthodoxy of the doctrine. The history of Councils shows us that the champions of Catholic orthodoxy often fought for a single word, and once this definitive formulation was found, it was always held to be unchangeable.

If one takes the route indicated by Pope John XXIII, however, it is easy to arrive at a position that contradicts the irreformable decisions of Vatican I (chap.IV, 31st session), which give as a rule of Faith, that dogmas must be understood "eodem sensu eademque sentential i.e., always in the same sense in which they were held. Pope Pius X recalls this principle in his Encyclical against Modernism, taking up Pope Pius IX's Syllabus and his encyclical Qui Pluribus (1846).3 Pope John XXIII's declaration is one indication, among many others, of a modernist mentality; it signals the willingness to break with Tradition.

The fourth (but not the last) reason for amazement: while all the previous Councils (except two-Chalcedon and Lyons) exhibit the rigorous form of an exposition of the correct doctrine, followed by condemnation of the opposite errors, Vatican II presents itself as a collection of addresses, followed by recommendations, exhortations and orientations, all without much precision. This has allowed the documents to be twisted, at will, this way and that.

Gordon, I appreciate your concern for my soul as I do for yours. You keep saying proof, proof. What do you mean by proof? I am not giving my opinions, I am showing you fact. Mother Angelica, a good N.O. Catholic condemned Mahoney, because she said he did not believe in the Real Presence. Censorship stepped in. The show was never repeated, as all the others were. You are one stubborn guy. One thing I do admire in you is your loyalty to this pope. Gordon, he doesn"t deserve it. He is lettting you and millions of Catholics lose the true faith. As I said, his actions are known only to him, but the results of those actions are very apparent. God bles you Gordon. I truly mean that.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

The soul, Forever and forever- longer than soil is brown and solid- longer than water ebbs and flows. I will make the poems of materials, for I think they are to be the most spiritual poems, And I will make the poems of my body and of mortality, For I think I shall then supply myself with the poems of my soul and of immortality.

Courtesy Walt Whitman; This is a part of what it is about Gordon, our immortal soul. We must first answer to God before men.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

That we are indeed facing an outright apostasy in the Church, starting with the highest ranking member, the Pope, can be seen by the following quotes I will now supply, taken from John Paul II, in no particular order. They all bear witness to the Pope's humanism, which has supplanted the Gospel starting with the election of John XXIII and Vatican II, as the title of this series indicates: Vatican II and the Gospel of Man. Sit back, then, and ponder in horror (as I certainly did) these hardly-known but documented despicable statements made by the Holy Father:

"Brothers and Sisters, the example of a saint who lived close to us can strengthen in us the courage of hope. Brother Mutien-Marie goes before us on the path of fidelity to God's invitation and of tireless service of our brothers and sisters. We ask his intercession, that we may be given in our day to make straight the way of the Lord and of man, which is the path of the Church." - Homily of December 10, 1989.

"In reality, the name for that deep amazement at man's worth and dignity is the Gospel, that is to say: the Good News. It is also called Christianity. This amazement determines the Church's mission in the world. . . ." - Redemptor Hominis, No. 10.

Speaking of Christmas night: "'A child is born to us, a Son is given to us.' Yes! A son has been given to us. In this Son we are all once more given back to ourselves!" - Urbi et Orbi, December 25, 1980.

"Man must be reconciled with his humanity." - Message at the Angelus, April 20, 1980.

"The 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' are not entrusted to Peter and the Church to be used arbitrarily or to manipulate consciences, but so that consciences can be freed in the full Truth of man, who is Christ, 'peace and mercy' (cf. Gal 6:16) for everyone." - General Audience, February 22, 1984. All of these are absolutely outrageous, erroneous, and poisoned with the gospel of man, or pure razzmatazz that has no definite meaning (at least no definite orthodox meaning) and to which one can only reply: "Whatever." Man is the path of the Church, the Gospel is defined as the amazement at man's worth and dignity, man this, man that, ad nauseam. If this is not razzmatazz, bafflegab, skimble- skamble, or just plain heresy - you name it - then I don't know what is.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

Well, the argument has come full circle.

My prayer is for the unity of ALL Christians by the acceptance of differences in the performance of worship.

It is amazing what we have in common if we look at the DESIRE TO WORSHIP AND DO GOD'S WILL by being disciples of Christ.

Diversity is not a plague. It has been and will continue to be a worldly reality.

MATTHEW CHAPTER 18 17 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." 21 18 Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?" "Not seven, but seventy seven."

Right this minute, in the world, we need it.

MAY GOD HELP US ALL!!!!!

John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 29, 2003.

Hi Isabel,

You write:

"I simply only attend the Tridentine rite (which seems enough for some to label me as schismatic) and adhere to undefiled Catholic teaching, and support any and all who do the same."

Attending any licit mass is not schismatic. Attending an illicit SSPX mass? In the statement from Cardinal Ratzinger saying that mere attendance at SSPX masses does not equal adherence to schism, he continues: "such adherence can come about over a period of time." You are imbibing the poison of schism slowly. Your alienation from the Catholic Church takes time; but that's the goal of SSPX.

You write:

"Does worshipping in the same manner as all the great saints and martyrs of the Church constitute leaving the Church?"

No, but rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church does. The Orthodox worships in a traditional way; but they are still 100% in schism.

You write:

"Because if you know that they are factually in schism, you must know. And if you simply say, 'Because Rome says so.' Then I will simply say, that you are guilty of a faulty assent to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church."

Isabel, why would you attempt to put words in my mouth? Though I quoted the Church documents that the SSPX is in schism, I don't expect this to convince you because I know that you've rejected the Church hierarchy. ;-) Instead, I pointed to a dictionary definition of schism and claimed that the SSPX has factually rejected the Catholic Church. It's all over their website. Check out: SSPX website. The SSPX believes itself to be above the Pontiff and hierarchy in determining what is and is not "Catholic." Read my last post for more info.

Isabel writes:

"Like I said, I support any order/society that promotes the Tridentine Rite, even FSSP, as well as SSPX. It does not mean I support everything about the Society, or everything they teach. Same as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. But in their effort of adhering to the Tridentine Rite, in this, I support them."

OK, Isabel, this piqued my curiosity. What about the SSPX do you not support?

Also, Is it correct to assume that the weekly mass that you attend is Tridentine mass approved by your diocese's bishop?

Again, I am sad that my main message has fallen on deaf ears: you haven't acknowledged your role in worsening the situation for "traditionalists" by your actions. If your goals for a traditionalist revival materialize in the mainstream of Catholicism, it will be despite your efforts, and not because of them.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 29, 2003.

Diversity is not a plague. It has been and will continue to be a worldly reality.

Another worldly reality? Do we have to? I've been looking to get rid of several... I'll start the bidding at 2 cents.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 30, 2003.

Hey Mateo... I'm too tired tonight, but I did want to get into this further. But right now, my eyes are glazing over and I can't stay awake.

Let me toss you an apetizer though and we'll take it up later. Here goes:

I'm nearing the end of my tour of duty in this long discovery process I've been put through, and the conclusion I have come to is this: I am no longer willing to procede any further into what is the post- conciliar Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 30, 2003.

> "Mother Angelica, a good N.O. Catholic condemned Mahoney, because she said he did not believe in the Real Presence. Censorship stepped in. The show was never repeated, as all the others were."

Ed, I don't know all the details, but I do agree, that if a Catholic religious said he did not believe in the Real Presence, then he should have his faculties removed, but there are many cases, these people will either not repeat themselves to their superiors, or will have a change of heart.

Also the Church has to have an investigation in such serious allegations, and just cannot remove people right away. These investigations can take a long time.

Don't forget the Pope has taken action before against an Archbishop, as he excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre rightly so, for disobedience.

> "You are one stubborn guy."

You're stubborn also, as you will not change, and I don't mind being stubborn about the Catholic Church. It is my faith, and I believe it to be true.

> "One thing I do admire in you is your loyalty to this pope. Gordon, he doesn"t deserve it. He is letting you and millions of Catholics lose the true faith."

I have not lost my faith. I do believe in God's Holy Church, and all the teachings of that Church. Pope John Paul II, has been a staunch defender of that faith, in the face of a very liberal world that condemns him all the time for his stance against abortion, artificial contraception, homosexual lifestyle, etc.

> "As I said, his actions are known only to him, but the results of those actions are very apparent."

Mother Teresa never criticized our Pope, and she was very holy. We are lucky to have this Pope, as throughout Church history there were many Popes, that were not good at all. The Church seems to agree, as most Popes have not been declared saints.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 30, 2003.

Gordon,

Without trying to jump into the middle of your's and Ed's conversation/debate, if I may bring up a contradiction. You say that Ed does not have the right to call our Pope an 'unholy' Pope because he has no way to judge what it is the Pope is really thinking in his actions. Then in that same context, do you really have a right to call people 'holy' when the Church has not identified them as so (ie. through a canonization) when you have no way of knowing or judging their actions, as well? I say this because more than once, I have seen you post this or something similar about our Pope and Mother Theresa: Mother Teresa never criticized our Pope, and she was very holy.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 30, 2003.

That's exactly right. That's the operative mentality, which upon more careful examination, makes little sense. Not to single out Gordon, but this is the tone and feel of the 'direction of the Church', and it is incoherent. It is little different from any other variety of celebrity status, and has little or no connection to the truth, and has even less relevance to our Holy Faith.

Yet people are using it to define their Faith. People deny they are doing this, but it's too easy to show they in fact are.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 30, 2003.

Gordon, You may very well have walked through the "spiritual mine fields" unscathed, but I was not that fortunate. Example: We sing "Amazing Grace". ask the priest, "Does that really mean that I am assured salvation" He answers, "Yes it does". Heresy #1

Another priest says, " I don't believe one unforgiven mortal sin sends anyone to hell, but rather a consistent life of sinning does". Heresy #2. Sorry Gordon, I wasn't wearing a wire, so my word, (for whatever it's worth), will have to do.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 30, 2003.

Isabel, it's wrong to cut down our Pope, and I have no problems saying some people are holy. You are being too picky here, that does not surprise me, by someone who is caught up with her own interpretation of every little thing said in the Church, and yelling dogma and doctrine to people all day. So I don't meet your approval, but I don't care.

Ed, I agree what those priests said is wrong, but do you think that in the 37 years I have been practicing my faith, I have not come across such instances? Like you, it makes me mad, and I don't agree with it. I place blame on the individual, and not on the system. There are many good priests.

> "ask the priest, "Does that really mean that I am assured salvation" He answers, "Yes it does". Heresy #1"

That's a bit ambigious by the way, and I would have asked the priest, what he meant by that, instead of jumping down on him with the word "heresy". Ed, we are saved by grace, for no one could go to heaven without it, so maybe that's what he meant. I would not say salvation is assured because of grace though, as we all have received grace, but not everyone is saved.

> "I was not that fortunate."

Talking about making mountains of mole hills Ed, this is the reason, you justify cutting down the Pope, Archbishops and God's Church? It seems kinda of funny and sad to me in someways.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 30, 2003.

Ed, Are you from Houston, TX? If so, we may have met in person. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 30, 2003.

Mo John, not Houston, but New York. Gordon always puts the best face on any negative thing that I come up with. The president can use a press secretary like that these days.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 30, 2003.

Hey, Mateo,

You write, but that's the goal of SSPX.

No, that is not their goal. Their goal is to protect people from the Modernism run rampant in the Church today. To keep the Mass and the faith whole and undefiled. They very much claim the authority of the Vicar of Christ (in all things keeping with doctrine & traditional Catholic teaching.) Here again, you lay accusations that you cannot back up. Gut feelings don't cut it.

but rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church does.

I have never rejected the authority of the Catholic Church. I acknowledge all the priests, bishops, cardinals and the Pope. I have only disagreed with the authorities in matters of the Deposit of Faith.

Though I quoted the Church documents that the SSPX is in schism, I don't expect this to convince you

Because a Church document says something does not make it so. Many Church documents of late have said things totally contrary to the Deposit of Faith. And I gave very valid arguments to the Church document in question, but I don't expect this to convince you because I know that you have a blind assent to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. ;-) (ie. If Rome says it, it must be true.)

because I know that you've rejected the Church hierarchy

You know nothing of the sort, because this is not true. Not in the smallest iota.

The SSPX believes itself to be above the Pontiff and hierarchy in determining what is and is not "Catholic."

This is a bogus charge. Because one knows their Catholic faith, and has studied it, and can plainly see when one speaks heresy, does that mean they think themself above the Pontiff? That's ridiculous. The truths of the faith can be found easily enough by some theological study on the part of the faithful. When one gets elected Pope, there is no magical formula that infuses every bit of 'perfect Catholicity' into the Pope. The Pope is still responsible for his own theological study.

Now, while I realize this would probably (hopefully) never happen but I will use this as an analogy, if the Pope wrote an encyclical or letter one day totally denying the Real Presence, are you going to say, "Oh, OK, well he's the Pope, he knows better than anyone." I would think not. I would think you would climb to the highest rooftop and proclaim this is not so. Because the truth of the matter is that the Truth can be found easily enough if one takes the time to look.

What about the SSPX do you not support?

It would be very time consuming to type up all the whos, whys, wheres, and buts. And some of the issues were things I dealt with while I attended school. And being that I have not had a huge amount of dealings with the SSPX since then, I could be totally offbase. Besides the fact that, as a whole, most of the issues were not doctrinal.

Is it correct to assume that the weekly mass that you attend is Tridentine mass approved by your diocese's bishop?

Uh, no. The Indult Mass is only offered once a month here. Sad, but true.

you haven't acknowledged your role in worsening the situation for "traditionalists" by your actions.

So by exclusively attending a Tridentine Mass, and trying the best that I can to keep true to the doctrines of the Church, I am worsening a situation? Sorry, but the situation would worsen with or without me or any other 'traditionalisit', as long as God permits His Church to go through the crisis it is in. When God has had enough, then the Immaculate Heart of Mary may finally triumph.

If your goals for a traditionalist revival materialize in the mainstream of Catholicism, it will be despite your efforts, and not because of them.

My goal is to save my soul and be an instrument in saving the souls of my children. And I think only near the end will the truth triumph, and traditional teachings be restored. But you are absolutely right in the second half of your statement. It will all be because of God and His holy Mother, not me. The best thing we can do is obey Our Lady of Fatima when she told us to pray the Rosary daily, and offer up many penances and sacrifices for the conversion of Russia and the salvation of souls. She said that many souls will be lost because there is no one to pray for them or offer up sacrifices.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 30, 2003.

Click onto this. It might provide some answers.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/plan.htm

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

As time dragged on without any end in sight to all of the madness which was going on in "the Church," Catholics became increasingly concerned about the future of the Church. Although thousands of faithful priests still remained worldwide, most of them were getting up there in years and others were caving in to the new religion. Soon it was not thousands but only hundreds of faithful priests left. Even worse, what few seminaries as still remained open at all were no longer turning out faithful priests but all sorts of clowns, revolutionaries, and other faithless losers who clearly didn't even know what a sacrament was, let alone a commandment of God. All the new seminarians were learning anymore was holding hands, singing Kum Ba Yah, and "building a community," whatever that meant. The prospect of "priests" like these becoming "bishops" (or "Pope"?) was unthinkable. Where would the Church get faithful priests and bishops for future generations?

It is with the increasing consciousness of this concern that attention became attracted to the seminary Archbishop Lefebvre had established in Ecône. As the seminary grew in importance to the faithful, so did the attacks upon it. Also, once Lefebvre's declaration became widely known (in early 1975), it immediately became a rallying cry for all true Catholics all around the world. With that, Lefebvre moved from the background into the foreground. This chapter then, is the story of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) a fraternal association of common life which he founded and led up until his death in 1991; it is the story of the largest portion of the Church which was forced to function outside the Vatican institution, and for that matter the largest single priestly order of the Church which can truthfully be called Catholic. As of this writing the SSPX is still just about twice as large (in terms of the number of priests, religious, and lay faithful) as the size of all other traditional Catholic orders put together. Thank God For Abp. Lefebvre. He was a giant of the faith when one was most needed. God rest his soul.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

Hi Isabel,

You write: "Here again, you lay accusations [against the SSPX] that you cannot back up."

You are once again falsely accusing me--that's a bad habit. Previously, you falsely claimed that I assumed being a traditionalist is schismatic. You also tried to push forward the idea that I had a faulty understanding of assent to the Magesterium. All three of these accusations came without anything to back them up.

In the case of my accusation, I backed my opinion up with quotes and a link to the SSPX website. The SSPX purposely spreads distrust and discontent to Catholic faithful. They are quite open about their distrust of Catholic priests and bishops and their "guilty until proven innocent" attitude toward the validity of sacraments (Confession, Baptism, Confirmation, etc) in the Catholic Church. People can review their website and draw their own conclusions.

You write: "I have never rejected the authority of the Catholic Church."

and "You know nothing of the sort, because this is not true [that I've rejected the Church hierarchy]. Not in the smallest iota."

Premise: The SSPX rejects the Catholic hierarchy. You embrace the SSPX.

Conclusion: You reject the Catholic hierarchy.

One cannot serve two masters; or in this case, one cannot embrace two opposing churches. Embracing SSPX is one way to reject the authority of the Catholic Church. Your support serves as your rejection. Embracing someone else's schism is the same as embracing their schism.

I wrote: "Though I quoted the Church documents that the SSPX is in schism, I don't expect this to convince you."

To which you responded: "Because a Church document says something does not make it so."

Isabel, you're arguing against something I haven't claimed. We agreed that you don't accept the authority of the Church, so my quoting of its statements is not and was never central to my point. I make my argument without using statements of the Magesterium.

You write: "Now, while I realize this would probably (hopefully) never happen but I will use this as an analogy, if the Pope wrote an encyclical or letter one day totally denying the Real Presence, are you going to say, "Oh, OK, well he's the Pope, he knows better than anyone." I would think not. I would think you would climb to the highest rooftop and proclaim this is not so."

By using this theoretical situation, one could conclude that you either are currently a sedevacantist, or expect yourself to embrace such a position in the future. Your own statements lead me to believe the latter.

You write: "Because the truth of the matter is that the Truth can be found easily enough if one takes the time to look."

It takes many people a lifetime to find the Truth, if they are lucky. :-)

You write: "So by exclusively attending a Tridentine Mass, and trying the best that I can to keep true to the doctrines of the Church, I am worsening a situation?"

Please reread my post. I gave a detailed explanation that did not include berating you for attending a licit Tridentine Mass. I believe that schismatics (including sympathizers) are fighting the Will of God, abandoning the Church and practicing cafeteria Catholicism. I've already detailed this above.

You write: "My goal is to save my soul and be an instrument in saving the souls of my children. And I think only near the end will the truth triumph, and traditional teachings be restored. But you are absolutely right in the second half of your statement. It will all be because of God and His holy Mother, not me. The best thing we can do is obey Our Lady of Fatima when she told us to pray the Rosary daily, and offer up many penances and sacrifices for the conversion of Russia and the salvation of souls. She said that many souls will be lost because there is no one to pray for them or offer up sacrifices."

Your first goals are noble; but then your logic starts breaking down. You claim that you leave everything to God, and then you turn around and say God can't do something (save souls) without your prayers. While no one should fault you for a healthy prayer life, a "prayer-alone" position is just as incomplete (and incorrect) as a protestant's "faith-alone" position. My own statement was that SSPX sympathizers are not merely passive; their actions are contrary to the their goals and contrary to God's desire that all should be united in the Catholic Church. It is iron that SSPX attempts to attack the Catholic Church by making the same argument.

If we ignore your logical breakdown, your position can be summarized as, "I leave things to God despite my resistance to being a part of a solution." At first, I thought of the following contemporary parable:

A river became overflowed and a flood ensued. One man had to climb up on top of his house. As he stood on the roof he prayed, "Lord, save me!"

Soon a man in a row boat came by and offered to take him to safety. The man on the roof said, "It's o.k., I asked the Lord to save me and I have faith the He will." The man in the row boat shook his head and moved on.

The flood level rose and now the man was standing on the highest part of the roof, and the water was up to his knees. Then another man came by, this time in a motor boat, also offering the man in the water rescue. But the man again refused, saying, "Thank you, but I prayed to the Lord and I have faith that He will save me." The flood was rising rapidly, to the man in the motor boat left him there as he wished.

In only a short time the water level had reached up to his neck, and he was standing on his tip toes. Now a helicopter came by and dropped a rope ladder. The man in the chopper frantically called to the man in the water to grab a hold of the ladder. The man in the water yelled back that he had prayed to the Lord and had faith that the Lord would save him. The pilot moved on in disbelief.

It came to pass that the flood level continued to rise and the man finally drowned. When he died, he went to heaven, and as soon as he realized where he was, he asked to speak to the Lord immediately. The Lord welcomed him, and asked him what he wanted. "Lord," he said, "I prayed and I had faith that you would save me. Why didn't you?"

The Lord replied, "I sent you two boats and a helicopter! What else did you want me to do?"

So many of Our Lord's parables and teachings tell us that we are called to do more than just pray. We must use the gifts that our Lord has given us (cf. Matthew 25:14-30).

The future of SSPX is certain. It is a hand that has cut itself off from the body of the Church. Detached from the body, it will certainly die. Unfortunately, this bleeding hand is also infected by the power of Satan. Just as Satan sows discord into honest Christians by quoting the Holy Bible, he uses the SSPX to sow discord into honest Catholics by quoting the Holy Church.

The SSPX is infected with the sins of pride and calumny. Their pride is shown in their belief that they are the only true heirs of the Catholic faith; and that they may place themselves above the Pope and bishops to judge them. Their constant calumny is shown when they rejoice and exaggerate the sins of others and invent slander to discredit the Church.

Drenched in sin, inspired by Satan, the SSPX has no where to go but down. I pray for the conversion of the members of SSPX and other schismatic individuals, that they might turn away from their sinful and schismatic stance.

Ed writes: "Click onto this..."

I read AA-1025. I believe that it is historical fiction (the specifics); but I believe that the general idea of the book has some truth. This thread has more discussion. My basic conclusion: if you do believe that AA-1025 is based in fact, the worst thing one could do is join in schism with a group like SSPX. It's a little like a political party that boycotts an election and then wonders why they lost.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2003.

Somewhere in my post, I wrote:

"It is iron that SSPX attempts..."

Oops...I meant "ironic." Oh, fiddlesticks!

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2003.

Boy, I should stop posting so late!

I wrote: "Embracing someone else's schism is the same as embracing their schism."

I meant: "Approving of someone else's schism is enough to be in schism."

Double fiddlesticks!

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2003.

Emerald hi bud :-),

"I never remember you laying out any facts".

Ouch!Neither do I! I leave that to mere lightweights like say Cardinal Ratzinger, which I have posted along with probably a dozen simlar/related comments from Pope John Paul II before on this very issue. Im over it so youre right I should stay out of it and leave you to it, which I will do.

"It is impossible for a Catholic to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, AS IT HAS CLEARLY EXPRESSED AND UNDERSTOOD ITSELF, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly the two previous councils… It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. WHOEVER DENIES VATICAN II DENIES THE AUTHORITY THAT UPHELD THE OTHER COUNCILS AND THEREBY DETACHES THEM FROM THEIR FOUNDATION. And this applies to the so- called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms…Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can only exist as an indivisible unity."

As Lou Reed says Emerald "this heres a zoo and the keeper aint you"

Ill keep trusting the Vicar of Christ to interpret what the "facts" are from 1500 year old encylicals and the Bible. Maybe one day Ill be in a position to offer you my version of the "facts" to everyone.... The Church of Kiwi, now theres a thought ;-).

Take care

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 31, 2003.

> "Gordon always puts the best face on any negative thing that I come up with. The president can use a press secretary like that these days."

Thanks Ed! That's very nice thing to say, but I actually agree with a lot of the complaints about the Church that you bring up, but disagree with how you go about trying to solve the problem. Remember that during St. Francis of Asisi's life, there was much corruption in the Church, but he stayed in the Church to solve the corruption. Once you leave God's Church, you then are not in a very good position to tell other Catholics to follow the faith, as you yourself are no longer following the faith.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

Emerald snarled:

"I have come to the painful conclusion that the majority of you anti- traditional whiners have absolutely NO clue about the nature and excercise of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, and from whence it comes. Think you do? Then explain it, right here, right now and back up your position well. Until you can, all you've got going for you is argument by disdain."

A furtive glance at the clock, a wince & a grimace (did I spell that right?), a cup of coffee, and it's off to work we go. Still waiting. =)

Emerald

-- Emerald (emerald@cox.net), March 31, 2003.

Hi Gordon,

You write:

"Remember that during St. Francis of Asisi's life, there was much corruption in the Church, but he stayed in the Church to solve the corruption. Once you leave God's Church, you then are not in a very good position to tell other Catholics to follow the faith, as you yourself are no longer following the faith."

Great point. St. Ignatius of Loyola (whose motto "Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam" is used by SSPX) also lived in a time when there was corruption in the Church. He was even censored by some in the Church, told not to teach an early version of his "Spiritual Exercises." He humbly submitted to the authority of the Church and later founded the Society of Jesus inside the Church, with the blessings of the Pope--a stark contrast to the SSPX which was founded as a split from the Church.

Martin Luther's own rejection of the Church and endless calumny against the Church is the mold from which the SSPX was formed. Calumny and pride...

The devil hasn't ever used a more effective and insidious pied piper than SSPX to lead the "traditional" faithful away from the Church.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2003.

I beg to differ: I look upon SSPX and other loyal priests as more like a John the Baptist, "A voice crying in the wilderness". Novus Ordo's apparently will not listen. They live in a world of false hopes that yes things are a little rough now, but will turn around in the future. Daydreams, daydreams. Look at a portion of Nostra Aetate. It believes others are saved through their "partially true religions". They do not accept Our Lord, even though he says, "I am the way and the truth and the life, NO MAN comes to the Father except through ME".

We come, and where are we going?

2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

No matter which way you twist these words, they are heresy. All popes prior to Vatican 2 have declared it."THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REJECTS NOTHING THAT IS TRUE AND hOLY in these religions". What rot!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

> "Martin Luther's own rejection of the Church and endless calumny against the Church is the mold from which the SSPX was formed. Calumny and pride..."

I agree Mateo, and the biggest problem that the biblical protestants started was personal interpretation, and that is the same problem, the Catholic protestants are introducing.

Give them time, as eventually they will disagree with themselves, and you will have numerous groups who claim to be the "True Catholic Church", and that they are following the doctrine and dogmas of the Church correctly, as based on their interpretation. It's a slipperly slope, that once started, is next to impossible to stop. Let me state that again, once started it is next to impossible to stop! Next to impossible as evident by the thousands of protestant sects which disagree with each other over the past 400 years!

All these protestant Catholic's authority will rest on stating doctrine and dogma from the Church over and over again, and they will wonder why, you don't understand it, as how they understand it.

Obedience to the Pope is CRITICAL to the Catholic faith, and once you go away from that, you start destroying God's plan of unity among Christians.

If the Pope asked us to sin, then you guys would have a strong argument, that the Pope is wrong, and you could speak out against him on that matter, while REMAINING in the faith, but you choose instead to exclude yourself from God's Church.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

TO CONSIDER WORTHY OF HIGH REGARD: ESTEEM Is it possible to consider worthy of high regard or esteem other religious beliefs that are contradictions to the Truth found within the Roman Catholic Church? Should we respect religions that allow polygamy, deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, deny original sin and the Immaculate Conception? Should we respect beliefs of others that allow divorce, abortion and permit homosexuality as a lifestyle?

How can TRUE Catholics hold these beliefs in high regard or esteem and call themselves followers of Christ? As a Catholic I should respect my fellow brothers and sisters. I can hold human beings in high regard and esteem because each one of us has been created in the image and likeness of God. Jesus gave us the commandment to love God with all our heart, mind and soul and to love our neighbor as ourselves. He did not tell us to love sin or beliefs that contradict His teachings. Thus, I will not elevate with high regard or esteem any religion or belief that contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

This except is from Humani Generis. Now who do I choose this one or Nostra Aetate? Two different stories. This "protestant" chooses Pius 12th.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

Here are the hyperlinks:

HUMANI GENERIS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE

AUGUST 12, 1950

-----------------------------

DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

NOSTRA AETATE

PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

God bless!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2003.

Ed, your claims are false, the modern Church is not changing articles of faith. That's all in your head, and no matter what we say to you, you cannot see it.

The old Mass is not an article of faith in of itself, even though words are said in the old Mass that are articles of faith. In the new Mass nothing false against the faith is said. I once argued with you over the "for many", and "for all" issue, and it clearly comes down to a biblical interpretation, with both being acceptable!

You can't seem to accept that, and that's too bad Ed. "for all" is a valid interpretation, in respect to Christ's intentions. You put it down for a lie in Christ's mouth, but you cannot even prove that, which is a common theme with you. The bible clearly points to two different interpretations, which are valid. The intentions versus the result, and neither is a lie is Jesus's mouth. You get so hung up on that, as your truth, you will never let it go.

I once asked you to show me in the Catechism of the Church, and your response was to point me to an article at SSPX's site, that claims 10 percent of the Catechism of the Church is false.

This is hopeless trying to convince you, as you pick and choose what documents in the Church you believe in!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

"President Starky says: stuff is getting better. Stuff is getting better all the time."

jake May or may not get that one.

Anyways. Mateo:

...its sympathizers [of SSPX} are factually in schism with the Catholic Church.

Nope.

They are happiest when they can throw mud at the Church. (see the supposed "pedophile agenda" above).

I doubt it.

They validate the actions of liberal abuses of the Mass.

Nah.

If you've got 100 Catholics, and 10 of the most traditionalist believers leave to join a SSPX church, is it any wonder that the remaining 90 people are more liberal on average than the original 100?

Uhhh...

Their actions are self-fulfilling prophesies.

Don't think so.

Would somebody please do this:

"what Papal infallibility is, and it's nature, and it's excercise, and what it actually means to be loyal to the Pope and exactly what the ordinary magisterium is and the supreme magisterium is, and its excercise, etc. etc."

I'm dying of impatience here. As soon as someone does it, then I can show how Isabel is right.

Zzzzzzzz... =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 01, 2003.

Emerald writes:

"I'm dying of impatience here. As soon as someone does it, then I can show how Isabel is right."

I don't know what this has to do with anything. If you think she's right (for being in schism), then why wait for someone else before you tell us why she's right. Why is Isabel right?

Personally, I've already claimed ignorance with regard to having a detailed understanding of Papal Infallibility. But, I would add that I haven't seen a schismatic who could explain Papal Infallibility in detail either.

Anyway, this isn't relevant to the points that I make. The points that I make aren't dependent upon an acceptance of a particular nuanced view of Papal Infallibility. My points are either backed up by those who post on the forum (for example, my statement that schismatics enjoy hurling calumnious statements at the Church is backed up both here and on schismatic websites) or my arguments simply stand on their own logic (reasons why schism is a self-defeating action). No need to argue nuances of Papal Infallibility.

You know, even if a schismatic came to the forum and gave a detailed explanation of Papal Infallibility in order to promote schism, I don't think I'd really be too surprised if I couldn't immediately answer in defense of my fidelity to the Catholic Church.

I've heard non-Catholic Christians give detailed explanations using the Bible to argue against the Catholic faith. Some argue for "faith-alone" Christianity. Some argue that the Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday. While I'm not an expert on these things, I do try to research when I can and I get the Catholic answer.

Just as schismatics claim that Vatican II isn't doctrinally binding (as if this in any way justifies schism), I've heard liberals argue that a male-only priesthood isn't doctrinal. I've heard that teachings against artificial contraception aren't doctrinally binding. I've heard that excluding homosexual couples from marriage is not a doctrinal position. Believe me, these people do their homework and are no less adept at quoting (albeit misinterpreting) Church documents and the Holy Bible.

Whether it's traditionalist schism, Sabbath on Saturday, pro-homosexual marriages, female ordinations, war in Iraq...wait a second, leave that last one out...I'll stick with the Catholic Church's teachings. :-)

I'm just not a theologian--I'm not too proud to say that I'm a mere layman. I love my faith, but I've also got a day job!

God bless you,

Mateo

PS--Emerald, you're getting lazy with your responses ("Nope. I doubt it. Nah. Uhhh...Don't think so"). Come on, I expect more from you! At least a witty poem to somehow mock me! :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 01, 2003.

jake May or may not get that one.

Wink.

Nope.

Nun-uh.

I doubt it.

Me, too.

Nah.

See?

Uhhh...

Hahahahaha.

I'm dying of impatience here. As soon as someone does it, then I can show how Isabel is right.

Tick. Tock. Tick.

It's nice to be back.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 01, 2003.

Gordon, If I say "Many", I do mean many, and if I mean "All", I will say all. If you think that when I say many that I mean all, that is your problem.If Our Lord meant all he would have said it. Consult catechism of Trent. they spell it out for everyone to understand, in a perfectly clear manner.

the Mystical Body of Christ.

The old Consecration form, using Christ's own words, obviously referred to the shedding of Christ's Blood from the standpoint of EFFICACY only, rather than its SUFFICIENCY. The additional words "FOR YOU AND FOR MANY" are taken, some from Matthew [26, 28], some from Luke [22, 20], but have been JOINED TOGETHER BY HOLY CHURCH UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD; and they serve to declare the fruit and EFFICACY of His Passion. For, if we look to its strength and SUFFICIENCY, we shall have to admit that His Blood was shed by the Savior for the salvation of ALL, but if we consider the fruit which men have received from it, we easily understand that it reaches NOT ALL, BUT MANY ONLY. When, therefore, He said "FOR YOU," He meant either those who were present, or those chosen amongst the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. But when He added "FOR MANY," HE WISHED TO BE UNDERSTOOD the remainder of the ELECT from amongst the Jews or Gentiles. ------Catechism of the COUNCIL OF TRENT, Part II, Chapter IV, Question XXIV.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 01, 2003.

Emerald quotes:

"President Starky says: stuff is getting better. Stuff is getting better all the time."

It sounds as if this is an appeal to not delude oneself into believing in a fantasy that the present is better than it really is. This fantasy is no less off base than those who idealize a perfect past. No such perfect past existed.

One shouldn't believe that perception is everything. But, an overly idealized view of the present/future can make a positive difference, while an overly idealized view of the past doesn't change the past a bit.

God bless!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 01, 2003.

Ed writes:

"Gordon, If I say "Many", I do mean many, and if I mean "All", I will say all. If you think that when I say many that I mean all, that is your problem.If Our Lord meant all he would have said it."

This is interesting that you would bring this up. I have thought about some of the parts of the mass and the Bible that the SSPX should change in order to be consistant with their position that "all" shouldn't be used when one really means "many." Here are the some of the changes:

Catholic Agnus Dei/Lamb of God: "Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world..."

SSPX Agnus Dei/Lamb of God: "Lamb of God, you take away the sins of many in the world..."

-------------

Catholic: Matthew 10:22 - "You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved."

SSPX Matthew 10:22 - "You will be hated by many because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved.":

-------------

Catholic: Mark 3:28 - "Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them."

SSPX revision: Mark 3:28 - "Amen, I say to you, many sins and many blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them."

-------------

Catholic: Luke 2:10 - "The angel said to them, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people."

SSPX revision: Luke 2:10 - "The angel said to them, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for many of the people."

I checked my Douay-Rheims translation, and it appears that SSPX wouldn't approve of it's use of the term "all" instead of "many."

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 01, 2003.

It sounds as if this is an appeal to not delude oneself into believing in a fantasy that the present is better than it really is.

If I may: No. That's not what that meant. It has more to do with the tendency to believe any lie that is repeated often and loudly enough. Hitler understood this extraordinarily well; but that's another discussion altogether.

This fantasy is no less off base than those who idealize a perfect past. No such perfect past existed.

"Perfect," no. "Magnificent", yes.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 01, 2003.

Let me help it along.

What if a pope were to preach a heresy?

Can it happen?

Has it happened?

If it happens, what are the faithful to do?

If he does, does he still remain pope?

Could being loyal to the pope include a denial of a known doctrine?

Has it ever been so bad that Catholicism was in dire straits?

Could it ever get so bad, beyond our worst imaginings?

If so, would the gates of Hell prevail against it?

Why do people think something is wrong in the Church?

Why do people think nothing is wrong in the Church?

How powerful is Satan?

How powerful is God?

When does a pope speak Ex Cathedra?

When was the last time a pope spoke Ex Cathedra?

Is or is not an Ex Cathedra statement a statement of new doctrine?

How was assent determined before Ex Cathedra was itself defined?

Give an example of something a pope can say that is not binding

Give an example of something a pope says that is binding

State the principle that differentiates between binding and nonbinding

What does ordinary refer to in the ordinary magisterium?

Does a dogmatic definition really need interpretation?

What does modernism mean?

Is there really evolution of dogma? Prove it.

What is the action of the Holy Spirit in relation to the magisterium?

How do when know when how it is the Holy Spirit works?

That should make for a good start. On the ascetic side of the equation:

What is man's condition?

Can a man save himself?

How can he be saved?

Where can salvation be found?

Does God owe man anything?

Does man owe God anything?

Can a man's goodness save him?

Does god care about modern progress?

Is modern progress bringing man close to God

What is the mystical body of Christ?

What is my job in the mystical body of Christ?

What can I do for the Church that's not going to really help?

What can I do for the Church that really will help?

Are we really going to die?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.

PS--Emerald, you're getting lazy with your responses ("Nope. I doubt it. Nah. Uhhh...Don't think so"). Come on, I expect more from you! At least a witty poem to somehow mock me! :-)

Oops. I didn't see that. I know, I know... it's a time thing and tired thing from work. I'm completely physically drained... I'm going to make you do all the work... lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.

Hi Isabel whoops youre the one who said this "I never remember you laying out any facts", sorry Emerald. Youre right I havent and while I am sure if I spent all evening at Dave Armstrongs website and a few others I could provide a perfectly good argument but Im not intrested...I disagree with enough of the church techings already! Blessings

-- Kiwi (csishewrwood@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.

Dear Emerald and Isabel I forgot Daves website page for trads and company. Please forward it onto friends and family if they are similarly afflicted. (I know Ive posted it before but in case you "accidently deleted" it off your "favourites") .

WARNING FOR ALL "TRADITIONALISTS": GOING TO THIS SITE MAY VERY WELL SAVE YOUR SOUL

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ389.HTM

Oh at least I find myself amusing maybe I should spend an evening or two on this one naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Ill just make a fool of myself and bore myself silly. Ill leave it to Mateo to hold up the fort.

Peace and Love

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.

Not to worry! Be not afraid! THE MASS HAS NOT CHANGED!

See?




Nope. No change there. Nosiree. You're right! I'm going back to the Novus Ordo. Now...where'd I leave my rainbow wig?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 02, 2003.

Jake, NO ONE claimed the Mass has not changed!!! It has changed, but it is still a valid Mass. btw never seen clowns at the Masses I have attended, and just because someone abused a new Mass, does not mean, they could not abuse the old Mass. The old Mass is not safe from abuse also, from those who wish to abuse it.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.

> "Gordon, If I say "Many", I do mean many, and if I mean "All", I will say all."

Ed, the Bible clearly also says "for you", which is also means "for all" when talking to everyone. No lie, but just your twisting of the Bible to suit your own purposes.

> "we shall have to admit that His Blood was shed by the Savior for the salvation of ALL"

Thank you Ed!!! It nice to see that even the council of Trent sees this, and has no problem with it. "All" is valid, as long as it does not imply all are saved, and that is not implied in the new Mass, as "all" is the intent.

Ed, give up, this has already been settled. You said it was a lie, now you yourself even provide the proof it is not a lie. You only said it was a lie, to try and win an argument, and you lost.

It not a sin to say "Christ died for all", but it becomes a problem with you people, when you want to cut down the new Mass.

> "SSPX revision"

What?!?!?! SSPX has their own Bible? They changed the Bible?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.

What?!?!?! SSPX has their own Bible? They changed the Bible?

Yes. They also have a spy sattelite monitoring their confessionals wordwide.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 02, 2003.

"They also have a spy sattelite monitoring their confessionals wordwide."

Luckily, they're only monitoring SSPX confessionals because they don't believe that Catholic confessions are sacramentally valid.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003.

...I am sure if I spent all evening at Dave Armstrongs website and a few others I could provide a perfectly good argument...

From what I've seen of Dave Armstrongs material, you guys are all doing just fine. Armstrong's material is pretty predictable stuff. Was it John or ChrisB. that turned you on to Armstrong? From what I've senn, Chris approaches the subjects similiar in style to Armsrong.

The way I figure it, I'm close to the bone here.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.

don't believe that Catholic confessions are sacramentally valid.

Speaking for myself, I would confess to a Novus Ordo priest, but only if I were in immediate danger of death and there was no priest with reliable credintials available. The Church, in Her wisdom and providence, has made provisions for such circumstances whereby She supplies what is lacking or absent in cases of emergency.

That's as much of an olive branch as you'll get from me.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 02, 2003.

"Speaking for myself, I would confess to a Novus Ordo priest, but only if I were in immediate danger of death and there was no priest with reliable credintials available."

This is an olive branch? It looks more like poison ivy.

The implicit statement here is that Catholic priests do not have "reliable credentials." Schism...schism... :-)

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003.

This is an olive branch? It looks more like poison ivy.

Take it or leave it.

The implicit statement here is that Catholic priests do not have "reliable credentials."

I base that opinion (about Novus Ordo priests) on many I've had the displeasure of interacting with; particularly those formed as priests during the 1970's and '80's. Their formation was, in most cases, horrendously poor. It seems that a lisp was a prerequisite to ordination, and their theological views are questionable, at best. I'd have to be in pretty bad shape before asking one of them to hear my confession. If I was at death's door, and there was a sedevacantist and a lispy Novus Ordo like the one mentioned above in the room, I'd climb over the Novus Ordo to get to the sedevacantist; assuming I could climb and be that bad off.

Schism...schism... :-)

Where? Where?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 02, 2003.

Jake,

You write: "Take it or leave it."

I left it. I don't like poison ivy. ;-)

You write: "Where? Where?"

Boy, you're in denial, Jake. I guess that's a prerequisite for schism.

You write: "If I was at death's door, and there was a sedevacantist and a lispy Novus Ordo like the one mentioned above in the room, I'd climb over the Novus Ordo to get to the sedevacantist; assuming I could climb and be that bad off."

This is an interesting statement considering that you claim you are not a sedevacantist. This web page refers to some of the SSPX priests as "crypto-sedevacantists."

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003.

Let me ask you something, Mateo. You are dead set against jake's position and the SSPX. Are you yourself in lockstep with direction of the Church? Is a departure from the perennial in any way apparent to you in even the smallest way, progressives not included?

Take the progressives out of the equation for a second. Do you recognize any departure from the perennial? Are you undecided, observing or does everything seem pretty much in place right now? This isn't a trick/trap question. Do you see all departure from authentic Catholicism as only occuring in the domain of the progressives?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.

I left it. I don't like poison ivy. ;-)

Fine, but don't say I did't offer.

Boy, you're in denial, Jake. I guess that's a prerequisite for schism.

I wouldn't know.

This web page refers to some of the SSPX priests as "crypto- sedevacantists."

Don't believe everything you read on the web, Mateo.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 02, 2003.

Hi Emerald,

I don't mean to evade your questions; but I just don't understand all of what you're asking.

"You are dead set against jake's position and the SSPX."

I'm "dead set" against schismatics. I've explained in detail why I'm disagree with schismatics. I have yet to see a thoughtful response (ie. something more than "no, nah, uhhh") to any of my points. Up to now, my position has gone uncontested. Throwing aside humility for a second, I'd venture that this is because I play one heck of a devil's advocate (in my case, an "angel's advocate").

My position that schism such as SSPX is self-defeating stands without any contrary arguments. The only tactic to "defeat" this argument is to change the subject. According to Isabel, things like praying the Rosary somehow nullify her schism. This is a little like the protestants who think their knowledge of the Bible nullifies their heresy. Schismatics deny schism, and heretics deny heresy.

You write: "Are you yourself in lockstep with direction of the Church?"

Well, before answering this, we should address this question: "Is the 'direction of the Church' guided by the Holy Spirit?"

What does "lockstep" with the Church really mean? I am a poor sinner. So, in that sense, the answer would be, "No" because each sin is contrary to God and His Church. It seems that "lockstep" might also mean "those who don't throw calumny at the Church." If so, then the answer would be, "Yes," because I don't criticize the Church to soil its image. If I disagree with a priest, I can disagree without attacking the Church itself.

You write: "Are you undecided, observing or does everything seem pretty much in place right now? This isn't a trick/trap question."

Again, I apologize that I don't understand the question. Could you give some examples of what might not be "in place" or give your own answer to this question?

You write: "Do you see all departure from authentic Catholicism as only occuring in the domain of the progressives?"

I also see a departure from authentic Catholicism by some traditionalists.

Jake writes: "Fine, but don't say I did't offer."

OK, let it be known: I acknowledge that Jake offered me poison ivy, and I refused it. :-)

God bless!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003.

I also see a departure from authentic Catholicism by some traditionalists.

Those folks don't represent me any more than these folks represent you; but you knew that alrealy, didn't you?

Sure you did.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 02, 2003.

Jake writes:

"Those folks don't represent me any more than these (Women's ordination) folks represent you; but you knew that alrealy, didn't you?

Sure you did."

Jake, this wasn't meant to be a attack against you. I was answering a specific question that Emerald asked me:

"Do you see all departure from authentic Catholicism as only occuring in the domain of the progressives?"

My point is that departure from authentic Catholicism is not exclusively a "progressive" phenomenon.

God bless!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003.

I would go confession to a Novus Ordo Priest if he were over 60 years old. When they removed the definite words "receive ye the power to forgive sins", from his ordination, it made me a bit leery about them. Maybe if dying, I might, but then again ,the best act of contrition that I could make, might be safer.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.

Before this turns all nicey-nice, just a point to ponder about the "schism," that is, the deep and growing rift between Mateo's perception & reality:(Mateo, I know you're already aware of this, but I post it again for the benefit of anyone who may have missed it).

As recently as January 2003, Cardinal Perl, the head of the Ecclesia Dei comission; that is, the body formed by the Pope to study & report directly back to him on the whole Latin Mass question, said the following:

1. It is not a sin to attend Mass offered by an SSPX priest.

2. You can fulfill your Sunday obligation by assisting at such a Mass, and

3. You could even throw a little something into the collection basket.

Source

Now, if the Cardinal appointed by the Pope to address this whole issue says to Joe Q. Catholic that he can support the SSPX both spiritually and materially without incurring any penalty, it would follow that either the SSPX is not schismatic or that Cardinal Perl is.

Oh, and speaking of throwing a little something into the SSPX collection basket, I figure this thread as a whole is worth a flat $25.00. May God reward your generosity.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 02, 2003.

One of the big watchwords of Vatican II is "dialogue." It has, for all intents and purposes, replaced not only the term "conversion" but even the very notion of it. You see, in the Vatican II era, we don't "convert" people anymore. We "dialogue" with them.

Yes, isn't it wonderful that we're finally engaging in dialogue? Isn't is wonderful that Vatican II finally discovered what the Church for 1,900 years missed? And again, if the new "dialogue" of Vatican II isn't novel, then why was Vatican II needed to "open the doors" to it??

Yet, we traditionalists are merely called "angry, reactionary, and pessimistic." You know what? Darn right! You bet we're angry! We're very angry at what the innovators have done to the Church! If you want to call that "reactionary," I don't care. Ah, and just because we don't think that the endless wrecking of the Holy Mass, the 98% decrease of seminarians, the huge drop in priests and religious, and the humongous decline in belief in essential Church teachings herald a "new springtime," we are "pessimistic." One word to that: rhetoric. That's all it is, folks: pure and simple rhetoric from the Neo- Catholic side. It's a good tactic to avoid having to answer our actual arguments.

Olson says: "Some older Catholics I have spoken to over the years acknowledge that the problems which finally erupted in the late 60s and early 70s were in existence long before Vatican II." A few examples would have helped, but as a reminder, the modernist infiltration began in the 1800's, and it temporarily went into hiding during and after the pontificate of St. Pius X. So, it is not much of a surprise to hear that the Church had problems before Vatican II already. Of course. But not until Vatican II did the Church declare that these problems really weren't problems but part of some "great renewal"!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.

Jake writes: "that is, the deep and growing rift between Mateo's perception & reality."

Wishful thinking again?

Jake writes: "It is not a sin to attend Mass offered by an SSPX priest."

The point is whether it is "schismatic," not whether it is sinful. The support for attending an SSPX mass is about as much as the support for receiving the sacrament of Baptism from a layperson. Both, according to the Church, are irregular and valid. Habitually attending a SSPX mass would be just as illicit as habitually using lay people to administer baptism. I would bring up the Church statements, but schismatics only accept the authority of statements that they agree with. We're back to cafeteria Catholicism as the modus operandi of the SSPX.

Jake writes: "Now, if the Cardinal appointed by the Pope to address this whole issue says to Joe Q. Catholic that he can support the SSPX both spiritually and materially without incurring any penalty, it would follow that either the SSPX is not schismatic or that Cardinal Perl is."

Well, there you have it: the SSPX and its followers believe that they are above the Catholic Episcopate. Oh, dear...now things are only Catholic if SSPX says they are Catholic? They deny the teaching authority of the Bishops. They assume that Catholic priests are not validly ordained and/or are unable to properly administer the sacraments. They deny the validity of the Mass. But, hey, they're convinced that they're not in schism. Sure...

Jake writes: "Oh, and speaking of throwing a little something into the SSPX collection basket, I figure this thread as a whole is worth a flat $25.00. May God reward your generosity."

Jake, you're the first person I've seen who uses tithing as a form of revenge. You're kinda weird!

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003.

They deny the teaching authority of the Bishops. They assume that Catholic priests are not validly ordained and/or are unable to properly administer the sacraments. They deny the validity of the Mass. But, hey, they're convinced that they're not in schism. Sure...

Simple, isn't it?

Jake, you're the first person I've seen who uses tithing as a form of revenge.

Reparation is the word I would have chosen, but, whatever.

You're kinda weird!

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 02, 2003.

Ed writes:

"Yet, we traditionalists are merely called "angry, reactionary, and pessimistic." You know what? Darn right! You bet we're angry! We're very angry at what the innovators have done to the Church!"

Emotions are not the best catalyst for an effective response to a perceived problem. Sometimes, allowing emotions to guide us results in passionate responses that only worsen the situation.

If one sees a problem, he should attempt to respond to it in a reasoned manner. Take one of these and call me in the morning. :-)

God bless!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003.

> "Yet, we traditionalists are merely called "angry, reactionary, and pessimistic.""

You are not traditionalists, because true traditionalists obey the Pope. You never post anything from the Church's early councils, pointing out this fact, because you know we would use that against you. You pick and choose what you want to believe in, interms of what Church documents to believe in, and what Pope's to obey.

> "Now, if the Cardinal appointed by the Pope to address this whole issue says to Joe Q. Catholic that he can support the SSPX both spiritually and materially without incurring any penalty, it would follow that either the SSPX is not schismatic or that Cardinal Perl is."

Jake, I find it funny that you are using a modern Cardinal in your defense of SSPX. What do you care what the Cardinals of the Church have to say? So now you pick and choose which modern Cardinals to believe?

The Cadinal was looking into the SSPX Mass, by the sounds of it. SSPXers, like to play both sides of the street, claiming they are not schismatic, but at the same time claiming they are the "True Catholic Church". If that is not schismatic, then I don't know what is. I got the information first hand from a schismatic SSPX priest, who made the claim to me, they are the "True Catholic Church". You can't have it both ways.

You're not traditionalists, so stop calling yourself that!

Your hero is an excommunicated Archbishop, who did not obey the Pope!!! Obedience is one of the foundations of the Catholic faith.

Jake, you said you were going to be gone for lent, for prayer, etc?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.

You are not traditionalists

Are, too.

Jake, I find it funny that you are using a modern Cardinal in your defense of SSPX.

You do? I must have missed the humor. Anyway, Perl's not just some Prince of the Church off the street, he's the guy pulling the strings on this whole ball of wax, so what he has to say on the subject is relevant, even significant; from Rome's point of view on the Society. That's why I quoted him.

What do you care what the Cardinals of the Church have to say?

Normally, I dont; unless they are upholding what the Church has always taught and /or denouncing some threat posed to the Church, which is rare if ever.

So now you pick and choose which modern Cardinals to believe?

In a manner of speaking, yes. When Roger Cardinal "Taj" Mahoney, for instance, issued that insidious letter effectively denying the Real Presence, I didn't believe what he had to say & still don't. Moreover, any Catholics under his charge not only have no obligation to assent to such heresy, they have a binding duty to disobey and denounce it; not because the Cardinal said it, but because it runs contrary to Divinely revealed truth.

SSPX Mass...If that is not schismatic, then I don't know what is.

Try this.

I got the information first hand from a schismatic SSPX priest

Right. You said that before, and you never answered my questions about that conversation, namely:

1. What is his name? If I don't know him or know of him, chances are Isabel does.

2. What occasion did you have to speak "at length" (I believe those were your words) to a SSPX priest?

You're not traditionalists

Are, too.

Your hero is an excommunicated Archbishop, who did not obey the Pope!!!

Thank God! If he had, there would be no Traditional Latin Mass today.

Obedience is one of the foundations of the Catholic faith.

Emerald is trying to pick your brains along this vane in other areas of the forum. Why not take up the Gauntlet and answer his queries? That's more than a thread unto itself.

b>Jake, you said you were going to be gone for lent, for prayer, etc?

Vink, you said you weren't going to post to me anymore.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 02, 2003.

> "Vink, you said you weren't going to post to me anymore."

Only if you promise to stay away for Lent. :)

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.

The only tactic to "defeat" this argument is to change the subject.

You mean, like my original gauntlet of having somebody explains what is the exact principle which governs proper assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, along with supporting evidence for the same? lol Yeah I know what you mean

According to Isabel, things like praying the Rosary somehow nullify her schism.

Isabel isn't in schism. In fact, she has her differences with the SSPX from what I understand. So do I. But I am a hell of a lot closer to them than the post-conciliar "I have no clue what proper assent consists of" crowd. That's this forum in a nutshell.

Besides, Isabel is too smart to think her Rosary would nullify any wrongheaded doctrinal thinking on her part. I mean, come Mateo... that just isn't in anything she said anywhere.

This is a little like the protestants who think their knowledge of the Bible nullifies their heresy. Schismatics deny schism, and heretics deny heresy.

Well that's going to go nowhere fast; the weapon fires in all directions. I mean, why couldn't Ed, for instance, use that on you?

Well, before answering this, we should address this question: "Is the 'direction of the Church' guided by the Holy Spirit?"

Should we assume it is guided in any particular direction? No. We should assume it is guided. We should not assume to know which direction it is guided. That's two different things. My contention is that the second, i.e., the "where" of it, is merely a human assumption, and the first, the "fact" of His guidance, is a promise. I'll take the promise. You keep the assumption. Break it down and study up on it, and you'll find the promise is the only thing that is doctrinally sound.

What does "lockstep" with the Church really mean? I am a poor sinner. So, in that sense, the answer would be, "No" because each sin is contrary to God and His Church. It seems that "lockstep" might also mean "those who don't throw calumny at the Church." If so, then the answer would be, "Yes," because I don't criticize the Church to soil its image.

Do you think I do? I really do want a bold answer on that. Just spit it out. =)

I disagree with a priest, I can disagree without attacking the Church itself.

That's kind of a simplistic way of looking at it. There's some serious garbage going on... when countering it, do I have to stop and ask myself if I am attacking the Church every five seconds like that guy on the cellphone commercial. Can you hear me o.k.? How about now? It has nothing to do with attacking the Church. It has everything to do with attacking Not-Church... things that are not doctrine, or are against doctrine.

When push comes to shove, Vatican II was not a dogmatic council. If so, then why do people refer to it as not being obeyed? What, exactly, is to be obeyed? What I am asking you is if you, Mateo, think there are things in Vatican II that need to be "obeyed", and if so, what are they?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.

You are not traditionalists, because true traditionalists obey the Pope.

Gordon... and again, Mateo too... what is this pope saying that needs to be obeyed? I mean, doctrinally that is... well, maybe not even just that! Anything really...

What is the pope saying that I'm not obeying? Tell me true.

Keep this in mind though... the latest round of absurdity to rear it's beautiful head is that fact that many in this forum who have bestowed upon themselves the status of loyal to the Holy Father and to the magisterium have pretty much given Rome the finger when it comes to this war in Iraq.

Please, oh pleeeeese to me what it means to be loyal to the Holy Father and to the magisterium, because the people who say they really are, see, some of them just did themselves in. I mean, I can't take them seriously any more at all. I can only conclude they are guilty of the very thing they complain about. If they say otherwise, I can only conclude they are rationalizing their way out of it, just like they say the trads are.

This is why I want the challenge ansered, third post down from the top. As soon as someone does, they'll be a traditionalist. Or they will contradict themselves further.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.

I said:

"Gordon... and again, Mateo too... what is this pope saying that needs to be obeyed? I mean, doctrinally that is... well, maybe not even just that! Anything really..."

I believe he does need to be obeyed.

What I mean to get across is this:

What is this pope saying right now, or recently, and preferably doctrinally, that needs to be obeyed? Last 100 years, let's say.

In other words, what has this or recent popes said, that needs to be obeyed, that the trads aren't obeying?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.

Mateo,

It has been a while since I have responded to your post. I have not had the time to devote to a lengthy rebuttal, (had to do my taxes), but now I have a few minutes before bedtime. So.... you said:

You are once again falsely accusing me--that's a bad habit.

Hey, jake, what's that favorite saying of yours? Oh, yeah, I remember: Pot. Kettle. Black. In fact, could it get any blacker? How about a few of your accusations:You wacky schismatic... You schismatics seem to be nice people ['nice' people can be saved though right?] My opinions here are based on what traditional schismatics (Jake, Regina, Ed, and you)........ Oh, I think that's probably plenty to get the point across.

Previously, you falsely claimed that I assumed being a traditionalist is schismatic. You also tried to push forward the idea that I had a faulty understanding of assent to the Magesterium. All three of these accusations came without anything to back them up.

And you have constantly called me a schismatic without anything to back it up with other than, "Because of Ecclesia Dei." So, when I say you have a faulty knowledge of what proper assent to the ordinary magisterium of the Church, or that you lay false accusations against me and the SSPX, it is because you have not shown what proper assent is. PLUS, you yourself have admitted that you do not understand this. Therefore, until you can back it up with something more substantial, I will have to maintain the belief that my statement is correct, especially being that I seem to have a much better understanding of what it means by showing proper assent to the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. I (and lately jake) have shown you quotes (and links) to show where the ordinary magisterium even do not hold the belief that we are schismatics. But yet you argue that we are not following the ordinary magisterium (you may have not said this exactly, but it is the position you are holding by your 'disdain' of our actions.) So, by that you contradict your own 'understanding' of assent.

They are quite open about their distrust of Catholic priests and bishops

Heck, I am quite open about that. When heresy and abuses run rampant, even from the highest quarters, it is best to be on your toes. And when many of the bishops and cardinals speak heresy openly, then the proper formation of priests under their jurisdiction is at the least, worrisome.

The SSPX rejects the Catholic hierarchy. You embrace the SSPX.

Wrong again, on a few counts. The SSPX doesn't reject the heirarchy, the heirarchy rejects SSPX. The SSPX doesn't reject the heirarchy, they reject heresy & inaction that comes from the heirarchy. As should we all. (And concerning your answer of question #1 of Emerald's, you are wrong. Again, which leads me to believe you have a faulty knowledge of what it means to be faithful to the Church and the understanding of the promise of the Holy Ghost and assent to the Magisterium of the Church.) And let me say this again for the one hundredth time: I support the SSPX in their devotion to and promotion of the Tridentine rite. Conclusion: I do not reject the heirarchy, I reject what is said that is not faithful to the Deposit of Faith.

one cannot embrace two opposing churches.

This statement I found especially ironic, being that I embrace the way of all the great saints and fathers of the Church, (only I fall short in the holiness and sanctity quarters.) So who do you embrace?

Embracing SSPX is one way to reject the authority of the Catholic Church. Your support serves as your rejection. Embracing someone else's schism is the same as embracing their schism.

Topics already covered above, even by the ordinary magisterium. :)

We agreed that you don't accept the authority of the Church,

Who's we? You got someone there at your place agreeing with you?

I make my argument without using statements of the Magesterium.

Well, maybe you should start, because it's not holding much water otherwise. And I have made my argument using those very statements you say you support. As well as other statements. Are you.......could it be.....is it possible that you are dissenting against the ordinary magisterium of the Church?

By using this theoretical situation, [see post above if you cannot remember the question] one could conclude that you either are currently a sedevacantist, or expect yourself to embrace such a position in the future. Your own statements lead me to believe the latter.

You accuse wrongly again. It was a hypothetical question (of which I notice you did not answer directly) to which I wished to find out more of what you think assent to the magisterium means. I am again led to the same conclusion on this issue as before.

It takes many people a lifetime to find the Truth, if they are lucky. :-)

But if they are of good will, and really desire the Truth, God, in His mercy, will not withhold it from them. Only He knows the proper time of giving it to them.

I believe that schismatics (including sympathizers) are fighting the Will of God, abandoning the Church and practicing cafeteria Catholicism.

You really need to study on what assent to the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium of the Church means.

Your first goals are noble; but then your logic starts breaking down.

You just love to turn everything bass ackwards, don't you?

You claim that you leave everything to God, and then you turn around and say God can't do something (save souls) without your prayers.

Wrong. You did not understand. God alone is capable of saving souls. He has asked us, through His Mother at Fatima, to pray and make sacrifices for the salvation of souls. Meaning, He wants us to give Him a 'reason', so to speak.

While no one should fault you for a healthy prayer life, a "prayer-alone" position is just as incomplete (and incorrect) as a protestant's "faith-alone" position.

Did I ever say I *only* pray? Or did you just assume that? Besides the fact that a "prayer-only" position, such as many of the saints that were cloistered nuns, sometimes involves greater acts of charity that most of us are capable of. They pray and offer sacrifices for the salvation of souls.

My own statement was that SSPX sympathizers are not merely passive; their actions are contrary to the their goals and contrary to God's desire that all should be united in the Catholic Church. It is iron that SSPX attempts to attack the Catholic Church by making the same argument.

Your idea of 'unity' should not be sacrificed at the expense of the Deposit of Faith. Keeping the Deposit of Faith intact is the only way to achieve unity.

Their [SSPX] constant calumny is shown when they rejoice and exaggerate the sins of others and invent slander to discredit the Church

First, no person who wants the faith of our fathers kept undefiled rejoices in the sins of others. But sometimes, when the sins come from those who have a great impact on the faithful, and could possibly lead the faithful astray, then they must be addressed. Second, show me where they [SSPX] have invented slander.

Must go for now!

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.

People don't like the term schismatic, so it seems they are now being ambigious, and denying everything.

> "what is this pope saying that needs to be obeyed?"

That's an excellent question Emerald, as you seem to be an expert on what needs to be obeyed or not.

I agree with you, if there is heresy, it should be pointed out and criticized, but that also includes disobedience to the Pope.

If you guys respect the authority of the Pope, lets then hear from you your condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre, for consecrating four bishops without the Pope's permission, and that he deserved to be excommunicated.

I want to hear this from Isabel, Ed, and Emerald. Prove to me you are traditionalists, in that you believe in the authority of the Pope, in respect that he was justified in excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre.

I await your answer!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Isabel writes: "And you have constantly called me a schismatic without anything to back it up with other than, 'Because of Ecclesia Dei.'"

That is so funny and so off base, Isabel. I quoted "Ecclesia Dei," but did not base my proof on its words. I have constantly cited actions and statements of the SSPX themselves which prove schism, whether SSPX admits they are schismatic or not.

Regarding your patting yourself on the back for your great and precise knowledge of proper assent to the Catholic Church: you have never made your understanding known in words (other than claiming you have a better understanding).

While you argue like a lawyer on technicalities of why you and SSPX aren't in schism, I give you SSPX statements and actions that prove they are in schism. Embracing a schismatic organization is embracing their schism. Don't delude yourself.

Isabel writes: "The SSPX doesn't reject the heirarchy, the heirarchy rejects SSPX."

I've already commented that the SSPX website has a "guilty until proven innocent" stance with regard to the validity of any sacrament administered outside of the SSPX. Jake has openly confirmed this assumption--he also added the assumption that Catholic priests are all homosexual.

Maybe the SSPX thinks that it is the true Catholic Church, and that Rome is in schism with the SSPX. Is this what's going on? This is a pretty standard Protestant claim.

Isabel writes: "This statement I found especially ironic, being that I embrace the way of all the great saints and fathers of the Church, (only I fall short in the holiness and sanctity quarters.) So who do you embrace?"

I embrace the Catholic Church. I dislike groups like SSPX who follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther in their disobedience and need to throw insults at the Church in order to justify their schism.

I try to emulate saints such as St. Ignatius of Loyola, who were humble enough to submit to the authority of the Church, even in a time of great scandal in the Church. Read the letters of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Read his autobiography. Does he dwell on the scandals of his day? Does he abandon the Church when he disagreed with it?

Isabel writes: "Well, maybe you should start, because it's not holding much water otherwise. And I have made my argument using those very statements you say you support. As well as other statements. Are you.......could it be.....is it possible that you are dissenting against the ordinary magisterium of the Church? "

Now, you're just rambling. ;-)

Isabel writes: "Second, show me where they [SSPX] have invented slander. "

Somewhat related, I just read a "Jack Chick Tract" comic strip. The basics of the story was that a Protestant found a priest (bottle of alcohol in hand) getting ready to jump off a bridge, because he hated his life. Now, in this particular example, the calumny is the attempt to stereotype priests as alcoholics. Additionally, they attempt to stereotype them as depressed, flying in the face of surveys that indicate otherwise.

OK, similarly, Jake invented a scenario in which he's on his deathbed and two priests are present: a sedevacantist and a Catholic priest. Wouldn't you know, Jake's Catholic priest had a lisp. Maybe we could start a traditionalist schismatic comic strip: how about "Jake Chick Tracts." The "Jake Chick" stereotypes are just as calumnious as the Jack Chick Tracts. There are a lot of people who want to propagate negative stereotypes of Catholic priests: protestants, communists, "We are Church" heretics, "Call to Action" heretics, traditionalist schismatics, and many others. They all attempt to prop themselves up by attacking and propagating and exaggerating negative stereotypes (slander).

I pray for those schismatics who have fallen away from the Church. I pray for all who attack the Holy Catholic Church. May God lead them away from pride, calumny, and despair. May He lead them to humility, charity, and hope.

Five hundred years ago, two men showed up in the Church at a time of great scandal. One man chose to focus on the scandals of the Church and got notoriety for his attacks on the Church. He even founded his own Church. Another man saw the same scandals. He saw an opportunity to reform the church from within, in the hopes of ridding the Church of the scandal. We all have two alternative models that we can emulate. It doesn't take a precise understanding of assent to the Magesterium to make the decision. I know what path I have chosen, and I will never regret taking it.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 03, 2003.

We've got some doctrinal departures this time, Mateo. Departures in the age old understandings of the Faith. This isn't a mirror situation to the Reformation (so-called). It sounds good to compare it that way, but it is at its essence not at all comparable... it's eloquent, but not accurate.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 03, 2003.

Vink:

That's an excellent question Emerald, as you seem to be an expert on what needs to be obeyed or not.

Emerald is trying to get you to tell him what needs to be obeyed. Honestly, Vink; since the challenge is so plainly insurmountable to you why not just say as much instead of taking a backhanded cheap shot at Emerald? That's a sure sign of someone on the losing end of a dispute, and puts a big shotgun hole in your credibility (not that it didn't already have more than a few scars).

If you guys respect the authority of the Pope, lets then hear from you your condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating four bishops without the Pope's permission

You'll never hear any sort of condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre from me, and you'll never bridge gap between that fact and your blind accusation that we have no respect for the authority of the Pope. One has nothing to do with the other.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

"guilty until proven innocent" stance with regard to the validity of any sacrament administered outside of the SSPX. Jake has openly confirmed this assumption--

Not "outside the SSPX," just in the Novus Ordo, and I reaffirm: I have grave doubts about the validity of any Novus Ordo sacrament.

he also added the assumption that Catholic priests are all homosexual.

Seems like it's about a 10:1 shot, if the Boston Archdiocese is a microcosm of the larger picture. Not bad odds.

Jake invented a scenario in which he's on his deathbed and two priests are present: a sedevacantist and a Catholic priest. Wouldn't you know, Jake's Catholic priest had a lisp.

See above. If the shoe fits...

I pray for those schismatics who have fallen away from the Church.

Me, too.

I also pray for the souls of modernist heretics, that they will repent and convert before death; and for a return to the practice of the True Faith.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.

the assumption that Catholic priests are all homosexual.

N.B.:

Not all Catholic priests, just Novus Ordos, particularly those formed in the 70's and 80's, and not even all of them, but enough to create a huge scandal and further wound the Church through their perversion.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.

Ah, so much talk about schism...This charge (which neo-Catholics love) is routinely trotted out in place of a substantive response to Trad aruguments, which are generally left unanswered.

Neo-Catholics like Mateo have written Jake, Isabel, and Ed "out of the Church" without evidence or a canonical process by Church authorities. But folks like him would never dream of doing that to any of the neo-Modernist church-wreckers who happily infest the hierarchy and the seminaries; but the neo-Catholics cry "schism" with great abandon when it comes to Trads.

Another neo-Catholic charge is that Trads don't "obey" Vat. II or that we "resist" it. Emerald, several months ago I put forth the same question you did a few posts up. I asked: How exactly does one "resist" or "disobey" the Second Vatican Council? I also went on to ask: What does Vatican II require Catholics to believe that they had not always believed before the Council? Those questions went ignored.

Are we (Trads) "out of the church" because we strenuously object to and refuse to participate in common prayer with pro-abort Protestant ministers or prayer meetings with rabbis, muftis and witch doctors as the Pope has done? Rome (and the Second Vatican Council) would call this an "ecumenical venture." It has been embraced but it can never be imposed upon Catholics as an obligation of their religion. The Holy Ghost would not allow it. Because some new idea or "venture" has been embraced and popularized, does not mean it is dogma; a Catholic obligation. There lies the belief of the neo-Catholic: If the Pope does it, or believes it is good, it is Dogma. Trads recognize this is not true, and we are labeled "schismatics" because of it.

Neo-catholics will not call upon anything pre-Vatican II. This is evident in their complete lack of regard for the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, or Pope St. Pius X, to name a few. They can't call upon anything pre-Vatican II to drive their points home. This is because many neo-Catholic beliefs, "ventures" and practices were never held before Vat. II (so much for the argument that these practices are Traditional) and many of them were out and out condemned by the Magisterium which they demand we obey today. So who is doing the picking and chosing now?

Contrary to what most neo-Catholics assume, schism does not consist in resistance to certain papal commands or policies, but rather a rejection of the Pope's authority in itself. If schism were mere disobedience to the Pope (as neo-Catholics falsely believe) than it would have to be argued that disobedience to any papal command immediately creates a schism and instantly places the one who disobeys "outside the Church." If this were true than neo-Catholics would have to say that every priest, every bishop who for years disobeyed Papal liturgical laws against Communion in the hand, altar girls, communal penance, and the abuse of Eucharistic "Ministers", or those who openly dissented (and still inwardly dissent) from Humanae Vitae are in schism. Neo-Catholics would strongly say "Obviously not!" But suddenly they are quick to charge us with schism when we object to novelties, many of which were authorized only after disobedient clerics demanded them.

If we were schismatics we would not beg the Pope to exercise his supreme authority. A schismatic does not recognize that authority in the first place. But good Trads have appealed to the Pope through prayer or meetings or correspondence. The SSPX has been in constant talks with the Pope for quite some time now - at *his* order. Schismatics would not and do not act promptly when the Pope orders it.

Oddly, we are denounced as schismatics when we oppose novelties which undermine the Papacy itself! This in itself demonstrates a complete misunderstanding (deliberate disregard?) on the part of the neo-Catholic on what Schism is.

I would really like to know why neo-Catholics are so eager to accuse Trads of the crime of schism, yet so loath to make the same accusation against any of the neo-modernists who are dismantling the Church before their very eyes, often in direct disobedience to explicit papal commands to refrain from what they are doing. If there *is* an explanation to this mystery, I would love to hear it.

As long as neo-Catholics say nothing about the dreadful actions of the likes of Hans Kung or Cardinal Mahoney but continue to call good Trads schismatics, I have to conclude that their charge is a gross calumny.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 03, 2003.

> "Are we (Trads) "out of the church" because we strenuously object to and refuse to participate in common prayer with pro-abort Protestant ministers or prayer meetings with rabbis, muftis and witch doctors as the Pope has done?"

Regina it's this sort of slander against the Pope, which I strongly disagree with. This is no different then accusing Our Lord for eating with sinners and tax collectors! So you're saying the Vicar or Christ should be more politically correct than Jesus himself?

You people are no different than the liberals, as you both slander the Pope with absurd accusations, simply because he does not run the Church the way you like it.

In relation to the four bishops being consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre:

--------------------------------- JULY 1, 1988

Cardinal Gantin declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon 1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of “schism.”

JULY 2, 1988

In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the Pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalized excommunications. ---------------------------------

You people only want us to criticize liberals in the Church, but you refuse to criticize an Archbishop who disobeyed the Pope!!!

I am still waiting for answers from Ed, Isabel and Emerald for my above question? You guys don't questions also.

Prove to me you are not in schism with the Church, by denouncing Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating four bishops against the Pope's authority.

A traditionalists obeys the Pope, and that's why you guys are not traditionalists. You are Protestants Catholics in the mold of Martin Luther. He said we did not follow the Bible, and you guys are saying we are not following Church doctrine as how you understand it. What's the difference, as both are wrong.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Jake writes: "Seems like it's about a 10:1 shot, if the Boston Archdiocese is a microcosm of the larger picture. Not bad odds."

It's so funny to see someone use this kind of logic to defend their slander. Boy, I'd hate to find out the stereotypes you hold against minorities. I'm sure you have statistics to back up all of your bigotry, though.

Regarding Regina's post, I must be really ruffling feathers! Anyway, I've made my point. Faithful Catholics follow St. Ignatius Loyola's example. SSPX sympathizers follow Martin Luther. I do find it ironic that they use the motto of the Society of Jesus.

Regina, in your post, you wrote:

"They can't call upon anything pre-Vatican II to drive their points home."

You know, it seems like SSPX playbook just drills in your head that all non-SSPX people are a certain way. According to the playbook, we ignore "pre-Vatican II", etc. It's simply not true. This is another tactic that SSPX has in common with Protestants. In that case, Protestants claim that Catholics don't read the Bible, and that Catholic doctrines/catechisms/encyclicals are studied despite what the Bible says. Same tactic...

I have used a number of quotes from pre-Vatican II documents to make my points with Jake, when he initially started showing himself to be pro-SSPX and justifying his "disobedience." But guess what: SSPX supporters only want to hear the pre-Vatican II pronouncements that they agree with! If it doesn't support the SSPX's "disobedience" (that term seems less offensive than schism), than the SSPX doesn't want to hear it.

Please write this 100 times on the chalkboard:

SSPX = Cafeteria Catholicism

Regina writes:

"If we were schismatics we would not beg the Pope to exercise his supreme authority."

Translation from "SSPX" to English:

"If we were schismatics we would not tell the Pope what to do."

Believe me, the "We are Church" nuts, the "Call to Action" nuts, and everybody else begs the Pope to "exercise his supreme authority" in their favor.

Regina writes:

"Papal liturgical laws against Communion in the hand, altar girls, communal penance, and the abuse of Eucharistic "Ministers", or those who openly dissented (and still inwardly dissent) from Humanae Vitae are in schism."

Communion in the hand. This is not doctrine. At the very worst, the practice is illicit, in the same way that an SSPX mass is illicit. I would like to see this trend reversed (communion in the hand); but I don't see it as the big scandal in distribution of communion (see below).

Altar boys/girls is also not a doctrinal issue. I believe (and my diocese maintains) that there should only be altar boys, but I don't pretend that this is doctrinal.

Communal penance (unless you're talking about a thousand soldiers on the battle field--an extra-ordinary situation) is not allowed. It is illicit and possibly invalid (I don't know which).

Eucharistic ministers. I think you're talking about "extra-ordinary" Eucharistic ministers. That is not the scandal. The real scandal is that we need them because people in mortal sin are receiving communion. This is the Eucharistic scandal. I'll bet that if there is proper education that one must be in a state of grace, this wouldn't be a problem.

Dissenters from Humanae Vitae. This is another one of those situations worsened by the precident set by the SSPX rejection of Vatican II. Dissenters of Humanae Vitae need only say the same incantation, "Humanae Vitae is not doctrinally binding." And, "Blam!" They just go on in their "disobedience. This is one of many unintended consequences of the SSPX "disobedience."

Regina concludes with:

"As long as neo-Catholics say nothing about the dreadful actions of the likes of Hans Kung or Cardinal Mahoney but continue to call good Trads schismatics, I have to conclude that their charge is a gross calumny."

I have stood with Jake and others here in condemning those within the Church whose positions are either questionable or outright contrary to the Church. Your conclusion is simply wrong because it is based in a false premise.

Last though: it takes a lot more to fix a problem than to merely complain about it.

God bless!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 03, 2003.

I should correct my self that Communion in the hand is currently a licit way to receive, though at one time it was not licit.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 03, 2003.

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Source: Papal Bull Cantate Domino, by Pope Eugene IV, 1441.

Dialogue? Ecumanism? Gordon, I do obey the pope. The one above.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

it's this sort of slander against the Pope, which I strongly disagree with.

Saying that the Pope participates in prayer with pagans, pro-aborts, Mohammedans, muftis, swamis, Bhuddists, and Jews is not slander, it's a statement of fact.

This is no different then accusing Our Lord for eating with sinners and tax collectors! So you're saying the Vicar or Christ should be more politically correct than Jesus himself?

That's a prefab, knee-jerk response repeated from your side as nauseam, but it's wrong. Simply wrong. The Pope is not making any attempt whatsoever to bring the truth to any of those poor souls. He's affirming them in their wickedness. Our Lord came to call sinners, it's true, but that does not mean He left them in their sinfulness. He also provided the remedy, which was and is, of course, Himself. He required their conversion. He still does.

You people only want us to criticize liberals in the Church, but you refuse to criticize an Archbishop who disobeyed the Pope!!!

Oh, that's rich. I suppose you were clammoring in protest when your bishop allowed altar girls, in direct disobedience to the Holy See? True, there are different issues involved, but if disobeying the Pope is your charge against Archbishop Lefebvre, you'll still never be able to bridge the gap 'twixt that and the accusation of schism. Even if you had the truth on your side, you're simply not smart enough.

I am still waiting for answers from Ed, Isabel and Emerald for my above question? You guys don't questions also.

I'm waiting for answers to the following:

1. Who was the SSPX priest you spoke to "at length," claiming that the SSPX is the sole repository of Catholic truth, and

2. What occasion did you have to speak with him "at length?"

This is at least the third time I've asked.

Prove to me you are not in schism with the Church, by denouncing Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating four bishops against the Pope's authority.

Prove to us that you are not a liberal by abandoning the Novus Ordo. See how silly that sounds?

A traditionalists obeys the Pope, and that's why you guys are not traditionalists.

Are, too.

You are Protestants Catholics in the mold of Martin Luther.

Think for yourself, Mateo...err, Vink.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.

Boy, I'd hate to find out the stereotypes you hold against minorities. I'm sure you have statistics to back up all of your bigotry, though.

Traditionalism=racism?

Don't worry, you're not the first on this forum to make that leap. By sinking those depts, your credibility is really circling the drain.

SSPX sympathizers follow Martin Luther

That reminds me: Did you give Vink permission to share your brain?

SSPX = Cafeteria Catholicism

If rejection of what the Church did/said/believed from Pentesost until the 1960's is "cafeteria Catholisism, I have one thing to say:

Which way to the salad bar?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.

What was it about repeating a lie over and over again?

...that if you keep it up, i.e., by your charge of racism (?!), you will eventually get people to believe you.

I couldn't help but notice you dropped your trademark "Enjoy" at the end of your post. Could this be a withdrawal of cordiality?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.

Mateo, one thing I notice with Jake, the guy is a waste of time to debate with. He wants me to answer his questions, but will not answer mine. What's the point in arguing with him!

Jake since you keep on asking, the SSPX schismatic priest I spoke with for over 2 hours on the phone, took place about 6 or 7 years ago. My father paid something like $250 for me to attend a SSPX retreat. I was going to go, when I mentioned this SSPX group to somebody, and they told me not to go. I then phoned and talked to two different priests in the Vancouver archdiocese who told me not to go, so as to not support these people. I phoned the SSPX schismatic priest, and told him that, and he argued with me for 2 hours to try and convince me to go on this retreat. He told me, there were the "True Catholic Church", and that is wrong to say that, and by saying so, it like admitting they are in schism with the Church.

I forget the name of the schismatic priest, but there is only one SSPX Church in the greater Vancouver area.

I told this priest, that I would be glad to go on their retreat after they come back into the Church.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

"I couldn't help but notice you dropped your trademark "Enjoy" at the end of your post. Could this be a withdrawal of cordiality?"

You are assuming incorrectly. Actually, I was more concerned with fixing the HTML error of someone who hadn't closed their italics...hmmmm...

Those darn schismatics don't even respect the laws of HTML!

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 03, 2003.

Vink:

...attend a SSPX retreat. I was going to go, when I mentioned this SSPX group to somebody, and they told me not to go.

Wow. Speaking as someone who recently made the 5 day Ignatian Exercises at a SSPX retreat house, I can confidently say that you missed out on a tremendous opportunity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Mateo:

You are assuming incorrectly.

Whew!

Actually, I was more concerned with fixing the HTML error of someone who hadn't closed their italics...hmmmm...

Infidel!

don't even respect the laws of HTML!

We're not required to use HTML.

God bless,

That's more like it.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.

Gordon Regina it's this sort of slander against the Pope, which I strongly disagree with.

Slander? Where did I commit slander? The Pope has prayed with witch doctors, pro-abort Protestants, and the like. It's not slander, Gordon. It's fact. Pointing it out doesn't make me guilty of slander. Neither does charitably criticising his actions.

If (God forbid) my father was a raging alcholic who had a habit of driving under the influence, would I be slandering him by telling all my family members he needs help, his actions are dangerous to people out on the road, and that no one should aid him in his drinking? No. It would be an act of real love - for my father, for my family, for the innocents out on the road.

This is no different then accusing Our Lord for eating with sinners and tax collectors!

This has been addressed already. Our Lord ate with and befriended sinners, but it didn't stop there as neo-Catholics would love to believe. He converted them or tried to. He *admonished* them for their sins. He did not confirm for them that their sinful lifestyles were OK, yet this Pope confirmed these Pagans, etc., in their false beliefs by making *no* effort to convert them. His actions implicity showed that Catholicism is nothing more than one belief-system among many. That we're all on some sort of "journey toward truth." Since Pentecost, the Church has always taught that She alone possesses the truth. Now JPII comes along and says, in so many words, that we, together with other religions who reject Our Lord, are on a journey towards it?

So you're saying the Vicar or Christ should be more politically correct than Jesus himself?

This has nothing to do with "political correctness", Gordon. This has to do with passing on the Deposit of Faith as JPII is required to do. He is compelled to "go and teach all nations." You honestly think Jesus would have sat and allowed His head to be smeared with animal waste in a show of solidarity with a Pagan cult?

You people are no different than the liberals, as you both slander the Pope with absurd accusations, simply because he does not run the Church the way you like it.

Absurd accusations? Are you saying my claims of the Pope engaging in prayer meetings with witch doctors, etc., never happened? I can offer proof if you wish... You people only want us to criticize liberals in the Church,

Well...yes. The liberal mentality/philosophy is death to the faith as evidenced by 40 years of it. Why would I want you to criticize Trads who zealously guard the Traditions of Holy Mother Church?

but you refuse to criticize an Archbishop who disobeyed the Pope!!! How can I? If it weren't for him there would be no SSPX, no FSSP. There would be no one to fight for Tradition. It would have all ended with his death.

Prove to me you are not in schism with the Church, by denouncing Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating four bishops against the Pope's authority.

I don't have to prove *anything* to *you*. If you had the foggiest idea what schism truly is, you wouldn't be making such a silly request. I've already told you: Not all disobedience amounts to schism.

A traditionalists obeys the Pope, and that's why you guys are not traditionalists.

You have a rather warped idea of what true obedience is, Gordon. This is evident in your outrage that I would dare criticise the Pope for praying with Pagans. You seem to think that if the Pope did it, I should too. That if the pope thinks it is good, it becomes Dogma. That if I criticise it, I'm a schismatic. Read my above post again on what true schism is, then get back to me.

You are Protestants Catholics in the mold of Martin Luther.

One big difference there. Martin Luther wanted to do away with and/or water down articles of faith and traditional practices and rituals (Kinda like neo-Catholics, isn't that funny?). Trads seek to *preserve* all the riches, Traditions, practices, rituals and teachings of Holy Mother Church.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 03, 2003.

From the SSPX website:

"The problem with many of the modern-day Catholics and bishops who have effectively apostatized, since they deny one or more doctrines of Faith, is that they are still members of the visible Church."

The mantra "SSPX is not schismatic" is another half-truth for SSPX's self-described position. While they deny themselves from breaking away from the Catholic Church, they simultaneously insinuate that the visible Catholic Church broke away from them. As Gordon's SSPX priest said, the SSPX claims to be the "True Catholic Church." So it's the Pope and the bishops (minus four illicitly-ordained SSPX bishops) who are all in schism. Well, SSPX uses the word "many." Hahaha!

When comparing the SSPX website with the True Catholic website, there's not much difference. The only real difference is that the "True Catholic" website claims to have a different pope (Pius XIII). Both are "disobedient" to the Catholic Hierarchy. Both rabidly attack the Catholic Church (mostly denying the validity of their sacraments). Both claim a love for the Latin Mass. Both hate Vatican II. Both claim to be traditionalists.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 03, 2003.

True Catholic" website claims to have a different pope

The fact that there are some bad apples saying the Latin Mass hardy refutes the traditionalist position.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.

Mateo

Regarding Regina's post, I must be really ruffling feathers!

Checks feathers...Nope, nothing ruffled here. :-)

Anyway, I've made my point.

Which was?

SSPX sympathizers follow Martin Luther.

That's an old, failed argument, Mateo. Quite frankly, it got boring fast, too.

You know, it seems like SSPX playbook just drills in your head that all non-SSPX people are a certain way. According to the playbook, we ignore "pre-Vatican II", etc. It's simply not true.

OK. For starters, using a pre-Vatican II source, such as Pope Pius X's Pascendi, please justify the unprecedented changes made possible by Vatican II. Or using the documents from the Council of Trent, please justify the changes in the Mass.

I have used a number of quotes from pre-Vatican II documents to make my points with Jake,

I'm looking forward to seeing them...

when he initially started showing himself to be pro-SSPX and justifying his "disobedience."

You say it as though he was being deceitful. Jake and I have attended a few SSPX Masses (he has attended one of their Ignatian retreats) and we support them in prayer always and sometimes financially when possible, but our chapel is not affiliated with the SSPX.

As far as his being "disobedient"; better to obey God first.

But guess what: SSPX supporters only want to hear the pre-Vatican II pronouncements that they agree with!

You have pre-Vatican II documents which don't support the preservation of Tradition? You have documents which don't support Tradition, and that's a good thing?! This should be interesting...

..."disobedience" (that term seems less offensive than schism),

It doesn't have to do with me being offended by the word, just that you use it incorrectly. The fact that you just implied "disobedience" and "schism" are interchangeble underscores what I've been saying: You are unclear about or have deliberately disregarding what true schism is.

Believe me, the "We are Church" nuts, the "Call to Action" nuts, and everybody else begs the Pope to "exercise his supreme authority" in their favor.

Perhaps, but true schismatics (as you maintain we are) wouldn't do that.

Communion in the hand. This is not doctrine.

I never said it was.

At the very worst, the practice is illicit,

Not to mention a gross sacriliege, but the point is it came into being because of the disobedience of clerics who demanded it. Were those clerics who were allowing this before the Holy See allowed it schismatics? Would you call them schismatics?

I would like to see this trend reversed (communion in the hand); but I don't see it as the big scandal in distribution of communion

Of course you don't.

Altar boys/girls is also not a doctrinal issue.

Again, Mateo, I never said it was.

By mentioning these certain practices, I was pointing out how disregard for papal command (wether they be liturgical or doctrinal) went on with out the label "schism" being flung around. I was pointing out how neo-Catholics would not attach such a label to these disobedient clerics, but do so with great abandon when it comes to Trads.

Which doctrine(s) are Trads disobeying?

Communal penance (unless you're talking about a thousand soldiers on the battle field--an extra-ordinary situation)

I'm not.

is not allowed. It is illicit and possibly invalid (I don't know which).

It didn't stop the priest in one of the parishes in my neighboring diocese from doing it. Without censure, without being charged with schism.

Eucharistic ministers. I think you're talking about "extra- ordinary" Eucharistic ministers. That is not the scandal.

It is when you have 7 to 10 Eucharistic "ministers" up on the altar, ready to distribute communion to only 30-40 people in attendance, while the presbyter sits in in his presidential chair the whole time as I saw in my local parish.

The real scandal is that we need them because people in mortal sin are receiving communion.

You "need" them to blur the distinction between priest and laity.

This is the Eucharistic scandal.

It aint the only one...

I'll bet that if there is proper education that one must be in a state of grace, this wouldn't be a problem.

Funny how it is clearly understood in my parish...Traditional teachings have a way of clearing all that up.

I have stood with Jake and others here in condemning those within the Church whose positions are either questionable or outright contrary to the Church.

I must have missed that.

Last though: it takes a lot more to fix a problem than to merely complain about it.

Exactly why I have run fast and far away from the N.O. establishment.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 03, 2003.

Gordon and your friends. You keep saying liberals in the Church are the problem.... and I keep saying "WHO put them there". The buck stops at the TOP!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

> "Gordon and your friends. You keep saying liberals in the Church are the problem.... and I keep saying "WHO put them there"."

Ok, let's go through this one Archbishop and Cardinal at a time. Tell me, what Archbishop and Cardinal was a liberal at the time of his consecration? Also at the time of his consecration, show me his liberal views?

Our Pope has a history of appointing conservative Archbishops and Cardinals.

Ed, don't forget, who consecrated Archbishop Lefebvre? I guess the Pope who consecrated him, must be bad, simply because he consecrated a bishop, who became schismatic.

Who baptised you into the faith Ed? A bad priest, since you are schismatic?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

> "Slander? Where did I commit slander? The Pope has prayed with witch doctors, pro-abort Protestants, and the like. It's not slander, Gordon. It's fact. Pointing it out doesn't make me guilty of slander. Neither does charitably criticising his actions."

It is slander Regina! Simply because you do not attribute any goodness in the Pope's actions! You have read his mind, and you don't even give him a shred of doubt that he was promoting the faith to those other people. You cut him down, and you ASSUME the worst about the prayer meeting.

Prove to me, or better yet, prove to yourself the Pope was in agreement with any of those false faiths that were present at the prayer meeting?

I have looked into the matter, and there is not a single shred of proof the Pope endorsed those false religions, and if anything, with the Church controlling the agenda, they were able to have a positive influence on the others at that meeting. The Church organized the agenda to that meeting!!!

Stop slandering the Pope you schismatic!

You're worst then those who attended that prayer meeting, because you twist situations to support your own warped view of the Catholic faith.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

> "Trads seek to *preserve* all the riches, Traditions, practices, rituals and teachings of Holy Mother Church."

By promoting disobedience to the Pope? By a schismatic organization, that was founded by an excommunicated Archbishop?

A sad day indeed, that you feel you have to "save" the faith, through disobedience. You don't have a clue what the Catholic faith is about, if you think disobedience is the way to go.

> "If it weren't for him there would be no SSPX, no FSSP. There would be no one to fight for Tradition. It would have all ended with his death."

Out of your own mouth Regina, thus proving you are schismatic, and so read the Papal Bull that Ed posted, as that previous Pope says you are going to hell for it. Not my words, but the words of a previous Pope.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

> "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Source: Papal Bull Cantate Domino, by Pope Eugene IV, 1441."

There you go, incase you missed it. Pope Eugene, said that Archbishop Lefebvre, and those who support him are going to hell for being schismatic. Not my words, but an infallible statement by the Pope, which we all have to agree with right?

Do yourselves a favor, and being a true traditionalists in the Church, by having nothing to do with SSPX. That way, you can save your soul, while promoting the traditions of the Catholic faith IN the Church. Let me repeat, IN the Church.

Don't support traitors to the faith, like Archbishop Lefebvre who likes to play Pope.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Gordon It is slander Regina! Simply because you do not attribute any goodness in the Pope's actions! You have read his mind, and you don't even give him a shred of doubt that he was promoting the faith to those other people. You cut him down, and you ASSUME the worst about the prayer meeting.

Prove to me, or better yet, prove to yourself the Pope was in agreement with any of those false faiths that were present at the prayer meeting?

The pan-religious prayer meeting at Assisi in 1986... had and explosive spiritual force: It was like a spring from which new energies of peace began to flow. For this reason, I hoped that the 'spirit of Assisi' would not be exstinguished, but could spread throughout the world and inspire new witnesses of peace and dialogue. Indeed, this world, marked by so many conflicts, misunderstandings and prejudices, had the utmost need for peace and dialogue...You know well that dialogue does not ignore real differences, but neither does it deny our common state as pilgrims bound for a new heaven and a new earth. Dialogue is also an invitation to strenthen that friendship which neither separates nor confuses. We must all be bolder on this journey, so that men and women of our world, to whatever people or belief they belong, can discover that they are children of the one God and brothers and sisters to one another..." --JPII in a message to Cardinal Cassidy on September 21, 2001

During his Message for World Day for Peace 2001, the Holy Father said: My many encounters with representatives of other religions - I recall especially the meeting in Assisi in 1986 and in St. Peter's Square in 1999 - have made me more confident that mutual openess between the followers of various religions can greatly serve the cause of peace and the common good of the human family.

You see any talk of conversion in either of these statements, Gordon? Do you see any declaration of the Catholic Church alone in possessing the Truth? Do you see the Pope declaring the grave importance of returning to the Catholic Church for salvation? Do you see a declaration on the grave need for a complete dependence on Christ if we want peace in this world?

In neither of these statements is there any question of making converts of the followers of other religions to save their souls, nor any mention of Our Lord's admonition about the consequences of the world's rejection of His Gospel and His Church.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 03, 2003.

Stop slandering the Pope you schismatic!

You haven't the foggiest idea what "slandering" means or what schism is, Gordon. Your continued failure to familiarize yourself with these terms and their definitions, but your insistance on using them, makes everything you're trying to say look very foolish.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 03, 2003.

My dear Regina, read those statements again, and read it for what it says.

"peace and dialogue" - "friendship" - "mutual openess" - "peace and the common good"

I see nothing wrong in that.

> "Do you see any declaration of the Catholic Church alone in possessing the Truth? Do you see the Pope declaring the grave importance of returning to the Catholic Church for salvation? Do you see a declaration on the grave need for a complete dependence on Christ if we want peace in this world?"

Regina, shall I point you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church? A book fully endorsed by John Paul II, and yet claims all those things!!!

> "Catholic Church alone in possessing the Truth"

Slight correction, as the Church does not have a monopoly on the truth, and that may be understood by some people in what you are saying.

Just because you don't like being called schismatic, or a slanderer, does not mean I do not understand those terms. I fully understand them.

Slander is a sin, and it is by saying something about another person that damages their character, whether it is true or not. I guess, you could say I am guilty of slandering your character by saying your are schismatic. I guess I will keep that in mind, the next time I go to confession.

If you support SSPX, then you are in schism with the Church, as the Church says that to anyone who supports Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of four bishops against the authority of the Pope. He was excommunicted for doing that, so you should have nothing to do with SSPX, who claim to be the "True Catholic Church". To make that claim, that is a schism, a breaking away from God's true Church, meaning not in union with Rome.

Regina, I don't think you are bad person, and I do appreciate the way you debate here, but how about The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter?

They are not in schism with the Church, and my Dad, who used to be associated with SSPX now is with them, after I argued with him, that he was not following the faith, as he raised me in it.

btw, I like the name Regina. God bless!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Gordon; the latest; the Diocese of San Bernardino is suing the Diocese of Boston, for shipping Father Shanley over to them. It's come to this. One diocese suing another. Now I have heard everything.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

The problem, Gordon, with the posts Regina posted, is the *humanism* that wreaks from them. (Humanism has been previously condemned by the Church.) Not one mention that peace will only come when Christ is the one recognized as being the source of all peace. Instead, the idea is being put forward, that we, mere men, can make that peace happen. We cannot, without Christ being the center of that peace. And Christ cannot be the center of that peace without a sincere effort to bring all to Christ. (Having a witch priestess anoint your forehead with dung, and removing the Eucharist from the tabernacle while replacing the statue of Our Lady with the statue of Buddha *does not* push the point that Christ is the only source of peace.) That is the error in the message of those letters.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Isabel, I strongly disagree with Humanism, and if I see that in those letters, I would agree, but I just don't see it. I have no doubt at all, that the Holy Father believes Christ is the source of all peace in the world.

> "Having a witch priestess anoint your forehead with dung, and removing the Eucharist from the tabernacle while replacing the statue of Our Lady with the statue of Buddha *does not* push the point that Christ is the only source of peace.)"

I think that is all open to interpretation. I would have questions for the Pope over that, and would not be too quick to condemn it. I did research at one time on that particular prayer meeting, and I could not find details like you are posting now. Can you please provide a source?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Gordon

"peace and dialogue" - "friendship" - "mutual openess" - "peace and the common good"

I see nothing wrong in that.

None of it matters, really. None of it matters without Our Lord and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Slight correction, as the Church does not have a monopoly on the truth,

Oh, dear.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 'fruits of Vatican II.'

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 04, 2003.

Gordon,

Now, remember that you asked. I do not post these for any other reason, and definitely not to demean the Holy Father, but some of these are rather scandalous.

I must also say that I know nothing of this site or who runs it. But a picture is a picture. Of course, you would not find these on a Vatican website. I should also tell everyone who clicks on the site to BEWARE of the second to last picture. I post these because if I posted text someone would just try and refute it.

Now, if you look closely at the picture of the prayer meeting in Assisi, you can see the door of the tabernacle is open (Which means it is empty) and a statue of Buddha has been placed on top.

Pray for our Holy Father!!

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.

Isabel, those pictures ar horrifying, and cannot be explained away. The actions of the pope are pure heresy, and I know that is difficult to say, but nevertheless, it has to be said.

I hope the Lord forgives him for these sacrilegious acts. I pray daily for him, and hope that he would pray for me, also a sinner.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.

Isabel, I have seen those pictures before, I question their validity, and I question the sinfulness! What sins are being committed?

It's not a sin for the Pope to meet people of other faiths! Jesus sat and ate a meal with sinners and tax collectors! Your condemn our Lord when you condemn the Pope for doing that exact same thing.

I read "Small statue of Buddha on an altar at Assisi", but can anyone actually see it??? I don't see any Buddha statue in that picture, as it impossible to see anything clearly on the altar!

"John Paul II being anointed with the pagan "Sign of the Tilak"." Is that the case? I need evidence on this, as I see a picture of someone touching the forehead of the Pope. Is there evidence that this person was a pagan, who was doing this, and what is the evidence that he is performing "a sign"?

> "where the epistle is read by a bare-breasted woman."

I mean, you condemn it, but you post pictures of it. Does that not come across as being hypocritical? I personally think that a tribal woman, who is bare breasted, as not being sinful at all. It could hardly be considered a sin of modesty, considering baring one's breasts in such a society, is not considered erotic.

> "The pope kissing The Koran."

I see the Pope kissing a book, which may very well be a Bible. Is it the Koran? How do you know?

> "None of it matters, really. None of it matters without Our Lord and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

Regina I agree with that, and so does our Pope.

> "Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 'fruits of Vatican II.'"

Regina you said this in response to me saying the Church does not have a monopoly on the truth. If a Protestant says that Jesus Christ is God, then that Protestant has some aspect on the truth, so the Church does not have a monopoly on the truth. So what wrong with saying the Church does not have a monopoly on the truth? A response of "oh dear", and "here we have the fruits of V2" is not much of a rebuttal to go on.

Since we are showing pictures, check these out: Archbishop Lefebvre Being a Traitor to the Faith

Even though, we have proof from their (SSPX) very mouths, as it comes from their website, some of you here have association with this schismatic group, and they are schismatic, because out of their very mouths, they claim to be the "True Catholic Church".

What I don't get, is why The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter is not an option for you people? It's almost as if, you want to belong to a schismatic group, but what it the motivation to do so? It's a sin, as Ed showed, through that Papal Bull.

Come back into God's Holy Church!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.

Note, I will do some research on those pictures, as I think some of those captions are false. I will get back to you on this.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.

Gordon It's not a sin for the Pope to meet people of other faiths!

No one said it was. We are saying it showed very poor example, and sent a message that we can achieve peace without Christ.

Jesus sat and ate a meal with sinners and tax collectors!

For the last time, Gordon, Our Lord admonished them for their sins and required their conversion. Can we please move on?

Your condemn our Lord when you condemn the Pope for doing that exact same thing.

Look, Gordon, it's a waste of time on my part, the part of the reader, and even your part if you're going to continue ignoring points which have already been made several times.

The Pope made no mention of Christ being the source of all peace, nor did he inform these "religious leaders" that Our Lord and His Church are their only hope for salvation.

I said:

"None of it matters, really. None of it matters without Our Lord and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

Gordon continued:

Regina I agree with that, and so does our Pope.

That was not apparent in his actions at the prayer meetings, nor in his spoken reflections on them.

Regina you said this in response to me saying the Church does not have a monopoly on the truth. If a Protestant says that Jesus Christ is God, then that Protestant has some aspect on the truth, so the Church does not have a monopoly on the truth. So what wrong with saying the Church does not have a monopoly on the truth?

The Protestant who says "Jesus Christ is God" is also the same one who will deny the Papacy, our Blessed Mother's Immaculate Conception, her Ever-Virgin state of being, in fact all our our Marian Doctrines, the doctrine of Purgatory, etc., thus calling God a liar. The full Truth does not exsist outside the Catholic Church, as a truth ceases to be a truth when it is mixed with falsehood.

A response of "oh dear", and "here we have the fruits of V2" is not much of a rebuttal to go on.

My reply stands. That the Catholic Church alone possesses the Truth is something, I thought, every Catholic knew and believed. My mistake. However, I don't believe you are entirely to blame. The Church has done a poor job over the last 40 years of teaching/reinforcing the very basic tenents of our faith clearly. And when you have the Pope praying with pagans without one mention of the necessity of their conversion, I shouldn't be surprised at your answer/beliefs.

Since we are showing pictures, check these out: Archbishop Lefebvre Being a Traitor to the Faith

Interesting *and* hypocritical of you. You were angered that I didn't give JPII the "benefit of the doubt" as to what was "in his mind" and accused me of "reading his mind." As a matter of fact you accused me of slander for it. Are you aware of what was in the good Archbishop's mind? In his heart? What his intentions were? It would seem to me that kissing the Koran displays far more treachery than does a picture of a man seeing to it that Faith and Tradition can continue. I'm not trying to imply that I believe the Pope to be a traitor, but I do believe his outward actions didn't demonstrate his fidelity to Holy Mother Church which was entrusted to his care.

While posting the link you provided, did you by any chance bother *reading* anything on that page?

Even though, we have proof from their (SSPX) very mouths, as it comes from their website, some of you here have association with this schismatic group, and they are schismatic, because out of their very mouths, they claim to be the "True Catholic Church".

As far as the SSPX being "schismatic" again, Gordon, this has already been discussed. The Vatican's private approach to SSPX would indicate that the SSPX "schism" is illusory, and is really nothing more than an internal disciplinary problem. For example, as Cardinal Cassidy admitted in a letter of March 25, 1994, the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity "is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory." - Meaning the Vatican doesn't think of the SSPX as "out of the Church."

There are strong arguments involving Canon Law which demonstrate how the "excommunication" and declaration of "schism" were very likely invalid, but, frankly, I don't want to get into with you. Your denial of proof we have provided as they are placed right in front of you (such as the case of the pictures Isabel linked to - at your request) and you continuing to ignore points which have been addressed several times over on this thread alone thus causing people to repeat themselves (a hindrence to any debate), shows that any sort of further debate/discussion with you about this subject would just be an incredible waste of time.

Please be assured of my prayers.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 05, 2003.

About right now I'm up on one year in this forum, I think. I've come to understand a couple things better I think, the most fun being this:

Why Traditionalists are Rude, Arrogant Know-It-Alls.

Good question, right? Hell, I used to think it was true too... but like I've said before, those were the days before I took my Faith to heart. I'm not sure I do a good enough job of taking it to heart today either, but it's better than it was before. Stuff is getting better. It's getting better all the time.

When all the hostilities between post-conciliarly minded Catholics and the traditionalist take a breather, a ceasefire, the general concensus promulgated among the faithful so-called is that the traditionalists are arrogant, rude, argumentative, angry, hostile, "have the letter and not the spirit", hypocritical... and certainly above all, prideful.

Usually these determinations come to the forefront at the point when the conversation starts to break off, which interestingly is about the same time when the glaring absurdities of popular Catholicism in the modern age can no longer be sustained in the discussion. I'm not talking about just this forum; I'm referring to the entire spectrum of Neo vs. Trad encounter.

Fact: the traditionalist are seen to be all the above by the post- conciliar-minded types, and in the final analysis, it's the only basis upon which the traditionalist are said to be wrong. "The traditionalists are all these things, and therefore cannot be the representatives of Catholic truth in our present age".

After enough rounds of discussion have elapsed, and there is isn't much left in the way of solid evidence to pin the non-Catholic tail on the traditionalist donkey, about all that's left for the post- conciliars to use as an ultimate gauge of truth is the Pride wildcard. Accusations of pride; destroying the Church, doing more harm than good, and so forth.

It's no valid argument even if it were entirely true, but here's why it isn't even true to begin with: the accusation has its essence in the reduction of a general truth to a paradigm; in other words, taking something that is true of entire class of things and claiming that it only exists in the cases where it is most apparent. Argument by reduction of a genus to paradigms.

Here's an example. What do they call "vice" down police department? Drugs and pornography. There far greater a variety of vices in the world than just these two, but these two, especially narcotics, best represent the intrinsic nature and display of the essence of vice.

So here you have one word, taken out of it's generic, universal setting and put into practice as limited in this case to the cases which best represent the essence of a thing.

This is how that selfsame reduction comes into play in Nuvo/Trad disputes:

Is just about everyone guilty of arrogance sometimes? Yes. Is just about everyone rude from time to time? Yes. Have we all been argumentative? Sure. Negative? Guilty. "Having the letter and not the spirit"? Of course. Hypocritical? No doubt every single one of us has. Have we all been prideful before? Yes.

Here, then, is how it comes to be that the traditionalist is the paradigm for all of the generalized failures above:

Who is the group who has things to say that people least want to hear? The traditionalists. Who are making the same complaints over and over and over again? Trads. Who is the smaller and therefore more vocal group? Traditionalists. Perceived as running against the grain? Trads. The most likely to feel cornered and to become angry? The most frowned upon? Whose concept of reality is most black and white?

Why are the traditionalists perceived as know-it-alls? Because sensing a serious problem in the Church, they have turned to study to obtain understanding. They study a great deal, sometimes with an obsession. They attempt to understand certain things that their post- conciliar holdout counterparts never questioned and therefore never approach seriously or in any great depth. Is it no wonder they are perceived as know-it-alls?

Why are the traditionalists perceived as arrogant? Because they have been greatly concerned about a number of developments in the Church and therefore have pondered upon things as they are, and as a result, have educated themselves about things that their post-conciliar counterparts have not been inclined to pursue.

And why are they so angry? Face it, the traditionalist are the only ones who seem to be the glorious exception to the post-conciliar ecumenistic craze of brotherly outreach and "togetherness"... hell, who wants to be associated with those backwards thinkers? Them dissent-laden dark-age dinosaurs of doctrinal dictatorship, the traditionalists.

Outnumbered, friendless and despised, the traditionalist's personal devotion and virtue is forever and at all times under the neo-jewish microscope.

Let us all move to the front of the Church, and thank Almighty God that we are not like unto one of these traditionalists, shall we?

Facing insurmountable odds and obstacles, is it no wonder that the human failures of the traditionalist become the paradigm of the disease of the many?

And even if it were all so very, very true... it's the only evidence available to the post-conciliar view of things, when challenge by the doctrine, dogma and discipline of the glorious Holy Roman Catholic Church of the ages; ever ancient, ever new.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 05, 2003.

I question their validity

Of course you do. They were doctored! Airbrushed! It'a a body-double! Lefebvrist conspiracy!

What sins are being committed?

This one seems to fit.

Jesus sat and ate a meal with sinners and tax collectors! Your condemn our Lord when you condemn the Pope for doing that exact same thing.

You've been refuted on this point time and time again.

can anyone actually see it??? I don't see any Buddha statue in that picture, as it impossible to see anything clearly on the altar!

Don't worry. If you don't see it, it isn't there. Just wish it away.

I mean, you condemn it, but you post pictures of it.

Kinda like you did with the photo of Archbishop Levebvre?

Does that not come across as being hypocritical?

That apparently depends on what side of the argument you find yourself on.

I see the Pope kissing a book, which may very well be a Bible. Is it the Koran? How do you know?

Muslims are generally not wont to keep a copy of the good ol' KJV around the mosque, just in case a passing Pontiff happens to wander in and pucker up.

If a Protestant says that Jesus Christ is God, then that Protestant has some aspect on the truth, so the Church does not have a monopoly on the truth.

A Satanist concedes the existence of God. Does the Church recognize what is "good and holy" in Statnism?

they are schismatic, because out of their very mouths, they claim to be the "True Catholic Church".

...and you base that on a supposed "lengthy" telephone conversation you had...how long ago? With a priest whose name happens to escape you?

What I don't get, is why The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter is not an option for you people?

Lots of reasons.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 05, 2003.

Terrible response Jake, with all those misleading accusations! Now I know why I did not want to debate with you awhile back.

Been busy, but just had some time to see if the Pope was kissing the Koran or not. Seems he was, which I find a bit strange, as to what it could mean, and I certainly don't believe the Pope was endorsing the Muslim faith by doing so. Anyway here is a page that gives some interesting insight into it all.

I know some Catholics will always denounce such an action, without ever making any effort to understand why he would do it, but that is just the way some people are.

Condemnation is very easy thing to do, but it also has to stand in light of what our Pope has always done, which is promote the teachings of the Catholic faith. The man cannot be a contradiction. He is either for the Catholic faith or not. I know the charge of him being a humanist is there for him by some, but I certainly don't believe for a second that our Pope is a humanist. His speeches prove otherwise. Note, posting speeches of his where he wants dialogue and friendship with people of other faiths, certainly does not make him a humanist in my eyes! Peace and dialogue has to exist with other people of other faiths, if we could ever hope to convert them. Christ was a man of peace! He converted people through love, and not condemnation!

I will see if I can find information on the other pictures also.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.

Concerning that so called picture with the caption: "John Paul II being anointed with the pagan "Sign of the Tilak"."

"Q: Someone in the schismatic group the Society of St. Pius X told me that when the pope was in India he had his forehead anointed by a Hindu 'priestess of Shiva' and that there is a photo to prove it. Is this true?

"A: There is a photo of the pope having his forehead anointed by an Indian woman, but she was a Catholic, not a Hindu priestess! She was giving a traditional Indian form of greeting known as 'Aarti,' which has no more religious significance than a handshake in western culture or giving someone a wreath of flowers as a welcome in Hawaii.

above from here.

I was right in my suspicions! I knew some of the photos were nothing more than an outright lie, and slander against the Holy Father, and some of you even believed it! Shame on you!

You should confess in confession next time, that you promoted slander against the Holy Father, by posting links to a site the clearly is lying to damage the Holy Father's reputation.

It's getting late, but I want to check up on that "Small statue of Buddha on an altar at Assisi", as I certainly cannot make out any statue in that picture.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.

> "My reply stands. That the Catholic Church alone possesses the Truth is something, I thought, every Catholic knew and believed."

Yes, a greater fullness of the truth, but not the whole truth has been reveiled (maybe in heaven?), and you are still misunderstanding the phrase "monopoly on the truth", meaning they have the truth, and no one else can have any part of it, which is just nonsense considering others share in some aspects of the truths in the Catholic faith. If you still do not understand this, then I cannot help you Regina. Maybe ask a priest about this?

Concerning the fullness of truth, don't forget that the Immaculate Conception was not promoted as an official teaching of the Church till the mid 1800's! Truth in our faith, is growing as God allows.

> "Interesting *and* hypocritical of you. You were angered that I didn't give JPII the "benefit of the doubt" as to what was "in his mind" and accused me of "reading his mind." As a matter of fact you accused me of slander for it. Are you aware of what was in the good Archbishop's mind? In his heart? What his intentions were?"

Regina, he directly disobeyed the Pope, and was excommunicated for it. No matter what his reasons where, his disobedience was wrong. Let me state that again, NO MATTER HIS REASONS, his disobedience is wrong!

Also note, that you clearly were involved in promoting a terrible falsehood against the Pope on the pagan sign to the forehead picture, as I show in the above post. I'm not doing that with the schismatic archbishop.

> "The Vatican's private approach to SSPX would indicate that the SSPX "schism" is illusory, and is really nothing more than an internal disciplinary problem."

Questionable, cause if the Vatican pushed them, they would not be able to help themselves, and claim "True Catholic Church", like the schismatic SSPX priest claimed to me.

I think the Vatican treats SSPX like it does the liberals in the Church, and that it takes it easy with them. If I was Pope, I would certainly make it clear that SSPX is schismatic, because they are. I would give them the boot along with all the liberals. Liberals are heretics, and a lot of so called traditionalists are schismatic.

Stop agreeing with the modern Church when it is convenient for you! SSPX is schismatic, and no good Catholic would have anything to do with them. If anything challenge them to come back into the Church, and they refuse! SCHISM written all over it!

> "Please be assured of my prayers."

Regina, thank you for that.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.

The pope should be as loyal to Gordon, and the rest of us, as Gordon is to the pope.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.

Terrible response Jake, with all those misleading accusations!

How? Where? Refute me if you don't like what I said.

Now I know why I did not want to debate with you awhile back.

What was the reason?

The man (the Pope) cannot be a contradiction.

Why not? Does this apply to JP2 or to any Pope? Please explain how he "cannot be a contradiction."

I will see if I can find information on the other pictures also.

Anyone with below average intelligence, 10 minutes to kill, and a good search engine can find "resources" on the web to support any premise.

I will see if I can find information on the other pictures also.

Vink. Dude. Don't believe everything you read on the web. Because it's on some unknown's Lycos page doesn't make it so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I was right in my suspicions! I knew some of the photos were nothing more than an outright lie, and slander against the Holy Father

Airbrushed! Body double! Lefebvrist conspiracy!

You should confess in confession next time

You should get off your high horse. Really.

Concerning the fullness of truth, don't forget that the Immaculate Conception was not promoted as an official teaching of the Church till the mid 1800's! Truth in our faith, is growing as God allows.

The dogma you speak of, as with any dogmatic pronouncement, was not the introduction of a new dogma. It was the solemn pronouncement making it a doctrine of the Church, but belief in the Immaculate Conception was believed by Catholics since the early days of the Church. Divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

NO MATTER HIS REASONS, his disobedience is wrong!

Nope. That's wrong. To draw a parallel: Abortion on demand has been the law of the land in the U.S. since 1973. If I pray the Rosary outside an abortion mill, or discourage others from going in, I am breaking the law; but I have to break the law, because there is a higher law that must be obeyed: Thou shalt not kill.

I think the Vatican treats SSPX like it does the liberals in the Church, and that it takes it easy with them.

So is the SSPX "schismatic," or does the Vatican "take it easy with them?"

If I was Pope, I would certainly make it clear that SSPX is schismatic

You mean...because it's not clear now, right?

a lot of so called traditionalists are schismatic.

You've so far offered not one, single, solid, credible shred of proof to support this, but not to worry. Stuff is getting better. Stuff is getting better all the time.

SCHISM written all over it!

I know what you mean.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 06, 2003.

Gordon Yes, a greater fullness of the truth, but not the whole truth has been reveiled (maybe in heaven?),

Gordon, you are (unknowingly?) denying Doctrine; the Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of Truth and God's complete revelation. Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

This can be verified in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII where he stated the Catholic Church is: "guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth."

and you are still misunderstanding the phrase "monopoly on the truth", meaning they have the truth, and no one else can have any part of it,

I'm not misunderstanding what you said, Gordon. You claim not only that the Church doesn't soley possess the fullness of truth (doctrine), but that the fullness of said Truth has not been revealed completely (doctrine). What's more, you claim that because a non- Catholic believes in God, that they somehow hold some tidbit of Catholic Truth. Any other religion, other than the Catholic religion, is, quite simply, a false religion. Their "truths" are founded upon, or mixed with falsehoods.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 07, 2003.

I agree Regina that other religions besides the Catholic faith, are false religions. I see no point in continuing to explain "monopoly on the truth" as you still do not understand what I mean, and I did recommend you talk to a priest about it. Let me know, by email if you want, what his response was.

> "Gordon, you are (unknowingly?) denying Doctrine; the Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of Truth and God's complete revelation. Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle."

I think you mean, that the truth the Church holds is correct, and I agree, but saying the Church knows everything is incorrect, as the Church cannot even explain where non-baptized people go, and for example aborted children.

I don't deny any of the teachings of the Catholic faith. I agree, accept and promote all the teaching of the faith. I work hard in the Legion of Mary each week evangelizing to people to come into the one true faith, as given to us by Jesus Christ.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 07, 2003.

I see no point in continuing to explain "monopoly on the truth" as you still do not understand what I mean,

I see no point in continuing either, Gordon. You maintain that Catholic Truth can be found in other religions. You are wrong.

and I did recommend you talk to a priest about it. Let me know, by email if you want, what his response was.

It is not necessary for me to do that. I would like to recommend that *you* study the Catholic Faith a bit better.

I think you mean, that the truth the Church holds is correct, and I agree, but saying the Church knows everything is incorrect,

Man knows *everything* he needs to know in order to for him to save his soul. This is what God wants from us. God provided us with all the knowledge we need and instructed the Pope to pass this knowledge on to us. This knowledge, belief in it, and being a member of His Church where one will learn all that God has revealed is the only way to Salvation.

as the Church cannot even explain where non-baptized people go, and for example aborted children.

From the Baltimore Catechism: Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism? A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

We oftentimes need to leave things up to the Mercy of God. When good ol' Aunt Sally dies, we'd like to believe she'll go to Heaven, but we are not absolutely certain of this. However, the knowledge of her soul's exact whereabouts is not necessary for our *own* salvation. Faith in God, and membership in His Church are. I don't deny any of the teachings of the Catholic faith.

You denied that the Church possesses the fullness of Truth and God's complete revelation. That concerns me since, according to you, are in a position where others depend on you for answers about the Catholic Faith. If you do "evangelize" people, you need to make sure the information you are passing out as Catholic belief is *truly* what Holy Mother Church teaches. If I weren't a Catholic, and someone told me Catholic truth could be found in my religion, I certainly wouldn't see any reason to leave my belief-system...

Have the last word if you wish, Gordon. Again, please be assured of my prayers.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 08, 2003.

> "You maintain that Catholic Truth can be found in other religions. You are wrong."

Yes, I again repeat that some aspects of the truth as promoted by the Catholic faith can be found in other religions. For example, the Catholic Church says there is a God. Well Muslims believe in God, so they share in that truth. Point is that Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on truth. Others can share in that truth also.

Again Regina maybe you should talk it over with a priest, as maybe he can explain it better than I can? Maybe ask a friend?

> "I would like to recommend that *you* study the Catholic Faith a bit better."

I would be glad to do so.

> "Man knows *everything* he needs to know in order to for him to save his soul."

I agree, but the whole truth is not needed in order to be saved. For example, how many angels are there? This is not an important truth, but it is still a truth from God, that we are not aware of.

> "We often times need to leave things up to the Mercy of God."

I agree.

> "but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo"

But the Church has said they don't know what limbo is. Limbo is an answer to what the Church does not know.

> "You denied that the Church possesses the fullness of Truth and God's complete revelation."

You're implying that I think the Church could be in error, and I don't believe that. I'm just saying the Church does not know everything, as not everything has been revealed to it.

> "If you do "evangelize" people, you need to make sure the information you are passing out as Catholic belief is *truly* what Holy Mother Church teaches."

I think I understand my faith very well, and I share it accordingly.

> "If I weren't a Catholic, and someone told me Catholic truth could be found in my religion, I certainly wouldn't see any reason to leave my belief-system."

You are misuderstanding me, and this statement is false. I want to bring everyone into the Catholic faith, no matter what other religion they belong to. That includes all the schismatic and liberal Catholics out there who are not following the faith. There are plently of schismatic Catholics on this forum, who I try very hard to bring back into the Church.

> "Again, please be assured of my prayers."

Thank you for that, as we all need prayers. Again God Bless you Regina.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

From various Hindu websites regarding the "tilak," or "sign/mark of the tilak":

"The Tilaka is normally a vermilion mark applied on the forehead.This mark has a religious significance and is a visible sign of a person as belonging to the Hindu religion.

Don't take my word for it. Look here

and here

and here

and < a href="http://www.saranam.com/Rituals/tilak.asp"> here.

Also, you can read about what happened to a Muslim cleric after receiving the same dung-smear on his own forehead.

So, it seems to me that this gesture is a little more significant than "a handshake or a wreath of flowers."

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 13, 2003.

> "So, it seems to me that this gesture is a little more significant than "a handshake or a wreath of flowers."

Good answer Jake, considering our Pope never even received the mark of tilak! Maybe anyone else who is confused should read this page again.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.

Good answer Jake considering our Pope never even received the mark of tilak!

Oh, yeah. That's right. You were able (after doing some "research") to dig up some Lycos page, supposedly written by a priest in England somewhere, that said it was just a friendly dung-smear with no religious connotation at all.

I was able to come up with 10 reasons to believe in the existence of Sasquatch. Still, for all our "research," neither of us proved anything.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.

HEY!!! I believe in Sasquatch! >:)

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

HEY!!! I believe in Sasquatch!

*blink*blink*

Okay. :|

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.

> "that said it was just a friendly dung-smear with no religious connotation at all."

Jake, what dung? No dung was involved. You have proof dung was involved? Did you even bother reading the site I linked to?

So if someone shows a picture of you eating something, with the caption, "guy eating dung", does that make it true?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

Jake, what dung? No dung was involved. You have proof dung was involved?

That's not really the issue, but I can offer no proof as to what substance was smeared on the Holy Father's forehead. Can you prove it was not dung? You seem pretty sure.

Did you even bother reading the site I linked to?

I did. Did you read by Bigfoot link?

So if someone shows a picture of you eating something, with the caption, "guy eating dung", does that make it true?

It was a long time ago! I was young! I needed the money!

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.

*blink*blink*

Okay. :|

LOL!!! It was the article you posted that convinced me.

I was, of course, being a bit facetious, you know.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

> "That's not really the issue, but I can offer no proof as to what substance was smeared on the Holy Father's forehead. Can you prove it was not dung? You seem pretty sure."

That's right, you cannot provide proof, so why take the chance of slander against the Holy Father? Simply because it's suits your purpose to cut him down?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

That's right, you cannot provide proof, so why take the chance of slander against the Holy Father? Simply because it's suits your purpose to cut him down?

Slander!? If I said it was just paint instead of dung, that still wouldn't change the fact that the Pope allowed himself to be marked as a Hindu. Even if, and I'm not saying this is the case, but even if it was just a friendly smear - like a handshake - why would the Soverign Pontiff take the chance that his action would bear the appearance of assent to paganism; causing scandal and shock among the faithful? Still, it hasn't stopped him. Whether it's by giving Communion to a known Protestant pro-abort like Tony Blair, or by admitting into full communion a group of schismatics whose liturgy does not even contain words of consecration, he would seem to be bent on further blurring the lines between what is Catholic and what is not; between truth & error, between virtue & sin.

The fact that I'm as scandalized as other Catholics by this Pope's actions does not mean that I am "cutting him down."

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.

LOL!!! It was the article you posted that convinced me.

Eek! I unwittingly created a Sasquite! Sasquites are, of course, schismatics, and I am telling you this, Isabel, out of the kindness of my heart because I am a good Catholic who prays real hard for the likes of disobedient Sasquites like yourself.

That said, if you do not repent of Sasquitism, you will find yourself on a one way train ride straight down into the ocean of eternal fire. Take care, now.

I was, of course, being a bit facetious, you know.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.

You know, that would make sense. Paul was just talking in another thread about mixing evolution in with Catholicism somehow, in such a way as to indicate that some long-ago hominids... non-ensouled animals... at some point difficult to determine, became human beings.

At least that's what I figured he was saying.

Now with what jake says here, that makes complete sense. Sasquatches are the hominids who denied the development of doctrine which gave rise to humans by means of the principle of subsidiarity; hence, since they did not accept reason when it was offered to them, they are schismatic, and incur defacto excommunication.

This is why they are loners, walk alone in the forest, smell bad and scare people.

It's all comin' together, man.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 14, 2003.

This is why they are loners, walk alone in the forest, smell bad and scare people.

I'd like to go on record as saying that even though I'm guilty if all these things, I am by no means a sasquath; nor do I adhere, formally or otherwise, to sasquatism.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.

That said, if you do not repent of Sasquitism, you will find yourself on a one way train ride straight down into the ocean of eternal fire.

See you when I get there! >:)

This is why they are loners, walk alone in the forest, smell bad and scare people.

I don't mind being a loner, walking alone in the forest, and my looks are enough to scare people, but for crying out loud, did you have to tell the whole world I smelled bad, too!!!!

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

See you when I get there! >:)

Oh, NO, sister! YOU are going to burn for your SCHISMATIC SASQUITE beliefs, but I will be borne by hands of angels to my Heavenly reward. That's because I pray & work real hard to convert Sasquite trash like yourself.

Did I mention you're a schismatic?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.

> " why would the Soverign Pontiff take the chance that his action would bear the appearance of assent to paganism"

Jake, I give up. If you think the Pope was doing this, then fine. I have provided a source that says otherwise. Yes, it is slander, and very sinful when the accusation is false. First you were hung up on the dung part, now it's the paganism, but both are denied by the site I linked to. Do you care? No, of course not, because it suits your purpose to believe something that conforms to your agenda.

What amazes me in all of this, is that you did NOT read a single word of that site I linked to. If you did, you never would have continued harping on the dung and now the paganism as denied by that very site.

The woman was not even a Hindu priestess! Did you READ that!!!!!!

You are missing a few marbles there boy, along with Ed Richards. Schismatic Catholics who could not careless about the truth. Let that be your judge.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Yes, it is slander, and very sinful when the accusation is false.

Gordon, help me out man, I'm confused. Do you mean what jake says about something, or things said by some people about jake?

What amazes me in all of this, is that you did NOT read a single word of that site I linked to.

Again, some ambiguity here... was that site a site that explained the principle behind, and the proper excercise of, the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church? About what assent really consists of, and it's relation to the Deposit of the Faith? Or was it a kind of side-tracker about something else?

You are missing a few marbles there boy, along with Ed Richards. Schismatic Catholics who could not careless about the truth.

Yes, it is slander, and very sinful when the accusation is false.

However, I have to hand it to you for your keen insights on the IMF and the World Bank in another thread; keep up the good work. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 15, 2003.

Jake, I give up.

Oh, yeah. I've heard THAT one before.

If you think the Pope was doing this, then fine. I have provided a source that says otherwise.

...and I have provided a link to Sasquatism. Don't get sucked in, Vink. We've already lost poor Isabel.

Yes, it is slander

Is not.

First you were hung up on the dung part, now it's the paganism, but both are denied by the site I linked to. Do you care? No, of course not, because it suits your purpose to believe something that conforms to your agenda.

Wow. Relax, Vink. Find a happy place. Leave all this rage and irrationality to us cranky, know-it-all traditionalists.

you did NOT read a single word of that site I linked to. If you did, you never would have continued harping on the dung and now the paganism as denied by that very site.

Oh, but I did read it. I just don't happen to believe it; the same way you didn't believe the site Isabel linked to containing all those horrible and scandalous photos. Why is it that your references should be held as credible, and all opposing opinions are "lies"? Leave all this arrogance & pride to us cranky, know-it- all traditionalists.

You are missing a few marbles there boy, along with Ed Richards. Schismatic Catholics who could not careless about the truth. Let that be your judge.

Leave all that name calling and judgement-passing to ....Oh, forget it.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.

Leave it to me.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.

You are missing a few marbles there boy, along with Ed Richards.

Anyone care for a big ol' hunk of slander hypocrite ala mode?

Schismatic Catholics[...]

I told you, Gordon, learn what "schismatic" means before you go throwing it around. I know it's a big, intimidating word that you think makes you sound smart, but you calling Jake and Ed "schismatics" for criticizing the Pope's actions makes as much sense as me calling you a chair for your errors against the faith.

who could not careless about the truth.

Which "truth" is that? The truth as *you* wish to believe, or the Truth as Holy Mother Church teaches?

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 15, 2003.

> "We've already lost poor Isabel."

What do you mean by that? Has she left?

> "Which "truth" is that? The truth as *you* wish to believe, or the Truth as Holy Mother Church teaches?"

Regina, of course the truth that the Church teaches. What teachings do I not follow?

I thought things over later today, and I regret insulting Ed, even though he insults the Pope all the time, but he has not insulted me. Sorry Ed. Still think you should go easy on the Holy Father.

Jake, I doubt I have to disprove anything you say, as I doubt anyone pays much attention to you.

btw Regina, we are all hypocrites to a point.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Gordon, why don't you quit beating around the bush and get down to the job of explaining the proper meaning of assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church. What does it mean for the Holy Spirit to guide the Church? What does doctrine mean? What is the Deposit of the Faith? How does understand the basis for infallibility; when and where does it occur? Why?

Nobody has done it yet, yet all the whining-bashing on those who hold to the Faith of the ages hinges upon answering this question; there are others, but this is the key.

In fact, your whole brand of Catholicism, in totality, hinges on it. In fact, everyone in this forum, who doesn't like traditionalists (so- called... actually, they are just Catholics) and doesn't like traditionalism per se, can't or won't answer this question.

No takers. Not Paul, not you, not John, not Joe, none.

Why not be unique? Answer the question. As soon as you do your entire brand of Catholicism is in the balance.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 16, 2003.

What do you mean by that? Has she left?

LOL!! No, you're not rid of me that easily, just because I'm a Sasquite. jake was, of course, being, um.....what's the word.......oh, yes - facetious.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

What do you mean by that? Has she left?

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Jake, I doubt I have to disprove anything you say, as I doubt anyone pays much attention to you.

If you were to disprove anything I said, if you had that capability, maybe people around here would take you a little more seriously. A word to the wise and all. Oh, and I seem to get all the attention I need around here. You, for one, can't stay away from me, even after your oft-repeated "I give up" declarations.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 16, 2003.

Jake, I doubt I have to disprove anything you say, as I doubt anyone pays much attention to you.

You certainly can't seem to stay away...

btw Regina, we are all hypocrites to a point.

Sure, but like sin, we all have an obligation to avoid hypocrisy at all costs. Our Lord didn't have many favorable things to say about hypocrisy, you know...

Look Gordon, about the whole "dung" fiasco, maybe I can offer something to think about. Picture this hypothetical situation:

Through the grapevine, you discover that the young, unmarried girl down the street from you has become pregnant. One day while driving thru town, you see her entering an abortion mill. What's your first reaction? She's meeting a friend for lunch? She's picking up an employee/friend who needs a ride home? She's applying for a job? She's stopping in to drop off Pro-life material?

Somehow I don't think your first reaction is mentioned above. You can keep your answer to yourself. Your answer could be, "well, if I knew her well enough, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt." Great. But thinking about it further, suppose you never heard her discuss her stance on abortion. Suppose you never once heard her say it was wrong? In fact the times you discussed it with her, she *remained silent*? Just think about it...

When folks like Jake, Ed, Isabel, Emerald and myself, witness the Holy Father sitting with reps of other faiths, and keeps silent on their urgent need for conversion, and referres to their prayers as "irreplaceable", (I'll post the text of that later) what are we supposed to gather when we see Buddah on the Tabernacle, and him being ...."greeted" by a Pagan, etc., etc.? The point is, his actions gave scandal - grave scandal. It's *because* we can't read his mind that we need him to be a shining example of true Catholicism and the model of fidelity to Our Lord and His Church where ever he goes and with whomever he meets. He failed miserably in both regards at these "interfaith prayer meetings." And no one is a "schismatic" for saying so.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 16, 2003.

No.1 : This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. (Lumen Gentium)

A) We must mention another fruitful cause of evil by which the Church is afflicted at present, namely: Indifferentism, that vicious manner of thinking which holds that eternal salvation can be obtained by the profession of any faith, provided that a man's morals are good and decent. Seriously consider the testimony of the Savior that some are against Christ because they are not with Christ, that they scatter who do not gather with Him, and therefore without doubt they will perish in eternity unless they hold to the Catholic Faith and observe it WHOLE and INVIOLATE. (Pope Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos," August 15,1832)

B) If anyone says that the condition of the Faithful and that of those who have not yet come to the true Faith is equal: let him be anathema. (Ecumenical Council of Vatican I, Canon 6: "On Faith")

Sadly ,the pope is not heeding the Church Fathers prior to V2. We not only have a right to criticize him, we have a duty to do so. The souls of many Catholics are at stake and we can also sin by omission.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

Dear Ed,

How do you reconcile the fact of an infinitely good and just God with the idea that those who through no fault of their own have not heard the gospel message will suffer in hell for all eternity along with those who have heard the truth and rejected it?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 16, 2003.

You are trying to bring human reasoning into the ways of God again, Paul.

How do you reconcile the fact of an infinitely good and just God with the idea that those who through no fault of their own have not heard the gospel message will suffer in hell for all eternity along with those who have heard the truth and rejected it?

Let's put it this way.

How do you reconcile the fact of an infinitely good and just God with the idea that he will not bring the Faith and hence, means of salvation, to those of good will and/or to those deserving/praying/asking for the truth?

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

How do you reconcile the fact of an infinitely good and just God with the idea that those who through no fault of their own have not heard the gospel message will suffer in hell for all eternity along with those who have heard the truth and rejected it?

Hi, Paul.

The "Interreligious Prayer Meetings" such as the events at Assisi brought modern-day pantheists and polythesis into close proximity with the Holy Father who had a God-given opportunity to express his concern for the grave errors of their beliefs and the urgent need for them to convert and to bring the Gospel of Our Lord back to their followers.

What possible excuse can there be for these people? Certainly not "invincible ignorance" of the True God and True Religion. These people flew on jet planes to attend peace conferences with the Pope himself, have access to computer technology that puts the Gospel and the entire teaching of the Catholic Church at their fingertips. A modern-day Witch Doctor who attends Vatican gatherings and makes use of the Internet hardly qualifies as the hypothetical blissfully ignorant pagan on a desert isle.

God will judge these "religious leaders" for sure. As he will surely judge the Holy Father who failed to shepard these people home.

Pray for the Pope.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 16, 2003.

God says "My ways are not your ways". If there is truly such a thing as nvincibe ignorance, a just God will handle it in His way. We are trying to come up with human answers, for whatever reason. Let God be God, and as best we can follow the ex-cathedra pronouncements of our popes.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

Traditional Catholics are those who follow the Pope; and you all REBEL AGAINST John Paul II. He is not *perfect* as you perceive perfection. Even so, he has been chosen by the Holy Spirit for the office. He occupies the seat of Peter, as such he is our sovereign pontiff. Those who rebel for ANY reason place their immortal souls in danger. They discard the Apostolic mark which is essential with One, Holy, and Catholic.

Now, if a Pope is somehow cause for scandal, (which I have doubts John Paul II is); all we can ask of God is his rehabilitation and final perseverance. The Church has endured in the past under bad Popes. But no faithful Catholic is able to substitute an ersatz church in place of the Holy Catholic Church.

We are united as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, or there is no Church! There is no other TRADITION we can turn to-- not even in the SSPX so-called, for all its attractions. It is schismatic, without a doubt. Who says so? The Catholic Church which is joined to the See of Peter.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 18, 2003.

Traditional Catholics are those who follow the Pope

Actually, traditional Catholics are those who adhere to the Deposit of the Faith. The pope's primary duty is to guide the Faithful in lock step with the Deposit of the Faith.

...and you all REBEL AGAINST John Paul II.

In order to make this case, you need to identify the point of rebellion. If it happens to be in regards to anything that is a departure from the doctrines of the Faith, it does not qualify as rebellion against the Pontiff.

...he has been chosen by the Holy Spirit for the office. He occupies the seat of Peter, as such he is our sovereign pontiff.

This is a fact; the traditional Catholics will never deny this.

Those who rebel for ANY reason place their immortal souls in danger.

Not so... again, if the Faithful are being asked to deny doctrines or commit morally objectionable acts, they do not need to comply. I'm not positing a particular case where this is happening right now that I mean to get into, but you said "for ANY reason", and that's just not the case.

They discard the Apostolic mark which is essential with One, Holy, and Catholic.

Maybe some do, like the sedevacantists, but I don't see any sedevacantists here.

Now, if a Pope is somehow cause for scandal, (which I have doubts John Paul II is); all we can ask of God is his rehabilitation and final perseverance.

No argument from me on that point.

The Church has endured in the past under bad Popes. But no faithful Catholic is able to substitute an ersatz church in place of the Holy Catholic Church.

I haven't seen any regular come even close to doing that in this forum.

We are united as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, or there is no Church!

The gates of Hell will not prevail against it, so if there is only one Catholic left on earth, we're still alive and kicking.

There is no other TRADITION we can turn to--

That's what the traditionalists have been saying all along. This forum helped to solidify me in a traditionalist position, because it is absolutely clear after a year of being in this forum, that the traditionalist stance is the correct view of the Catholic Faith.

So... when is someone going to lay me out straight on this issue of what it means to have proper assent to the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church, and what the principle of this assent rests in; it's basis and proper understanding... and the manner in which the Holy Spirit guides His Church?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 18, 2003.

you all REBEL AGAINST John Paul II.

Nope. Not true. To say that he has done some bad things is not to REBEL against him.

he has been chosen by the Holy Spirit for the office. He occupies the seat of Peter, as such he is our sovereign pontiff.

Agreed on all three points.

Those who rebel for ANY reason place their immortal souls in danger. They discard the Apostolic mark which is essential with One, Holy, and Catholic.

You just lost me. There is no sin in resisting something that is contrary to the Faith. I would agree that it is dangerous to resist without sufficient reason, but it's wrong to say that it places someone's soul in danger to resist anything for "ANY reason."

Now, if a Pope is somehow cause for scandal, (which I have doubts John Paul II is); all we can ask of God is his rehabilitation and final perseverance.

Amen. Pray for him. He has to save his soul just like everyone else.

There is no other TRADITION we can turn to--

That's the most amazingly accurate thing I've ever heard you say, Gino.

in the SSPX so-called,

???

for all its attractions.

What attractions would those be?

It is schismatic, without a doubt. Who says so? The Catholic Church which is joined to the See of Peter.

I don't think the jury's in on this as long as Rome is:

a) telling people that they can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Mass at an SSPX chapel, and that

b) they do not sin in doing so, and that

c)they can support the Society financially.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 18, 2003.

Traditional Catholics are those who follow the Pope; and you all REBEL AGAINST John Paul II.

Who is rebelling? What exactly are doing which could be defined as rebellion?

He is not *perfect* as you perceive perfection.

Where did any of us demand perfection on the part of the Pope? How could we expect perfection from any human creature? It's the neo- Catholics like you who believe the Pope is *always* infallible and is immune from error in *all* things.

This Pope has made some bad choices, and has caused public scandal. That's what we are criticizing.

Even so, he has been chosen by the Holy Spirit for the office. He occupies the seat of Peter, as such he is our sovereign pontiff.

I am 100% in agreement with you. And it's for those reasons listed above that we need the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, to be the model of fidelity to Our Lord and His Church - for Catholics and non- Catholics alike. "Most people are taught by way of example and not by way of words."--St. Benedict

Those who rebel for ANY reason place their immortal souls in danger.

Better, smarter, holier men than you say otherwise:

It is permissible to resist the Pope when he invades souls and troubles the commonwealth; and moreover, if he appears to be causing harm to the Church, it is permissible, I say, to resist him by not doing what he enjoins and by preventing his will to triumph. --St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Now, if a Pope is somehow cause for scandal, (which I have doubts John Paul II is); all we can ask of God is his rehabilitation and final perseverance.

Sit back and say nothing? "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it." --Pope St. Felix III

You neo-Catholics have made a *virtue* out of doing and saying nothing, as if God delights in a Pope causing scandal. Prayer is essential, yes, but keeping silent? Nope.

It is better that the truth be known than the scandal be covered up.--St. Augustine (354-430)

But no faithful Catholic is able to substitute an ersatz church in place of the Holy Catholic Church.

Who is doing that?

...the SSPX so-called, for all its attractions.

"It's" attractions? For your information, those "attractions" are none other than the same "attractions" the Catholic Church held near and dear only a mere 40 years ago.

It is schismatic, without a doubt. Who says so? The Catholic Church which is joined to the See of Peter.

Oh, brother. Let's just settle this once and for all, shall we? This "schism" argument the neo-catholics love to throw around is becoming increasingly boring.

1) Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, by the terms of the canon law, did not commit a schismatic act under canon law by consecrating four bishops without explicit papal permission

2) the declaration of excommunication by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops is null and void (Abp. Lefebvre was technically not "excommunicated"; rather, the Congregation simply declared that he had "excommunicated" himself, as no ecclesiastical trial was ever held; Abp. Lefebvre disputed this contention of the Congregation, citing the provisions of the 1983 Code of Canon Law)

3) priests and faithful associated with the SSPX, let alone any other traditional Catholic priests or laymen, are under no censure at all.

4) the Vatican itself admits (as it must) that traditional Catholics and traditional Catholic priests are not "schismatic", as when the traditional priests and faithful of Campos, Brazil, were received into "full communion" with the Novus Ordo on January 18, 2002, the Vatican did not pretend to absolve them from any censure for "schism," which would have been necessary, had the Vatican legally been able to hold them "schismatic."

The following Roman canonists have publicly declared their finding that any purported "excommunications" in this case are null and void under canon law: * Castillo Cardinal Lara, J.C.D., President of the Pontifical Commission for Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law * Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity * Alfons Cardinal Stickler, former Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library * Fr. Gerard E. Murray, J.C.D., of the United States * Fr. Patrick Valdini, J.C.D., Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law * Fr. Rudolf Kaschewski of Germany * Count Neri Capponi, D.Cn.L., Ll.D, Professor of Canon Law * Professor Geringer, J.C.D.

THE MODERN VATICAN SPEAKS Hold on to your hat....

The following briefly summarizes the positions of the modern Vatican's chief canonists on the matter of the SSPX.

LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY Under signature of Silvio Cardinal Oddi, President(March17,1984)

[In answer to a family attending Mass at an SSPX chapel as to whether such attendance fulfilled her obligation for Sunday Mass,]

"According to the New Code of Canon Law, 'The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite....' I hope that settles your doubts."

You deny that the Trad. Latin Mass is *not* a catholic rite?

DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (HOLY OFFICE) Under signature of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect Known as the "Honolulu Decision" (Protocol No. 14428, June 4, 1993)

Background: The Bishop of Honolulu on May 1, 1991, declared six laymen "excommunicated on the grounds that [they] had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the 'latae sententiae' penalty [of automatic excommunication] as provided for in ... the Code of Canon Law. The "Honolulu Six" had (1) established a traditional chapel independent of diocesan jurisdiction, (2) invited independent priests, predominantly SSPX priests, to celebrate Mass at the chapel, and (3) invited one of the bishops named in the Vatican's excommunication decree to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation at the chapel.

In response to an appeal by one of the Honolulu Six against the decree of the Bishop of Honolulu, the Congregation decreed:

"This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner ... are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism. Since [the Petitioner] did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the 'latae sententiae' penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded. This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu."

ALFONS CARDINAL STICKLER Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library Peritus (Expert) to Four Vatican II Commissions

"Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority, legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine [Traditional Latin] Mass in the present day? The answer given by eight of the cardinals in 1986 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this; I was one of the cardinals.

"There was another question, very interesting. Can any bishop forbid a priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again? The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have not official publication, and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition ... because of the words of [Pope St.] Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever."

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994) "The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION "ECCLESIA DEI" Under Signature of Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary May 28, 1996; repeated in Protocol N. 236/98 of March 6, 1998

"It is true that participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute 'formal adherence to the schism.'"

September 27, 2002

1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X.

2. ...If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.

3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.

ON THE PURPORTED "EXCOMMUNICATION" OF ABP. MARCEL LEFEBVRE

ROSALIO JOSE CARDINAL CASTILLO LARA, J.C.D. (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW) President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law President of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia

"The act of consecrating a bishop [without explicit papal permission] is not in itself a schismatic act."

COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.CN.L. - LATERAN (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW) LL.D. - FLORENCE (DOCTOR OF LAWS) Professor Emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence Accredited as an Advocate of the Holy Roman Rota (the Holy See's highest marriage tribunal) Accredited as an Advocate of the Apostolic Signatura (the Holy See's highest appeals tribunal)

"The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic."

PROFESSOR GERINGER, J.C.D. Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich

"With the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism."

REV. FR. PATRICK VALDINI, J.C.D. Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris

"It is not the consecration of a bishop that creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission [which Abp. Lefebvre never did]."

REV. FR. GERALD E. MURRAY, J.C.D. (PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY) Title of Doctoral Thesis Accepted: "The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?"

"They're not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican has never said they are.... You can ... show that Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was....I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he's not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic"

Know this, Gino: The Pope, John Paul II, has never rebuked, criticized, argued against, or denied any of the statements quoted here. Now you can lay your erroneous charge of "schism" to rest once and for all.

-- Regina (Regina@lycos.com), April 18, 2003.

italics off?

-- Regina (Regina@lycos.com), April 18, 2003.

Regina, I'm confused. Wasn't Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre excommunicated for the unauthorized consecrations of Bishops?

This said, the Society would not necessarily be under an excommunication, correct?

Just Lefebvre, (if he was still alive).

Bishops can "authorize" the Trid mass now, can't they?

Aren't some legitimate parishes regularily holding the Trid mass?

I feel like I've missed something here.

Again, let me say, if the Trid mass helps someone spiritually, I say go for it, but not at the expense of another split. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 18, 2003.

To the best of my recollection, Lefevre was outspoken in his disagreement with the changes to Catholic liturgy brought about for the purpose of ecumenizing the Church. He went as far as to accuse the Pope of being a heretic. Paul VI endured all he could and decided, after he DISOBEYED the Holy Father's command not to ordain new priests, --to excommunicate the archbishop. He did it by Papal authority. Paul VI is not a heretic; he had the authority, and he finally DID excommunicate this archbishop. Ever since, his followers have adhered to a church opposed to Vatican II, and this Church Council undertaken under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If the existing members of this rebellious movement are NOT in schism, I am delighted for them. They are STILL elitists, and in no way entitled to defame or discredit the Novus Ordo liturgy or followers of the present Holy Church. No one has given any of them any authority to do so whatsoever.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 18, 2003.

I am going to partially answer my own question with this:

On the EWTN Q&A forum, a question was asked about the Tridentine mass. The following is a link to that Q&A. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 18, 2003.

Trying again: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp? Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum3&recnu=4&number=286380

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 18, 2003.

The most beautiful thing this side of heaven

The Mass of the old Roman Missal was described by Father William Faber as "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven". Bishop Fulton Sheen, when describing that same Mass said "Some things in life are too beautiful to be forgotten."

-- Ed Richards (loztew@yahoo.com), April 18, 2003.

John P.:

the Society would not necessarily be under an excommunication, correct?

Correct.

Bishops can "authorize" the Trid mass now, can't they?

They can, and the Pope has time and time again spoken on how much he desires that the Bishops be "generous" in providing the faithful with the Traditional Latin Mass in their dioceses, but sadly, many Bishops have chosen to disobey the Pope and either allow it only sporadically or not at all.

I feel like I've missed something here.

Most people only hear one side of this issue. Like you, when I first learned about Archbishop Lefebvre, everything I heard about him came from his enemies. It was only over time that I realized if he had such an array of idiots and dissidents arrayed against him, he must be on to something!

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Gino, Gino, Gino...

He went as far as to accuse the Pope of being a heretic.

You do, of course, have support for this, right, Gino?

Paul VI endured all he could and decided, after he DISOBEYED the Holy Father's command not to ordain new priests, --to excommunicate the archbishop. He did it by Papal authority. Paul VI is not a heretic; he had the authority, and he finally DID excommunicate this archbishop.

Please post your source for this information.

If the existing members of this rebellious movement are NOT in schism, I am delighted for them.

"If?" In your last post, you called us "schismatic, without a doubt." It seems a doubt has arisen. Let's talk about it.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 19, 2003.

Jakie, Jakie, Jakie:
Return to my post. To the best of my recollection I repeat; and I don't claim to have researched anything. Did you? Look again.

If you aren't in schism / means it would be great if you proved us wrong. Whether or not you do (can), I mean to defend the Novus Ordo Liturgy. I have never smirked at the Tridentine Rite in which I grew up. I respect Holy Mass in Latin more than you ever could; but it never will be the preferred Mass. We no longer need it. It's a lingering taste; glorious in its day. The Novus Ordo Mass is glorious in our present day and it pleases Jesus Christ and His Almighty Father. When you find a source that proves that's not so, show it to us. (It definitely pleases me for one.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2003.

To the best of my recollection I repeat; and I don't claim to have researched anything.

What you're claiming makes a lot more sense in this light. Thanks for the clarification.

If you aren't in schism / means it would be great if you proved us wrong. Whether or not you do (can),

(have)

I respect Holy Mass in Latin more than you ever could; but it never will be the preferred Mass. We no longer need it. It's a lingering taste; glorious in its day.

When the True Mass is restored to our altars, I wonder what that will mean for the faithful. I mean, the fruits will be good - it can't be otherwise, but what will happen to the herds who wrap themselves in the flag of "obedience" to discredit and marginalize other Catholics? I can tell you this, my man: There'll be a wholesale shift in their definition of "obedience." Don't worry, Gene. I don't think it'll happen your lifetime; but hopefully in mine.

The Novus Ordo Mass is glorious in our present day and it pleases Jesus Christ and His Almighty Father. When you find a source that proves that's not so, show it to us. (It definitely pleases me for one.)

The sources are out there, amigo, you just need to open your eyes a bit.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 19, 2003.

The Novus Ordo Mass is glorious in our present day and it pleases Jesus Christ and His Almighty Father....... (It definitely pleases me for one.)

And that's really what counts, after all - that you are pleased...

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 19, 2003.

Why should you want steak, when you have developed a taste for jellybeans!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 19, 2003.

Amen Regina! The Lord and Savior of the universe comes to us personally, and offers Himself to us! How could that fact call forth anything less than profound awe and reverence? Yet some would sit there in His Divine presence and say "This isn't enough. I also want the priest to speak Latin". How absurd! Worse than absurd, bordering on sacrilegious!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 19, 2003.

by John Y. B. Hood In 1965, the Catholic Church revised its traditional teaching on the Jews and their place in history. In the "Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate)" the bishops of the Second Vatican Council rejected the idea that all Jews were guilty of the Crucifixion of Jesus, declared persecution of Jews to be immoral, and informed catechists and other religious educators that "the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed." These statements were brief and undramatic; the section on Jews in Nostra Aetate is only two pages long. The bishops did not overtly acknowledge that they were altering traditional doctrine, nor did they strike a penitential note. When the decree was promulgated, however, it was immediately recognized that the Church had repudiated more than fifteen hundred years of theory and practice. Prior to Vatican II, no theologian was more closely identified with traditional Catholic teaching than St. Thomas Aquinas Vatican 2 did not change church teachings, not much it didn't! It just "Enlightened " us some, So much for tradition. No wonder it is now called "Newchurch!.

-- Ed Richards (lo@yahoo.com), April 19, 2003.

Hi, John.

Wasn't Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre excommunicated for the unauthorized consecrations of Bishops?

A declaration of excommunication was made, yes. However the criteria for this declaration to be valid was not made. One cannot be excommunicated for episcopal consecration without papal mandate - unless it is done to give the new Bishops jurisdiction - an apostolic mission. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't do this as he acknowledged it was not in his power to do this. He did this for one reason: to make sure that there would always be Trad priests - loyal to the Old Rite and Trad Sacraments. He made it clear he was not making new Bishops to replace Novus Ordo bishops.

This said, the Society would not necessarily be under an excommunication, correct?

Exactly. Even if people want to insist (wrongly) that the declaration was valid (which canon law tells us otherwise) the "excommunication" would apply then only to Archbishop Lefebvre and the 4 Bishops - not the priests of the SSPX and certainly not the laity.

Bishops can "authorize" the Trid mass now, can't they?

Yes. Unfortunately most don't. Those who do allow them very infrequently. And they don't allow those who celebrate the "indult" to provide the faithful with Traditional sacraments. This means that, say you wanted to go to the Indult Trad. Mass only, great. But when it came time for your child to receive First Holy Communion or Confirmation, it would have to be done the new way.

Aren't some legitimate parishes regularily holding the Trid mass? I can only answer for my diocese - No. My local Archbishop allows the Trid Mass once a month, Sunday at - get this - 9:00 PM in a city notorious for its high crime rate.

In all fairness I'm sure there are other diocese which are more generous with the Trad Mass.

Hope I could help clear some things up. God Bless!

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 19, 2003.

Ed,

Jesus was a Jew. So was Mary, So was Peter. and all the other apostles.

Prejudice is un-Christian.

Never mind ...it's like arguing with fence post. God Bless.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 19, 2003.

Kind of odd our friend Ed would back up his take on Sacred Tradition with something altogether contemptible. The Church never taught any Christian that Jews bore the blame for Our Lord's crucifixion. We know He had enemies among the Jews, just as He had one enemy among His apostles, Judas who sold Him for 30 pieces of silver. In fact, Tradition and Scripture both state clearly that Christ had no grudge against any people. He prayed for His enemies even hanging on the cross. The Church restated the teaching for the benefit of believers, not just to reassure Jews; but to correct the ignorant.

It had been allowed in the SECULAR world to cast the unjust burden on Jews; but NOT in Catholic doctrine nor in Tradition. Nothing like that could be further from the truth.

Jews are prone to shift all blame for the crucifixion to the Romans; out of a defensive reflex toward Christians. They all believe the Church was teaching hatred for Jews, which is false. Our Holy Father only expressed sorrow for the SINS of Christians. For antisemitism, not for Church Tradition.

As a last note, this is what we're taught: Christ declared as a revealed truth; no one was able to take His life away. He was able and willing to lay down His life, and would do exactly that. He told His followers He would lay down his life and take it up again.

He did it as atonement for the sins of all mankind; He died for you and me. This is the Church's doctrine and Tradition from the beginning. No one changed Tradition in 1965.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2003.

Hi, Paul.

How could that fact call forth anything less than profound awe and reverence?

It is a grace from God if we get something out of Mass (such as *awe* which is an emotion). It matters little what we get out of Mass, but what we *give* is what counts. God created us for Himself. He established the Mass not for our entertainment or for us to get warm feelings, but for Him to be adored in the most fitting way possible.

Yet some would sit there in His Divine presence and say "This isn't enough. I also want the priest to speak Latin". How absurd! Worse than absurd, bordering on sacrilegious!

And many would sit in His Divine Presense and say, "*I* don't understand Latin, this should be done in a way *I* understand. *I'M* not getting anything out of this. This is boring to *ME*. *I'M* not pleased. *I* don't like this music. This doesn't make *ME* feel good."

Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds me as if you're saying that the externals of the Mass aren't important or just irrelevant. If that's the case why have a Mass liturgy at all? If all that matters is receiving Christ in the Holy Eucharist (and the emotions you get from it), why not have the priest consecrate the bread and wine, administer it, and send everyone home with all those warm feelings?

Perhaps Our Lord deserves more than that from His children?

Of course He does. That's why the externals *do* count for something. And if they do count for something after all, how can anyone in his right mind conclude that the new Mass offers the *very best* we can give to Him? For example, can anyone seriously say that "On Eagles Wings" is just as profound, inspired, and fitting for Our Lord as "Tantum Ergo"? Or that hand-shaking is just important as kneeling to receive Him?

It's been my experience, both on this forum and away from it, that people who vehemently prefer the new Mass do so because of what they get out of it, how it makes them feel, and that it's less boring.

That's *not* why we go to Mass.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 19, 2003.

Thank Eugene. Well said. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 19, 2003.

Dear Regina,

You make several valid points here, and the I think that the points you raise are precisely the reason the Holy Spirit has inspired the Church to give us the new rite.

You say: "It is a grace from God if we get something out of Mass (such as *awe* which is an emotion). It matters little what we get out of Mass, but what we *give* is what counts"

A: Yes! And this of course is the central issue in the new rite of Mass! It enables the congregation to participate in the Mass as a community of love and hope, to actually contribute something to the Mass, instead of simply sitting there watching a performance of the Mass by a priest with his back turned to us! This is how Mass was celebrated - yes, CELEBRATED! - in the early Church! Of course, the Latin Mass inspires the same feelings of awe and reverence in me as any other Mass, for the essence of the Mass is the same. But a tridentine Mass doesn't look like a celebration, because celebration is something you do, not something you watch. The added glorious dimension of participation in the Royal Priesthood allows me to be involved in the Mass, rather than simply watching it.

"God created us for Himself. He established the Mass not for our entertainment or for us to get warm feelings, but for Him to be adored in the most fitting way possible"

A: Right! Adored by all present, not just by the priest. Performing adoration, not just watching it performed!

"And many would sit in His Divine Presense and say, "*I* don't understand Latin, this should be done in a way *I* understand. *I'M* not getting anything out of this. This is boring to *ME*. *I'M* not pleased. *I* don't like this music. This doesn't make *ME* feel good."

A: Perhaps it doesn't make me "feel good" because I feel shut out, an observer of the worship worship, rather than a participant in it?

"Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds me as if you're saying that the externals of the Mass aren't important or just irrelevant"

A: ON THE CONTRARY! The externals of the Mass are what we are talking about here! The essence of the Mass is exactly the same in every Mass that is celebrated, anywhere, any time, according to any approved rite! That's why I can feel the same sense of awe at every Mass. But, the externals - which is the only thing changed by Vatican II - are indeed very important, for they dictate the manner in which we can relate to the essence - as spectators, or as participants.

"how can anyone in his right mind conclude that the new Mass offers the *very best* we can give to Him?"

A: In view of the fact that the Latin Mass allows us to give very little, while the current rite of Mass allows us to participate and contribute in many ways, there is really no contest on that point. It's not so much a question of which is the best way to "give to Him". It's a matter of giving vs. not being allowed to give.

"For example, can anyone seriously say that "On Eagles Wings" is just as profound, inspired, and fitting for Our Lord as "Tantum Ergo"?"

A: Of course it is! As music, "Tantum Ergo" make bring about an emotional reaction in people who grew up with it (like myself). Just as some instrumental pieces can do. But that's not really what liturgical music is about, is it? As personal prayer from me to God, something I can understand is far superior to something in a foreign language.

"It's been my experience, both on this forum and away from it, that people who vehemently prefer the new Mass do so because of what they get out of it, how it makes them feel, and that it's less boring"

A: What you get out of it is unavoidably connected with what you put into it. Preventing participation does indeed limit what you can receive, and watching the same performance week after week can indeed get somewhat boring, unless your focus is the essence of the Mass. If you understand what is actually happening at the Mass, it is bound to be exciting and awe-inspiring. Those are emotional responses, as you said - not something bad, but not the fullness of what the Mass should be. Participation of the congregation is the key to full appreciation of the Mass, as it was always meant to be - a COMMUNAL celebration of worship, not a private observation of a presented spectacle.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 19, 2003.

Speaking only for myself, I'm always uplifted and filled with happiness assisting at the Novus mass. It fulfills every spiritual need. Not one thing is lacking for my soul; and I see in the new Mass many more participants of diverse racial types than once was known in the parish communities.

Our holy priests also can easily stand comparison with the old-style fathers whom I loved very much. Not as demanding in the external things; and yet perfectly suited for relating one-on one with the faithful. I have to add, honestly, that my own parish (OK, so they're facetiously called ''faith community'' now--) is blessed with a pastor of extraordinary spiritual depth. He is Polish by birth; and loves his people like a good shepherd. To know him is to love him, Father Leon. His associate pastor is a filipino of great charisma. A funloving and understanding spiritual guide.

Maybe not all other parishes have been so blessed. But ours is wonderful, and Holy Mass is TRULY HOLY for all of us. The presence of Christ in our midst can't be doubted, and it calls the youngsters as well as the vets like myself.

English vernacular; hymns which vary; sometimes ancient, often modern; but always executed with fire and love for God and neighbor.

I remind you all. My upbringing was of the most provincial Catholic stripe. The wonder of it all was precious to me. I loved it.

But the Novus Ordo experience for me, after a little hesitation, has grown to become just as exalted and just as rewarding. Because God is present!

I love the Latin Mass as well. It has to please God Our Father to receive His Divine Son's holy sacrifice just as in the first centuries; I'll be the first to say it.

But we are His people; and the Liturgy as we now have it is holy; our Eucharist makes it all-holy; and I defy anyone to say the contrary. As Our Father says so beautifully to His children in Thompson's greatest poem, The Hound of Heaven:

All that I took from thee, I did but take
Not for thy harms,

But just that thou might'st seek it in My arms.

All which thy child's mistake
Fancies as LOST, I have stored for thee at home;

Rise, clasp My hand, and come.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2003.

Up /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2003.

Nice thoughts. Gene. I completely understand your point of view, even though I don't always agree with it. Blessed Easter to you & yours.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

Hello again, Paul.

You make several valid points here, and the I think that the points you raise are precisely the reason the Holy Spirit has inspired the Church to give us the new rite.

We'll have to disagree. I don't believe the Holy Ghost had anything to do with the fabrication of the new Mass, (especially considering the chief players - 6 Protestant Ministers headed up by a Freemason).

Yes! And this of course is the central issue in the new rite of Mass! It enables the congregation to participate in the Mass as a community of love and hope, to actually contribute something to the Mass, instead of simply sitting there watching a performance of the Mass by a priest with his back turned to us!

I'm disappointed that you (or anyone else) would think that the Trad Mass is akin to "watching a performance." We at the Trad Mass are privilaged to have our priest say the most beautiful prayers possible *on our behalf* as we follow along in our missals (if we chose to use the missal.) To know that those beautiful prayers are being said on behalf of the whole Church is participation of the faithful in its finest.

The priest isn't turning his back on us. Since the priest is saying prayers on our behalf *to* God, and we are all there to adore God, doesn't it follow that we should all be *facing* God? If the priest has to have his back to anyone, it should be me. Not Our Dear Lord, as is the case in the new Mass.

This is how Mass was celebrated - yes, CELEBRATED! - in the early Church!

That's a myth, actually. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that suggests the Mass of the early church was closer to the new Mass than the Trad Mass.

But a tridentine Mass doesn't look like a celebration, because celebration is something you do, not something you watch.

Please let me quote Roman Amerio in his "Iota Unum", as what he says is far better than what I could say:

The attempt to portray the Lord's Supper as a friendly and cheerful gathering has given rise to sacrilegious convivial meetings that are a scandal and a sorrow to the Church.....The Last Supper was indeed an act of Divine Love, but it had a tragic character to it. It took place with a premonition that the Son of God was about to be killed, under the shadow of betrayal with the disciples afraid and uncertain about their own loyalty to their own Master..."

Now, if we believe that the Mass is the re-enactment of the Last Supper and Our Lord's Sacrifice on Calvary, even logic dictates that the Mass deserves an environment of dignity, reservation, the utmost reverence, and yes, even a touch of sadness. Superficial "pop-hymns" handshakes, and glad tidings certainly don't and can't bring about the dignity Our Lord's Sacrifice demands.

But to get back for one more moment that the Trad Mass prevents or limits the participation of the faithful, I think it was St. Padre Pio who once made a beautiful suggestion for those who didn't wish to or couldn't follow along in the missal. He suggested that we "unite ourselves with the Virgin at the Foot of the Cross." How beautiful! One honestly *can't* participate more fully than that!

The added glorious dimension of participation in the Royal Priesthood allows me to be involved in the Mass, rather than simply watching it.

Folks need to be careful about that line of thinking which disguises the difference that exsists between the universal priesthood of baptized believers and the *sacramental priesthood* which is proper to priests alone.

Perhaps it doesn't make me "feel good" because I feel shut out, an observer of the worship worship, rather than a participant in it?

But what's really important here, Paul? That you "feel good" about what you're doing, or Our Lord being adored the finest way possible?

No one need feel "shut out" anyway. There's always the missal, or St. Pio's magnificent suggestion, or there's the medition on Our Lord's Passion, the Rosary and on and on.

I said in my earlier post: "Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds me as if you're saying that the externals of the Mass aren't important or just irrelevant"

To which you replied: A: ON THE CONTRARY! The externals of the Mass are what we are talking about here!

But if externals are subject to emotion or whim, than it follows that externals can be added or dropped according to the tastes of the priest and/or the faithful. If that's true than the externals really cease to matter much.

The essence of the Mass is exactly the same in every Mass that is celebrated, anywhere, any time, according to any approved rite! That's why I can feel the same sense of awe at every Mass. But, the externals - which is the only thing changed by Vatican II - are indeed very important, for they dictate the manner in which we can relate to the essence - as spectators, or as participants.

Your reply directly above demonstrates what I've been saying. The Mass is about God, it matter not one whit what we can or can't "relate to."

The externals aren't the only thing changed in the new Mass. The problems extend well beyond aesthetics, or even the creators who sacked the beautiful prayers hollowed by tradition in favor of manufactured substitutes. The new Mass is also markedly inferior in its presentation of doctrine - the three new Eucharistic prayers demonstrate this as does the increasingly obviously deliberate blur between priest and laity.

while the current rite of Mass allows us to participate and contribute in many ways, there is really no contest on that point.

How? What does the new Mass allow us to do that we couldn't do before? Say a reading? Distribute Holy Communion? Speak out loud? The way I see it, all of this "participation" is taking the attention away from God Who deserves it most, and giving it to people who have no business doing the work reserved for the Sacramental Priest who's duty it is to act on our behalf.

Of course it is! As music, "Tantum Ergo" make bring about an emotional reaction in people who grew up with it (like myself).

Again, this isn't about "emotional reactions." Tantum Ergo is a splendid hymn we sing to adore Our Lord. What any hymn or song stirrs up in us as we sing means absolutely nothing.

The point of all of this is, is do we go to Mass to please ourselves or to please God?

As personal prayer from me to God, something I can understand is far superior to something in a foreign language.

What counts is that *God* understands.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 20, 2003.

While (sort of) on the subject of the On Eagle's Wings genre as really, really, really bad liturgical music (Sorry, Paul!), I came across this link, which is hilarious, poignant, and sad all at the same time. Enjoy.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

Dear Regina,
Even though I feel I know where Paul is coming from; and I basically have no differences with Paul:

He is taking an adversarial position in this last post, toward the Tridentine Liturgy. This is wrong. Nothing about the Latin Mass has become less beautiful, or boring, or unworthy of God-- to Whom, naturally, the Mass is offered. In order to uphold the glory and holiness of the New liturgy (very good, glorious, very holy, perfectly holy), it isn't necessary to point out shortcomings in the ancient Mass. Nor in the language, or placements of the altar.

In fact, only the so-called traditionalist Catholics repeatedly find fault. They consider a Novus Ordo liturgical service below God; and lacking in some unearthly quality they fancy indispenable. The question of the obvious language difficulties is a no-brainer. They can't defend their objection. Nobody any longer speaks Latin!

OK, God still understands Latin. (I think somehow God understands birdsong, every Italian dialect and English as well.) So, where's the problem in vernacular liturgies?

No valid argument can be made against the new liturgy. Period. The opponents of Vatican II are suffering for nothing. Every Catholic Church in the western world will serve their immediate purpose, which is to worship God in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Every single one! If the lovely statues aren't here any more; or we have altar girls and extraordinary ministers to REVERENTLY pass out communion, that is no barrier for loving communion with Our Savior! He meets each one of us just as truly, just as compassionately. He is delighted we come together to celebrate His Holy Eucharist as one people. I'm not saying people couldn't be more reserved or devout. We live in a pagan society; it rubs off on many, especially kids. However, our Church is the house of God. Everyone is welcome to enter and hear the Holy Gospel. To offer Our Lord a garden variety of Faith and Hope, and Love. To let His face shine upon us. It works for us; --we could even learn something, spoken in plain English. It ought to work for you too, Regina. The failing is yours, not the Church's.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 20, 2003.

Novus Ordo liturgical service

Your words. ;)

The question of the obvious language difficulties is a no-brainer. They can't defend their objection. Nobody any longer speaks Latin!...

...OK, God still understands Latin. (I think somehow God understands birdsong, every Italian dialect and English as well.) So, where's the problem in vernacular liturgies?

We don't have to defend our objection. We have a few peope who have gone before us who addressed the issue very eloquently:

"For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non- vernacular.” (Pope Pius XI, Officiorum Omnium, 1922).

“The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine.” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947).

“The Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic and non-vernacular.” (Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia, 1962).

“The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety... we must not hold in low esteem these traditions of your fathers which were your glory for centuries.” (Pope Paul VI, Sacrificium Laudis, 1966).

No valid argument can be made against the new liturgy. Period.

Au contraire, mon frere. Valid arguments have been made against it since its invention.

If the lovely statues aren't here any more; or we have altar girls and extraordinary ministers to REVERENTLY pass out communion, that is no barrier for loving communion with Our Savior!

Speak for yourself.

The failing is yours, not the Church's.

I only regret that you probably will not be on earth to realize how wrong you were about this.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

You picked up on one or two of my statements and contradict me. That's OK, Jake. If you were a Pope, I would re- think them. The words spoken once by those departed Popes are hardly a cross which our actual Holy Father has to carry forever; he can and will by the guidance of God close those books, as the 2nd Vatican Council did. It is a fait accomplai; and the results have been excellent. (I know, you can't understand how--).

The love of many Catholics for the Tridentine Mass is understandable. You aren't being belittled for attending where ever you wish. It's from your side that the grousing comes. --To each his own; Happy Easter, Jake.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 20, 2003.

In fact, only the so-called traditionalist Catholics repeatedly find fault.

Of course we are the only ones who find fault, Gene. That's because the new Mass appeals to modern people's ever-increasing need to be entertained. It appeals to modern peoples need to have their emotions manipulated, and it can be customed designed to ensure people get what they want based on their own personal tastes (Youth, Polka, Folk, Rock, Jazz "Masses" to name a few examples). So people who desire these things (the neo-Catholics) certainly don't have anything to complain about.

Trads have no desire to be entertained, emotionally manipulated, or given guarantees that something at Mass will make us "feel good." We don't need our ages/heritages/races/states in life/tastes in secular music catered to. We aren't there for ourselves, and the Old Rite isn't structured around us. We go to give adoration and the Old Rite is the perfectly tuned instrument which makes this possible.

They consider a Novus Ordo liturgical service below God;

Thank you for being honest enough to call it what it is.

The question of the obvious language difficulties is a no-brainer. They can't defend their objection. Nobody any longer speaks Latin!

Good grief! How on earth did all those Saints (many of whom were completely illiterate) ever "get anything out of Mass" with all of that incomprehensible Lating being spoken? How did anyone manage before the wisdom of the vernacular? How did anyone ever manage to receive a call to the Priesthood after being exposed only a languege they "couldn't understand"?

OK, God still understands Latin.

"Still"? Will there come a time when He'll forget? ;-)

So, where's the problem in vernacular liturgies?

The vernacular changes all the time. Latin doesn't. Also the new Mass doesn't represent a translation from the original prayers spoken in latin. The prayers in the new Rite are *completely* different from the prayers in the new. It's not just the vernacular. It's the hijacking of hallowed traditional prayers which we object to.

It works for us;

And that's what *really* counts, right? That it works for *people*. I think it would be better for people to work for God.

--we could even learn something, spoken in plain English. It ought to work for you too, Regina. The failing is yours, not the Church's.

Several months ago I told you what I "learned" after growing up with the "vernacular" new Mass, Gene. (Heresy, watered down doctrine, contradictions, confusion, abundant abuses at Mass, etc.) You called me a liar...

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 20, 2003.

The prayers in the new Rite are *completely* different from the prayers in the new.

I'm sorry. That should read, "The prayers in the new rite are *completely different* from the prayers in the Old Rite."

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 20, 2003.

Regina,
I have an obligation to remain civil and still answer you. You make it very hard, insisting on the many false charges against our Church.

You make many unsubstantiated claims.

I would ask you to consider if:

1.) It's only in a Tridentine Mass we find Catholics who worship in a state of grace?
2.) Why can't a good Catholic acquire for him/her self the same grace assisting at the New Rite?
Will God despise the one and love the other?
Did Christ associate with the sinner, and the poor and the humble?
Isn't it true the Pharisees disliked ''the rabble''- -? And weren't they jealous because Jesus understood their needs?
Didn't the High priests of the Temple consider Christ a blasphemer, a phony and a sinner?
Aren't your particular objections very much like those of the Pharisees?

Just make an honest meditation. I have no wish to CALL uyou a Pharisee. I want YOU to deny it in your heart.

I wonder what really motivates you?

______________________________

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 20, 2003.

It's been a few days, as super busy with work, and what's going on with Holy Week. Wonderful week, and thanks be to God for that!

> "LOL!! No, you're not rid of me that easily, just because I'm a Sasquite. jake was, of course, being, um.....what's the word.......oh, yes - facetious."

Isabel, please stick around, as I certainly would not like it if you left. I do like you by the way, even though I do NOT agree with your position, and your dealings with SSPX, who are schismatic.

> "Oh, and I seem to get all the attention I need around here. You, for one, can't stay away from me, even after your oft-repeated "I give up" declarations."

Jake, I am refuting your absurd criticisms against the Holy Father, and I feel I have a duty to do so. I will continue to do this, but I will not debate with you, which you do not seem interested in doing anyway.

> "Gordon, why don't you quit beating around the bush and get down to the job of explaining the proper meaning of assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church. What does it mean for the Holy Spirit to guide the Church? What does doctrine mean? What is the Deposit of the Faith? How does understand the basis for infallibility; when and where does it occur? Why?"

Emerald, why do I have to explain all of that? I understand my faith, and so why do I have to explain it to you? To prove I understand it?

> "yet all the whining-bashing on those who hold to the Faith of the ages hinges upon answering this question; there are others, but this is the key."

Emerald, we are the whining-bashers??? You guys have the market cornered on whining, and bashing! That's all you guys do, is whine and bash away, trying to change the faith in your image.

> "In fact, your whole brand of Catholicism, in totality, hinges on it. In fact, everyone in this forum, who doesn't like traditionalists (so- called... actually, they are just Catholics) and doesn't like traditionalism per se, can't or won't answer this question."

Some of you are clearly schismatic, and no longer part of the faith. You're ritualistic lovers, who think that ritual will save the faith, and no matter what we say, it will not discourage you from your mission.

> "No takers. Not Paul, not you, not John, not Joe, none."

I will take your challenge, but I would like to hear your explaination first. In other words, I want you to do all the work. :)

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 20, 2003.

"You're ritualistic lovers..."

That's always been my complaint against NFP.

Hmmm...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

One thing is true. We traditionalists are not as holy as Novus Ordo's . We have to go to confession a lot more than they do, say more rosaries than they do, do penance a lot more than they do. We have to abstain from meat every friday, instead of just 2 friday's a year. Ember days, (what's that?), fast 3 hours before communion insstead of one hour. All because we wil not worship in that "Holier way" , the Novus Ordo.

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 20, 2003.

> " Sadly ,the pope is not heeding the Church Fathers prior to V2. We not only have a right to criticize him, we have a duty to do so. The souls of many Catholics are at stake and we can also sin by omission."

Ed, just as I feel I have a duty to defend the Holy Father from absurd criticism, and feel it would be a sin of omission for me to not do so, as your criticism is slander, and hurts the faith!!! You clearly have shown, that you do not respect the authority of the Pope, and that's why you cut him down.

Paul said: "How do you reconcile the fact of an infinitely good and just God with the idea that those who through no fault of their own have not heard the gospel message will suffer in hell for all eternity along with those who have heard the truth and rejected it?"

And Isabel response was: "You are trying to bring human reasoning into the ways of God again, Paul."

Isabel, what Paul said had nothing to do with human reasoning, but everything to do with a just and loving God. God is FAIR, and condemns no one unfairly.

You believe everyone is given true insight into the Catholic faith, no matter what their circumstances are in life, and that is nonsense! If that was the case, why where the Apostles needed to promote the faith! It's our duty to promote the faith, throughout the world, and rejection of our faith, is not always based on MORTAL sin, but ignorance. Not always pride!

On John's question of whether Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Regina responded: > "A declaration of excommunication was made, yes. However the criteria for this declaration to be valid was not made."

Of course he was excommunicated, and declared to be schismatic! What kind of legalistic nonsense are you spreading Regina! John, you want t find out the truth, go read it right here on the Vatican website.

Here is a paragraph from that apostolic letter:

"In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

There you have it, anyone who supports the SSPX is excommunicated from the faith, and is in schism.

Now I expect these schismatics to come along and tell me, we do not have to follow that document, or it's not doctrine, or it's not infallible, or spout some kind of legalistic nonsense that make no sense to anyone but themselves.

They will claim, the SSPX Mass is valid, which it is, but at the same time, these people claim to be the True Catholic Church! That is schismatic right out of their own mouths! They are trying to play both sides of the fence, so as to gather more Catholics into their ranks, and they think overtime, if they get enough numbers, they can replace God's Holy Church with their so called True Catholic Church.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre broke away from the very tradition he was trying to save! Based on that logic alone we should have nothing to do with the SSPX, as they don't make any sense!!!

So as you can see John read the proof on the Vatican website, and don't listen to these people.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 20, 2003.

Bravo, Gordon--

No one is barred from attending Tridentine celebrations of Mass. But all are under the obligation to accept the ultimate authority of the bishops of Rome. Tradition did NOT end with John XXIII and Vatican II. We are all Traditionalists. Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 20, 2003.

> "One thing is true. We traditionalists are not as holy as Novus Ordo's . We have to go to confession a lot more than they do, say more rosaries than they do, do penance a lot more than they do. We have to abstain from meat every friday, instead of just 2 friday's a year. Ember days, (what's that?), fast 3 hours before communion insstead of one hour. All because we wil not worship in that "Holier way" , the Novus Ordo."

Ed, of course anyone who embraces the Novus Ordo, is automatically a lax and liberal Catholic. I know dozens of Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who are as devout in their faith, as the proper and true traditionalists in the Church. I do say proper and true tradionalists, as that does not include schismatic Catholics like yourself, who are in OPEN disobedence to the Pope.

Pure fantasy on your part, that Novus Ordo breeds liberalism in the Church, as even without Vatican 2, we would still have a huge liberal movement in the Church. All of it in the West, by the way, not in the third world, where the MAJORITY of the faithful live. But these people never factor into Ed's conspiracy argument, that V2 is destroying the faith.

Rituals do not save people, but faith does! So get off the ritualistic bandwagaon!

Emarald, you have a problem with NFP (Natural Family Planning)? It's in accordance with the will of God.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 20, 2003.

Gordon, what is it that the SSPX do not follow along on the Pope with?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

Emarald, you have a problem with NFP (Natural Family Planning)? It's in accordance with the will of God.

What is? NFP, or my problem with it?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

> "Gordon, what is it that the SSPX do not follow along on the Pope with?"

They support the consecretation of four Bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre against the TRADITIONAL Pope's authority. Against the TRADITIONS of the Church!!! The Apostolic succession, as instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. In open rebellion against God's Holy Church!!!

> "What is? NFP, or my problem with it?"

That's funny. No answers, but only questions. Here's mine: Huh? :)

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 20, 2003.

They support the consecretation of four Bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre against the TRADITIONAL Pope's authority.

Is that, in your view, the sum and substance of the traditionalist Catholic stance on things?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

Check out John's original post, last line:

May the Church continue to move forward. God Bless, John

What does this mean, Gordon?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

> "Is that, in your view, the sum and substance of the traditionalist Catholic stance on things?"

No, not the sum, but one of the most IMPORTANT traditions of the Church. Without that, we would not have a Catholic Church today, but would have dozens, hundreds, and possible thousands of Church's claiming to be the true Church of God. Sounds familiar? It's the sort of precedent that has lead to the Protestant mess that we have today.

> "May the Church continue to move forward. God Bless, John," > "What does this mean, Gordon?"

I don't know. Ask John.

Emerald, do you have a problem with NFP?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 20, 2003.

No, not the sum, but one of the most IMPORTANT traditions of the Church.

Whatis?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

Emerald, do you have a problem with NFP?

Never used it; don't need to, don't want to. Don't care.

If I wanted to chart something, I'd be looking at KLIC right now; it seems tempting at this $5 range.

FIFO

First in, first out. You answer my question first, then I'll answer yours. If that requires me to answer Gecik's list of loaded hypotheticals, fine... I can hang with that, but it'll have to wait until a weeknight this week.

Right now, I'm going for beers. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

> "What is?"

The same guy, who keeps on reminding me I should honor my word, and not debate with you anymore?

> "You answer my question first, then I'll answer yours."

No.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 20, 2003.

> Yes.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

No.

Why not, Vink? With truth and JFG on your side, what have you to fear?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

Lord. Is JFG on our side, Gordon? Powerful medicine, says Nokomis. Bring the corn meal and let's bury this white man.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Follow the pope, no matter what? I,m a schsmatic, if I won't take any dung on my face, go to a stripper mass, throw some kind of peels to snakes, kiss some book or other, pray with the New World Order, or all the other heretics that are around? Will the "real schismatic" please stand Up?

-- Ed Richards (loztty@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

I have an obligation to remain civil and still answer you. You make it very hard, insisting on the many false charges against our Church.

I have an obligation to remain civil and answer. Not so much for your benefit as anything I say you can easily claim I'm lying, but for the benefit of anyone out there who is genuinely interested and willing to at least consider what I'm saying.

You make many unsubstantiated claims. Like I said before: I gave you a rather lengthy list of the awful goings-on at parishes in and around my diocese. You accused me of lying. I'm sure any one of the N.O. Catholics in this forum has witnessed some sort of bad specticle or abuse in their N.O. lifetime - they only need to be honest with themselves.

1.) It's only in a Tridentine Mass we find Catholics who worship in a state of grace?

I can't answer that since I can't read souls. However, I do believe at Trad parishes it will be made very clear that one should dare not to approach Our Lord in Holy Communion if he/she isn't in the state of Grace. This is why Confession should be readily available before Mass (at my parish it is.)

2.) Why can't a good Catholic acquire for him/her self the same grace assisting at the New Rite?

I never said anyone who attends the N.O. cannot be in the state of grace. My claim was (and always will be) that the new Mass is:

1.) A potential danger to the faith because of watered-down or ill- defined doctrine.

2.) A gathering focusing on ourselves and our neighbor.

3.) A Protestant's approach to worship.

4.) Structured to meet modern man instead of God.

Will God despise the one and love the other?

I believe God loves the guy at the Old Rite every bit as much as the guy at the new. I believe God loves the Old Rite and is heartbroken by the new.

Did Christ associate with the sinner,

He most certainly did. He also admonished them for their sins and required their conversion should they wish to obtain Salvation. He requires us to take up our Crosses for love of Him.

Isn't it true the Pharisees disliked ''the rabble''- -? And weren't they jealous because Jesus understood their needs?

If you could ask this question in a more concise way, I'd be happy to try and answer it.

Didn't the High priests of the Temple consider Christ a blasphemer, a phony and a sinner?

Yes.

Aren't your particular objections very much like those of the Pharisees?

How do you arrive at that? I believe that Catholicism and Holy Mother Church would flourish if we could stop thinking of ourselves for one hour at Mass and focus on Our Lord. The new Mass doesn't allow this.

I have no wish to CALL uyou a Pharisee.

No, but you do wish to call me a liar and my husband a racist.

I wonder what really motivates you?

A burning love for Our Lord, the urgent need to save my soul, a love for all my Catholic brothers & sisters (neo's and Trads alike) that we may *all* adore Our Lord the very best way we can so that we may be a shining example for all non-Catholics who we might help find their way Home.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 21, 2003.

> "if I won't take any dung on my face"

Ed, you sure love that lie. There is no doubt with you, that information could be false, even though I have provide a source that says otherwise. The Pope is guilty in your eyes, and ANY other claims are to be dismissed simply because he does not follow your absurd ideological stance.

You're a schismatic, who slanders the Pope constantly, and you will answer to God for that.

A person who preaches that tradition should be followed, but you pick and choose which traditions are to be followed. You like the ones that center around ritual, but you don't care at all about obedience to the Pope, one of the most important traditions of the Church.

You people who are overly fond of Church documents, but I never see you post the Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei". Lets only post documents that we agree with. Any document we don't agree with, then we shall resort to an overly legallistic interpretation explaining how that does not have to followed.

How you people ever gain anyone to you camp is beyond me! But the fact that after 24 years rougly, you are still a tiny tiny minority in the Church, and I doubt anything is going to change that with your illogical agruments of having to follow your pick and choose traditions.

Another thing Ed, is that you always, and you never give up on this, is associate every liberal abuse with all Catholics. It seems no matter how many times I tell you, that I think the liberals should be excommunicated from the Church along with you schismatics, that you still continue to lump them in with us. Hectics and schismatics are both in OPEN defiance of the Pope, and will answer to God.

> "Is JFG on our side, Gordon?"

I doubt JFG is going to contribute much to this argument, for various reasons. I assume his ideology is similar to ours, but John is very upset with me, because I argued against the War in Iraq, which he strongly supported, and because I complained to the moderator about David Sullivan (sp?), and he got banned from the forum. Supposedly in John's eyes, I'm anti-American, and a terrible Catholic full of anger. I tried resolving things with him by email, but he had no interest in discussing things with me, beyond cutting me down repeatedly on this forum, which quite surprised me.

> "Why not, Vink?"

Because I said so Jake. You don't like that, then too bad.

> "He most certainly did. He also admonished them for their sins and required their conversion should they wish to obtain Salvation. He requires us to take up our Crosses for love of Him."

Regina, and so does our Pope. Shall I post his numerous speeches? Shall I post from the current Catechism, which was released recently by the Church governed by the current Pope?

Regina be fair, as I am sure you would want others to be fair to you also. I think very highly of you, and certainly do not put you in the same camp as Jake and Ed. Please stop slandering the Pope with false information.

> "I believe God loves the Old Rite and is heartbroken by the new."

But you have NO PROOF. NONE. ABOSOLUTELY NONE, beyond your own feelings. Do you think that you are infallible? Could you be right about this, over God's Holy Church? The Church that Christ himself founded, and PROMISED would be safe guarded against the very gates of hell till his second coming!!!

> "I'm sure any one of the N.O. Catholics in this forum has witnessed some sort of bad specticle or abuse in their N.O. lifetime - they only need to be honest with themselves."

And if I told you I saw abuses at a traditional Mass, would you believe me? How about traditional communities, that have become liberal. You guys give the impression that being traditional, will save you from every liberal abuse. If that was the case, how did many traditional communities become liberal?

Novus Ordo does not equal liberalism. There are many conservative Catholics who I know, are not liberals, and as devout as any traditionalists.

I'm not bragging, but I pray the Rosary almost everyday, I go to Church everyday, I go to confession every week to every 2 weeks. I many times say the Divine Office in the Church after morning Mass. I do volunteer week in the Church, along with belonging to the Legion of Mary, and have to do 2 hours of work in the community each week evangelizing. Yet, I have no problems with the Novus Ordo Mass. A Mass were the consecration takes place is BEAUTIFUL! The Mass is valid, or no sacrifice would take place! That sacrifice can only come from God!

Mother Theresa accepted the Novus Ordo Mass. Mother Angelica accepts the Novus Ordo Mass.

I know many devout Catholics, who reject liberal abuses, and are very critical of liberal abuses, including myself, and who have no problems with the Novus Ordo Mass.

I have great respect for the The Priestly Fraternity of St Peter, the true traditionlists in our Church, and reject SSPX!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Thank you, Gordon, for the excellent replies.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Dear Regina:
Once more with all due respect; I called you a person who can't seem to stay truthful. I don't think I said you're a liar. Possibly I spotted you telling a lie. (So sorry.) Your husband a racist? Not from my words Please produce the post in which I said it, and why.

Part of your last good try:

never said anyone who attends the N.O. cannot be in the state of grace. My claim was (and always will be) that the new Mass is:

1.) A potential danger to the faith because of watered-down or ill- defined doctrine.
Let us see the examples of this, please.

2.) A gathering focusing on ourselves and our neighbor.
Really- - Why make the trip to our Church? I have myself at home; I can focus there. My neighbor I meet every day, not only in Mass (But in Mass we worship God in union with Jesus Christ). We share in the Holy Eucharist, as well as offering up prayer together with our priest & all the faithful. I have to wonder about your queer observation here.

Maybe you focus too much on others at Holy Mass?

3.) A Protestant's approach to worship.
You know, protestants have a deep love for Jesus Christ too. If indeed what you claim is true, we have a more ecumenical Church, at that. It was one of the aims of our Holy Fathers to encourage ecumenical protestants to reunite with our mother Church. You object to that, I suppose. If the sacraments were abolished, and Christ were NOT present in the Eucharist, then I'd suspect protestants had made some deal with the Novus Ordo followers. But that's not so. And anyhow, our ''approach'' is strictly Catholic, Regina.

The Creed hasn't changed, the sacraments are same as those in a valid Tridentine service. No protestants attend with you, but Hey. You prefer that, don't you? You never wanted the uniting of non-Catholic Christians with the True Church, I guess.

4.) Structured to meet modern man instead of God.
If so, what structure is it you see leaving God out?

Would modern man be better off lost in the wilderness? --I thought God wanted everyone to come to Him. (Pharisees don't function very well in the modern age, do they?)

Will God despise the one and love the other?

I believe God loves the guy at the Old Rite every bit as much as the guy at the new. I believe God loves the Old Rite and is heartbroken by the new.

God most certainly loves the Latin Rite. I love it too. But Christ came to save sinners, all of us. Novus Ordo Masses welcome the whole range of Catholic; it is not ''Where the Elite come to meet.'' I fail to see why God would be heartbroken, with our Church praising and adoring Him each day. In His Divine Son's most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. (English, Spanish, or Latin. No heartbreak, uh-uhh. )

Regina, --They may not be outright lies you've mentioned here. But they are far from the truth, and not charitable, much less Christian. God give you light and bless you, Dear.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Signs you might be a Trad: You can point out Los Gatos, Winona, Silver City, and Post Falls on a map Your family has been mistaken as Mormon or Menenite You know at least three poeple with a "Trash the TV" bumper sticker Stories about wearing hand-me-down clothes strike a chord with you You have been asked if you know so-and-so from St. Marys You're secretly a HUGE fan of Mel Gibson Another Christmas, another new Angelus Press calendar You think of a family of five as being small The sight of someone using a kleenex as a veil is something you've witnessed You know who 'Jimmy' is and what the deal is with his white rabbit You know exactly which restaurants have good "Friday menus" The sight of a woman wearing a skirt over a pair of jeans doesn't strike you as odd You have asked a priest running circuits to say hello to someone for you So far this year you've received donation requests from three parish schools, two convents, and at least one seminary You know at least one person who sells "Three Days of Darkness" survival kits You scrounge for unusual Saint names to avoid being the eleventh parent this year to name your child Mary or Michael The idea of Latin as an international language makes sense to you You think a one hour fast before communion is for novus ordo wimps who can't do three

-- Ed Richards (lo@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

They are likely ''signs'' you have lost all perspective and are aware of no reality. What you describe is pathetic. God is the God of the living, Ed. God lets life go on-- because He is larger than mere human life.

Your dependence on past glories tells a lot. A reluctance to face the future; an aggravation with any truth that requires incentive, or a will to advance. And the defamation of whatever moves forward. God must stand still for you to worship Him? Take a long look at yourself. Is a Catholic afraid to break ground? Does a Catholic hide under the covers every morning?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

Eugene... explain this advancement you speak of, in detail, please.

-- Emerald (emerald@cox.net), April 22, 2003.

Eugene... explain this advancement you speak of, in detail, please. It's general nature; the principles behind it.

Flesh it out for me if you would.

-- Emerald (emerald@cox.net), April 22, 2003.

There's not much to explain. I have nothing sensational to add to what Ed is told above. He is living in the past. Whoever advances out of (--YET REMAINS TRUE) the Nostalgic Church is a heretic.

Vatican II is the Church with aims toward the future. Ed's ''trad'' policy is not caring about the future. Not worried about it, and above all, not reaching out to any non-Catholic believers in Christ.

In Ed's trad faith, Christ is self- contained in the cozy Catholic bastion. No one else is welcome. Don't change anything on our account, because this is cozy.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

I can ruin that argument.

Should I do it, or just let it go?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 22, 2003.

Are you here to ruin arguments, Emerald? Is this your hope, to come up with new arguments, new friction? I realise Ed & Jake need a sense of superiority, so they tear down the Council.

Or wish to; because the Church is apparently failing. (For them.) They never appeal to God for help. They just pray for the upper hand. You seemed more of a sport; blessed for some good purpose.

To pick at any scab you spot on an opponent's poor face? Is this your fair game?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

Signs you might be a Trad:

You can point out Los Gatos, Winona, Silver City, and Post Falls on a map

Check.

Your family has been mistaken as Mormon or Menenite

No, but then again, here in the Northeast, we don't know ehat Mormons or Menonites are.

You know at least three poeple with a "Trash the TV" bumper sticker

Check.

Stories about wearing hand-me-down clothes strike a chord with you

Bigtime.

You have been asked if you know so-and-so from St. Marys

No.

You're secretly a HUGE fan of Mel Gibson

No secret about it!

Another Christmas, another new Angelus Press calendar

Right here on my office wall!

You think of a family of five as being small

Hey! My small family is growing!

The sight of someone using a kleenex as a veil is something you've witnessed

So my mother-in-law is crazy.

You know who 'Jimmy' is and what the deal is with his white rabbit

Nope.

You know exactly which restaurants have good "Friday menus"

I don't get out to eat much, but if it's on a Friday, we usually go with pizza.

The sight of a woman wearing a skirt over a pair of jeans doesn't strike you as odd

Only because I wonder: "why bother with the jeans?"

You have asked a priest running circuits to say hello to someone for you

Oh, yeah.

So far this year you've received donation requests from three parish schools, two convents, and at least one seminary

and have given to al of them? Check!

You know at least one person who sells "Three Days of Darkness" survival kits

Nope. I think survivalists are weird.

You scrounge for unusual Saint names to avoid being the eleventh parent this year to name your child Mary or Michael

We've got names lined up for our baby, beautiful names, but not Mary or Michael.

The idea of Latin as an international language makes sense to you

One of its biggest advantages!

You think a one hour fast before communion is for novus ordo wimps who can't do three

at LEAST three!

So, am I a Trad, Ed?

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Gene:

the Nostalgic Church is a heretic.

Vatican II is the Church with aims toward the future.

So....it's OK to say that they're two, separate, distint religions, then?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

You know who 'Jimmy' is and what the deal is with his white rabbit

Strike that "No" answer! I just remembered!!!

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

Are you here to ruin arguments, Emerald?

Well, sure, if the arguments are lousy... if I'm able to do it.

Is this your hope, to come up with new arguments, new friction?

For it's own sake, no. May I make an observation though? The above to questions are easily levied against the majority of your own posts on this forum. You don't treat Ed well, and some others as well. You attack them personally, but don't really lay out clear arguments against their positions, and what I'm saying is that I can see right through that and in most cases can counter it pretty easily. Whether anyone understands what I'm talking about or not.

I realise Ed & Jake need a sense of superiority, so they tear down the Council.

Like this. That's an unsupportable statement; you might get a lot of nodding heads out there in the forum when you post that, and it might sound good, but it is rhetoric. It's good for political conventions, sales meetings, or any peasant/pitchfork situation demanding some sort of action; but it does little good in the pursuit of objective truth. I think you know that; it's also a personal attack, and fails to address the substance of anything.

Or wish to; because the Church is apparently failing. (For them.) They never appeal to God for help.

Never appeal to God for help? I personally know this to be untrue.

They just pray for the upper hand. You seemed more of a sport; blessed for some good purpose.

Praying for the upper hand... well, I can see a good way to interpret this claim, and an evil one.

To pick at any scab you spot on an opponent's poor face? Is this your fair game?

Sometimes. I don't always know if that's right or wrong. What do you think? Is it right or wrong, and when and where? I know that in many cases, I can do it. The question is whether I should I guess.

Gene, lighten up on the personal aspects of jake and Ed; when it comes to their stance on things, deal with the stance and not their personal devotion; by and large I've tried to do the same with you, John and the others.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 22, 2003.

Eugene

I don't think I said you're a liar. Possibly I spotted you telling a lie. (So sorry.)

I told you at the parish I grew up in the priest taught from the pulpit that it is the faith of the people who make God present in the Eucharist, that he con-celebrates with the community, that since we all have God in our heart than each of us are God. I also told you that Confession was only offered for 10-15 minutes - One Saturday a month. You called me a liar.

Your husband a racist?

While you did not use the word "racist" you accused him of being the sort of guy who would not allow his daughter to date a black man. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's how a racist would behave. Ergo, you called him a racist.

I said: "1.) A potential danger to the faith because of watered-down or ill- defined doctrine."

You requested: Let us see the examples of this, please.

Okey doke.

The New Mass is divided into two sections, "the Liturgy of the Word," and "the Liturgy of the Eucharist." The former roughly corresponds to the Mass of the Catechumens, but has been altered in order to bring it completely into line with Protestant theology. Gone are the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. After the "priest-president" greets the parishioners, one starts out with an obscure confession - A "Penitential Rite" which stresses sins against our "brothers and sisters". Novus Ordo Catholics are denied the absolution formula that follows the Traditional Confiteor – the Indulgentiam..., which is capable of giving absolution for those venial sins that even the best of us fall prey to.

The principle feature of "the Liturgy of the Word" (which in the New Mass is supposed to correspond to the "Mass of the Catechumens") is the reading of Scripture – but in such a way as to lead one to believe that it is Scripture, rather than the Sacred Species or Eucharist, that is the Word of God made flesh. The readings are taken from the new, ecumenical and frequently false translations of the Bible. Further, they are part of a three-year cycle, rather than a one-year cycle, as in the Tridentine Mass, and therefore can hardly be called "fixed," for the New Lectionary allows for a whole host of options which can be followed at the celebrant’s discretion.

Scripture in the New Mass is followed by a "homily," which, in accord with Protestant practice, almost always becomes the center of the New Rite. In the Traditional Rite, the priest is - liturgically speaking - a "nobody" – his own personality is really counted for nothing. Before all the changes in the liturgy, one never thought to ask who was saying Mass. But in the Novus Ordo Missae, the personality of the priest becomes all-important. People often select which service they will attend on the basis of who is celebrating. This practice by Catholics who attend the New Mass has the further result of providing everyone with a choice of "liberal" or "conservative" pastors and parishes, and thus, the New Mass largely divides the Church- worshiping into various camps of belief. Think of the folks in this forum - some are militant Charismaniacs (speaking in tongues, rolling around on the floor) all because they have a pastor who believes in this sort of thing. Then we have folks like you, Gene, who prefer a more reserved and pious pastor and parish - and as a result your parish may not involve itself with that sort of silliness and sinfulness.

Let's look at the Offertory and compare it to the "Preparation of the Gifts"

In the Traditional Rite of the Mass, the first part of the "Mass of the Faithful" is the Offertory. In the Offertory, the Sacrifice of the Mass is both prepared and directed to a determinate end. In essence, the Offertory prayers anticipate the Consecration and make the sacrificial nature of the remainder of the Mass unmistakably clear. In the Traditional Catholic Mass, the Offertory prayers refer to the bread by the term hostia or "victim." Thus, in the first Offertory prayer of the Traditional Mass, the priest unveils the chalice, takes the gold-plated paten with the host of unleavened bread, raises it to the level of his heart and says:

Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and everlasting God, this spotless host which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for mine own countless sins, offenses and negligences, and for all here present, as also for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that it may avail for my own and their salvation unto life everlasting.

Along with the actions of the priest, this prayer makes it clear that what is offered at the mass is the "spotless host" or victim. Second, the propitiatory (atoning) nature of the Mass is crystal clear – it is offered for our sins. Third, it reminds us that the Mass is offered "for the living and the dead"; and fourth, that it is the priest who offers the Sacrifice as a mediator between man and God. The beauty of its precise expression is the splendor veritatis – the "splendor of the truth."

In the New Mass this prayer, needless to say, has been entirely deleted.

Is it merely a coincidence that the same prayers deleted in the Novus Ordo are the exact same prayers deleted by both Luther and Cranmer? I think not.

The Novus Ordo not only omits these significant prayers, but it effectively abolishes the entire Offertory. The General Instruction speaks instead of the "Preparation of the Gifts." And within this part of the Mass there is not so much as a word which even hints that it is the Divine Victim which is offered. The bread and wine – "the work of human hands" – is all that is offered. Note the celebration of "humans". And further, except for the prayer of the washing of the hands, all the petitions are in the first person plural – "we" – which is consistent with the false concept enveloped in various parts of the New Mass that it is not the priest-president who offers up the Mass by his own special sacerdotal power, but rather it is the "assembly" or "the people of God" who do so. (By the way: How come the priest washes his hands before he handles what is about to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but the Eucharistic "Ministers" or the laity who receive in the hand don't have to? I've always wondered about that. Even before I knew such a thing as the Trad Mass exsisted.)

We can keep going if you want: on to the Canon - the very words of Our Lord which were changed in the new Mass so they sounded all inclusive - but hopefully you've gotten the point by now: In sum, 60 to 80 percent of the Trad Mass prayers were eliminated, (inspired by Luther and Cranmers desicions to remove the *exact* *same* *prayers.* - those which related to the sacrificial nature of the Mass.)

Gone are the prayers at the foot of the Altar - including Psalm 42 and the Aufer a nobis. The Confiteor sacked for a community focused "Penitential Rite."

One more example. Let's look at the prayers after the Pater Noster in the Trad Mass and the Novus Ordo: Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present and to come, and by the intercession of the Blessed and Glorious Ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of God, together with Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Andrew, and all the saints, mercifully to grant peace in our days, that through the bounteous help of Thy mercy, we may be always free from sin and secure from all disturbance...

It now reads:

Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Note that the references to the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the saints have been eliminated. Their intercession, it would seem from this, is no longer required – presumably because it would offend Protesant sensibilities and thus frustrate the "pastoral" intent of the rite.

Maybe you focus too much on others at Holy Mass?

The New Mass forces one to focus on others - Handshaking, constant references to the community (both in the homilies and in the prayers) traffic jams of laymen on the Altar, handholding, no silence at any time, the choir - instead of being up in the loft serving as a backdrop - are needlessly right off to the side of the sanctuary with the "Leader of Song" up there flapping his/her arms around instructing us when to join in the song, gatherings of people around the altar/table - expressly for the Consecration!!!- all are too much of a distraction, completely unneccessary, and take the Glory and Honor away from God and also stripping the dignity of the the Priest - the Ambassador of Christ.

You know, protestants have a deep love for Jesus Christ too.

Then let them return Home to the Church He established. They are more than welcome - only as long as they understand that Holy Mother Church and the Mass won't conform to their heretical beliefs or change certain things in the name of being sensitive.

You never wanted the uniting of non-Catholic Christians with the True Church, I guess.

Wow. You really love to make unfounded accusations, don't you? Gene, stick to reality. Stick to what I've written and not your own false perception of the type of person I am.

Would modern man be better off lost in the wilderness? --I thought God wanted everyone to come to Him.

He does, but they must be willing to do not as they like or what they want, but what He likes and what He wills.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 22, 2003.

Regina, A beautiful, powerful comparison... Pope John Paul II To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

"It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS In the traditional mass the priest will not even touch the chalice with the consecrated fingers. Not until after he washes those fingers again.

-- Ed Richards (loz@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.

Here's Regina:--''I told you at the parish I grew up in, the priest taught that it is the faith of the people which makes God present in the Eucharist; that he con-celebrates with the community, that since we all have God in our heart than each of us are God. I also told you that Confession was only offered for 10-15 minutes - One Saturday a month. You called me a liar.''

I think your first 3 words ''I told you'' are the only accurate words. The rest is retrieved from memories. In the theological sense, a Catholic priest would have said: THE PRAYERS of the people makes us concelebrators. This is true enough. We are called a royal priesthood in the Holy Bible. About 15 minutes each month allowed for confessions, I simply don't believe you. But then you are here promoting discord, and an accurate explanation of what a priest once said or did is a little too much to expect of you, IMHO. That is unless it's a ''trad priest''. He can do no wrong, for you.

I recall the quote about the black man. If you really understood what I said, you would realize; the older folks here still recall how faithful Catholics (traditional pre-Vatican II--) saw nothing unusual about prohibiting their daughters from dating ''colored people''. I wasn't talking about Jake. I was talking about reprehensible & out-dated conventions in the past. But you take the opportunity to smear me anyway. Ciao, Regina. A charitable post, hmm?

Think I'll respond to Emerald on a new post later.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

Saying "The People of God bring God present in the Eucharist, I am merely a presider" is *not* the same thing as a lesson in the role of each of us in the universal priesthood of the baptized. Get you head out the sand.

You're very Clintonesque. Telling someone "I simply don't believe you", for you, isn't the very same thing as calling them a liar. Call me what you wish. It makes no difference to me. Your attempts at backpedaling for calling my husband a racist - which you most certainly did - are really pathetic.

Any cordiality or spirit of charitable debate to be found in this thread ended with your return and participation. Nice going, Champ.

As always, you are in my prayers.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 22, 2003.

Regina, I don't believe any priest can get away with providing the sacrament of Penance for 10 /15 min. per month in any Catholic parish. Pardon me for doubting you; but this just about destroys your credibility in our forum. There's just one way to prove something, and you haven't documented a single thing.

''Saying "The People of God bring God present in the Eucharist, I am merely a presider,'' HERE, as if the priest were guilty just because you say so? Sorry-- Give us a better reason. My head in the sand? Your impression again. Not very true.

You think whatever you please. And, go back and find the words I used, calling anybody here a racist. You can't.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

I don't believe any priest can get away with providing the sacrament of Penance for 10 /15 min. per month in any Catholic parish.

I never believed that a Catholic Priest would dare touch a child in a harmful manner. Then the news broke. It never happened to me, but does that mean it didn't happen to scores of children all over the world? Point is, you need to accept that not every single parish is as faithful to the Sacraments or their flock as yours apparently is. Just because it's 'all good' where you go, doesn't mean that the same goodness can be found all over. That's always been my biggest argument in these discussions, Gene. Parishes should be the same. One shouldn't have to 'shop around' to find one which offers the Faith and Sacraments more consistently and/or correctly. I believe if Tradition were restored this problem would cease to exsist - or at least minimalize it.

Pardon me for doubting you; but this just about destroys your credibility in our forum.

I didn't post what I posted looking for validation from the forum. This whole thing started because you had asked me and Isabel what it was about our N.O. parishes that made us seek the Trad Mass. I posted my experiences after being asked a valid question by you. I thought you wanted honest answers so I gave them. Rather than simply saying, "It's shameful your parish failed, but they aren't all like that, Regina" it was easier for you to just accuse me of lying. Why? Because you *knew* I wouldn't be able to prove what a priest taught from the pulpit, or the sparce availability of Confession. You latched on to an opportunity to discredit me because of your ever- increasing contempt for folks who worship now the way you did then.

Did it ever occur to you that when you speak of how devoted your Parish and priest are to the Faith, I could just reply, "Yeah, right. I simply don't believe you, Gene." I wouldn't say that, because who am I to accuse you of being untruthful? As a fellow Catholic I must give you the benefit of the doubt. I just don't feel comfortable calling someone a liar or dishonest when they've given me no reason to doubt what they're saying.

My head in the sand? Your impression again. Not very true.

Oh but it is. You are willing to admit that there are liberals and enemies *within* the church (as I've seen you state before in a number of threads) but where do you believe they exsist? In what capacity? Are they limited to Vatican janitors? Rectory file clerks? No. They exsist in the hierarchy, in the convents, in the schools, in the priesthood, in many neighborhood parishes. My N.O. parish happened to have a few very, very bad priests, headed up by a very......not very Catholic pastor. I pray that has changed, but I don't know if it has. I havent attended Mass there in well over ten years. I'm able to quote the different things the priest(s) said verbatim because I remember my mom getting all concerned about it. At the time, I didn't care one way or the other...

You think whatever you please. And, go back and find the words I used, calling anybody here a racist. You can't.

Again, I made it clear that while you never used the word "racist" in connection with my husband, you equated him with one who does behave as a racist. Same difference.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 22, 2003.

Here I reply just as your hubby likes to do:

Did not.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

That was impressive, Regina.

I started going strictly to the Mass of Trent, as you know, only earlier this year. Of course I was pretty familiar with it already, having gone now and then, and they had it from time to time at the College I attended even many years ago.

But recently, it was different. It's one thing to know something, and another thing to, well, really really know something. Call it the next dimension of knowledge if you will. Call it stepping out of the realm of factual knowledge and into the realm of causality. See St. Thomas' and Aristotle's quia vs. propter quid knowledge.

Knowing really now what I knew only peripherally then about the Eucharist, I was struck with the Mass of Trent... how it continually and doctrinally made no compromise on the Eucharist being the way of salvation, as being absolutely necessary, as being the sacrificial essence of salvation.

It was a stunning experience, not at all one of smells and bells but one of the hardcore downloading, if you will, of doctrinal substance, like a knife plunged into the mind.

Where I go, it is held in a Catholic mausoleum. Dead people line the walls; people that have met their terminus, people who have passed to the nether world (the place where jake gets his inspiration...lol!); people for whom all earthly consideration now rests at absolute zero.

People who still exist in some state, and respond with either limit- level agony or limit-level joy at hearing the words of salvation echo through the granite.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 23, 2003.

Thank you very much, Emerald, for your kind words about my post. That means alot coming from you.

It was a stunning experience, not at all one of smells and bells but one of the hardcore downloading, if you will, of doctrinal substance, like a knife plunged into the mind.

I know exactly what you mean!

After spending most of my teen years lying to my folks on Sunday mornings about my Mass attendence ("We went last night to the 5 o'clock at St. Phil's, Mom!") often providing a swiped bulletin as "proof" of my having gone to Mass, I attended my first Trad Mass at 19.

One Sunday my mom begged me to attend Mass with her. She'd been attending the Trad Mass for several months after finding an ad in the local paper. I didn't want to go. I was 19, and hated getting up in the mornings. I saw no point in going to Mass anywhere. It was boring and the whole "community togetherness" thing made me uncomfortable. Even when one of the priests occasionally brought out his ventriliquist dummy to give the homily, I felt, "This is soooo gay." Reluctantly, I agreed to go with her. It seemed to mean something to her.

At the time, Fr. was renting out space at the American Legion Hall. I was greeted by the faint smell of stale cigarette smoke and fried foods. People sat in metal folding chairs, and you had to grab your own kneeler from a bin in the back.

The small Altar was set up on the stage, around it stood little statues of Saints, some holy pictures which were more suited to someone's bedside table, little Stations of the Cross some hung crookedly around the perimeter of the "church" could be found.

The location of the Tabernacle was unmistakeable. Right up there on the Altar, with a grand Crucifix above it. From the size of it, I thought it'd pull the wood paneling right off the wall. The 50 or so people who were there ahead of me were kneeling saying the Rosary. Even little children as young as five happily fingering their plastic beads and saying the prayers as best they could. I hadn't said the Rosary - or heard it prayed - since 4th grade. After the Rosary only silence was to be heard. No chit chatting. All girls and women wore these pretty lace things on their heads, and all were dressed in "Sunday best." I immediately wished I had dressed better ("If I can't wear what I want, than I won't go!") because I did stand out in my jeans and tie-dyed T-shirt, but hey, that's how everyone dressed where I went to Mass - when I did go.

Emerald, as soon as I sat I was struck. Jesus was here and He was none too pleased with me. I felt awful. All this time I'd been dodging Mass, lying about it, and even once going to an amusement park on Good Friday. All that time I never once considered how angry God must be with me, for my actions were dispicable. I figured, as I was taught, "Jesus loves you!" Great, then He certainly won't care if I prefer to ride roller coasters and eat hot dogs while the rest of the world remembers His torture, agony and death on the Cross. He'll certainly understand that I don't feel like going to Mass after having spent the night out with friends doing, well...He knows. After all no one but my own Mom was telling me the grave importance (not to mention the obligation) of attending Mass and giving God His what is expected of us as His subjects. So, what the hell?

In short, in that little run down room with it's makeshift Altar and puny statues - so much for the "smells and bells" that we're accused to being slaves to - Our Lord was waiting for me. He wanted me to be there. I never expected to be so spiritually knocked for a loop. I certainly didn't go looking for it. I was convinced that my Mom had called ahead of time to ask Fr. to give a sermon about the Real Presense, Our Lord's Sacrifice on the Cross, approaching Holy Communion in a state of Grace only, the wages of sin, the reality of Hell, and God's hope for us that we save our souls. He spoke of all of these things in a gentle way which is his custom. She didn't call ahead. He speaks of all of these things every Sunday - thank God. I need to hear about these things often.

Within a couple of months of some continued on again off again Mass attendence (for which I felt incredibly guilty), I made a good confession - the first in 5 years - and, with the exception of a few weddings and funerals, never again returned to the N.O. mass.

Where I go, it is held in a Catholic mausoleum. Dead people line the walls; people that have met their terminus, people who have passed to the nether world (the place where jake gets his inspiration...lol!);

LOL!

A Catholic Mausoleum?! That's really something! It must add a real element to the Mass, though. I mean, you've got constant reminders all around you of how much the souls in Purgatory need our prayers. You've got constant reminders all around you of our own mortality.

People who still exist in some state, and respond with either limit- level agony or limit-level joy at hearing the words of salvation echo through the granite.

I would have never thought of it that way! That's so very important to contemplate. As is always the case with your posts, you've given me something important to think about. Thank you!

I'd really like to hear more of your first impressions (if you want to talk about them) of the Mass sometime. People discover Tradition in so many different ways. They stumble into a chapel, not knowing it's Traditional. Or they come looking for it because they felt they were losing their faith. They tag along with a parishioner and enjoy the Mass. So many reasons, so many "first time" stories...It's really something to see an obvious "first timer" who comes back permanently.

God bless!!

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 23, 2003.

Emerald should be told, I was present myself, and spiritually knocked for a loop. Yes; a ventriloquist can offer us a sermon about the Real Presense, Our Lord's Sacrifice on the Cross, approaching Holy Communion in a state of Grace only, (how else?) the wages of sin, it is death; the reality of Hell, and God's Will for us to come to His salvation. Nice ventriloquism, Holy Spirit our Paraclete! Good homily, Father!

Plus, I made a good confession - my first in 2 months- and, I've been coming regularly and for weddings and funerals, at our Novus Ordo Holy celebration of the Eucharist. It is a love-fest not only between the faithful; but offering up life and death, joys & sorrows, wealth or want; with the holy attendence in our midst of Our Blessed Mother, the angels and saints. --To Almighty God. --Where? Saint Basil the Great Church, Vallejo, Calif., Pastor Rev. Leon Juchnievicz, pastor.

He is Risen, He is Risen, Indeed; Alleluia! We love our Catholic Church /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Emerald,
While I'm thinking about it,

I have been at the Tridentine Mass celebration in San Diego a number of times. It's in the Mausoleum at Holy Cross, off I 94, is that the one you're attending? I thought it was only celebrated Fridays--? Maybe I'm mistaken. My Dad, a brother, a sister, and other relatives are interred out on the grounds directly south of the beautiful Mausoleum. It's magnificent. My wife & I were married at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in San Diego in 1982. Ever been in that one? Novus Ordo; and the priests are wonderful. Society of Jesus, God bless them!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Yes; a ventriloquist can offer us a sermon about the Real Presense, Our Lord's Sacrifice on the Cross, approaching Holy Communion in a state of Grace only, (how else?) the wages of sin, it is death; the reality of Hell, and God's Will for us to come to His salvation. Nice ventriloquism, Holy Spirit our Paraclete! Good homily, Father

Ah, if only the 'dummy' *had* mentioned those things. The dummy usually offered cornball (but respectful) jokes about the Pastor or about Catholicism in general (nothing offensive, mind you - sort of a Seinfeldish "did you ever notice that Catholics....."). The sermons had nothing to do with Mass or our Faith. The only thing to be gained from those few "sermons" were a few laughs, and even then that's a matter of opinion.

Before someone accuses me of calling a Priest a dummy, let me be perfectly clear, I'm speaking about the ventriliquist dummy that one of the priests used to haul out every once in a while in the Presense of Our Lord during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to keep us laughing, smiling, and entertained. If that seems ok to some, it demonstrates how low the standards have sunk to what is and isn't appropriate in God's House.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 23, 2003.

Saint Basil the Great Church, Vallejo, Calif., Pastor Rev. Leon Juchnievicz, pastor.

...where they only have confession once a month?!?!?

No wonder you go to Confession so infrequently, and you had to go outside your home parish to do it:

"I made a good confession - my first in 2 months"

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

Now, Jake: You may confess daily if it suits you. I had my Easter duty to think of, and two months ago I needed to go as well. If I committed a mortal sin daily (Do you?) I would need confession daily. Maybe you do.

We have Saturday regular confessions 4PM to 5PM without fail; or by appointment anytime. That means I can call up and see my confessor whenever I wish. It's great for the conscience, confession. U otto try it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Regina,
I say the Holy Spirit speaks through the mouth of every priest, if He speaks in a sermon. (He ''throws His voice''.)

You had it up to here, with the corny ventriloquist priest. I can understand this. But, is there a silly priest in all the parish churches of your diocese? Or did you only attend the ventriloquist's parish for convenience? You could be too lazy to travel a few miles for your peace of mind. I never stated all Novus Ordo priests are gifted with an attractive way of sermonizing. They do their best with what God gives them, Dear. Same as Tridentine Rite sermonizing, and they speak English for the sermons don't they? You don't hear sermons in Latin these days, even in the ''trad'' camp.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

If I committed a mortal sin daily (Do you?) I would need confession daily. Maybe you do.

I confess once every two weeks, but my point was that you called Regina a liar for attesting to the fact (and it is a fact) that a local church here in NJ only offers confession once a month; and as it turns out, your own parish only offers it once a month - so what's so hard to believe?

I saw your church's website. Looks like a nice big, beautiful building. Probably seats about 300 or so? I'm guessing that on any given Sunday there are droves of people receiving Communion; so many that they probably "need" several "Eucharistic Ministers" to handle the throngs. I wonder how long the line is at the confessional on that one Saturday afternoon per month...

Must be a whole lotts saints walkin' 'round Vallejo.

We have Saturday regular confessions 4PM to 5PM without fail

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

Jake: I stated clearly we have regular confessions on Saturdays. Plus, by appointment.

If my 2 month interval is worth mentioning, why didn't I laugh at Regina's 5 year interval? I don't pick on people for the dispositions of their consciences. You are not privy to my confessional nor are we to yours. Even so, I don't mind answering these points. I have nothing to hide from you.

Next case --

Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

But, is there a silly priest in all the parish churches of your diocese?

Silly? I don't know about them all being silly. I can't answer for all of them. Just the one I'm talking about.

Or did you only attend the ventriloquist's parish for convenience?

It was the parish I was baptized in, received First Holy Communion, Penance, and Confirmation in. I also attended Kindergarten through 8th grade at its school.

You could be too lazy to travel a few miles for your peace of mind.

What is it with you? Why must you always assume the worst in people? It was in the parish above which had the puppet priest at Mass, it was there also where another priest taught "It is the faith of the people of God which make Him present in the Eucharist, I merely preside."

It was in *another* parish (same diocese) which a priest taught "since we all have God in our heart, we are all God."

I went to High School at an all girls Catholic school, where the nuns there hold "Labryinth (?) meditations" and "Phonenix" Ceremonies. The bishop in that diocese apparently endorses it since he's given many talks praising their work.

It was in another parish (in a *neighboring* diocese) which in addition the Tabernacle being placed in another room altogether, had a stained glass window of Martin Luther King. You'll probably call me a racist because I object to that. I object not on the basis of his color or social/civic stances, but on the basis that he wasn't a Catholic, and some of his actions could hardly be discribed as even "christian."

So, as you can see, I tried other parishes.

I never stated all Novus Ordo priests are gifted with an attractive way of sermonizing.

Attractive? I'm not asking for sermons to be attractive (or funny or uplifting) They have a responcibility to preach sound doctrine. To remind us of our obligations. We need them to stop telling us what we *want* to hear, rather what we *need* to hear.

Same as Tridentine Rite sermonizing, and they speak English for the sermons don't they?

They speak sound Catholic doctrine. Clear as a bell. In a languge understood by people of all ages in a way which does not take away from the seriousness of Mass nor in a way which insults the intelligence of the folks in the pews.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 23, 2003.

You say in the ''trad'' Masses --''They speak sound Catholic doctrine. Clear as a bell. In a languge understood by people of all ages in a way which does not take away from the seriousness of Mass nor in a way which insults the intelligence of the folks in the pews.''

Novus Ordo celebrants do too, Regina. I have listened to a few who were lightweights by comparison, but they were way the minority. You are simply too hard on the new rite mass, and appear to be willing to bash on any pretext, period. OK; it's your conscience.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Novus Ordo celebrants do too, Regina

Do try and pay attention, please. I am sure there are wonderful N.O. priests out there who serve their flock correctly, soundly and consistantly. We were talking about *my* experiences in the N.O. While I'm sure there are plenty of great priests to be found in the N.O. there were none to be found in the parishes *I* attended.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 23, 2003.

Here is Jake, on his rant:

[Saint Basil's] ''Probably seats about 300 or so? I'm guessing that on any given Sunday there are droves of people receiving Communion; so many that they probably "need" several "Eucharistic Ministers" to handle the throngs. I wonder how long the line is at the confessional on that one Saturday afternoon?''

I'll reply honestly:

We have regular confessions for one full hour prior to vigil Mass (5:30PM EVERY Saturday) and if the penitents line is long, the confessor keeps serving them right up to Mass time. --I am close friends with one associate pastor, Filipino priest Fr. Cesar, so I'm sure of this.

In Mass, Fathers are emphatic; if you aren't in state of grace, you must NOT recieve the Eucharistic species (both) nor if you are non-Catholic or not yet made first Communion. He tells all, You may, for the sake of God's blessing come forward if you wish, arms crossed over your breast-- and receive a blessing. I see good numbers people go up, in that manner each Mass, and NOT take communion. Nevertheless, it is true; we throng to Holy Communion.

The ones who do receive, have been expressly warned not to if they are not in clear conscience for it.

It is not left to everybody's own discretion. (Nor to yours or mine, Jake.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

I stated clearly we have regular confessions on Saturdays. Plus, by appointment.

That's not what your parish's website says. Sorry, I guess I just don't believe you.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

Just clicked on your link. OK-- the website is last updated in 2,001. I moved here in 2,000. Began going to St Basil's about 2 summers ago. I have the latest parish bulletin in front of me. Sacrament of Reconciliation: Saturdays, 4:00 to 5:00 (The priests have often announced they will take an appointment to hear our confessions anytime, by phone.

It always has been since I first attended there. GREAT Catholic parish. You don't have to believe me,

email : info@stbasilvallejo.org

Check for yourself, email them. --Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

You don't have to believe me

I don't.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

That's fine.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

I answered you honestly. The faithful at our parish in Vallejo are a diverse bunch. About half Flipino, 20% hispanics, both native-born & immigrated. A small Salvadorean community comes to Mass with us as well. Maybe 20% anglosaxon, and 10% black African Americans. The people are very devout.

The music director a fine musician, with a chorus and soloists worthy of a pro recording session /

My good friend Chuck, a 47 yo black man sings with choir and solos. He is gifted with a beautiful baritone voice, and sings with almost operatic pitch, strength and perfect diction. He sings it all; with a fine grasp of Latin.

He tells me he sang with gospel choirs as a Baptist; converted to the true faith and now loves living in his chosen parish. Everybody is good to each other, and our pastors are energetic and joyful. The church is full of grace; with Christ the center and core of our loving Communion. I love the place where Your glory dwells, O Lord!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Sounds like a wonderful group of people Eugene. God bless all of you.

-- Ed Richards (loa@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

I have been at the Tridentine Mass celebration in San Diego a number of times. It's in the Mausoleum at Holy Cross, off I 94, is that the one you're attending? I thought it was only celebrated Fridays--? Maybe I'm mistaken. My Dad, a brother, a sister, and other relatives are interred out on the grounds directly south of the beautiful Mausoleum.

Wow; I'll look for them next Sunday. It's been on Sundays as long as I can remember; I used to go there maybe a couple times a year for several years, and know several people there from other places. Since the beginning, roughly, of this year I've been going every Sunday.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 23, 2003.

Backing up a bit, Gordon, you asked a legitimate question imho:

Emerald, why do I have to explain all of that? I understand my faith, and so why do I have to explain it to you? To prove I understand it?

The desire to get the questions answered flows from an intent to draw out the truth of the matter, that certain people on the forum are being accused of serious things that are, in point of provable fact, false accusations.

It's really just that simple.

It is not my desire to run around being right about everything. In fact, according to my own way of thinking, being right all the time is a solid basis upon which to lose one's way and one's soul.

But I sure as hell am right about this particular matter at hand.

That's not really saying a whole lot, though. There's a whole boatload of truth out there; but right now, though, the only truths that matter are the ones that pertain to our death and judgement. That's about enough for any one of us to handle right now.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 24, 2003.

you have a problem with NFP (Natural Family Planning)?

This would actually make an interesting thread Gordon. Why don't you start one?

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

Emerald, I still think, that in the end, we will still disagree, and the question you asked would require a lot of work in my part, and I don't have time for that these days. Maybe ask a smaller question?

> "This would actually make an interesting thread Gordon. Why don't you start one?"

I was curious if Emerald was objecting to NFP, but it seems he personally does not want to use it, and that's fine. I don't really want to start a thread on NFP, but why don't you do so Isabel.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 25, 2003.

My mother taught NFP for years a long time back; I guess this was the 70's or 80's, I can't remember. Plus my brother is a priest, and I remember getting into a debate with him on the issue a couple years ago.

I don't think I've given it a second thought since then; that's just me, I guess, and my own personal whatever. I guess I just figure if you are married, you are open to God's will in it's manifestation of whatever happens happens, and if one isn't, naturally they'll try to manipulate circumstances to fit whatever idea they have of way things ought to be.

But there's no way I'm going to sit around and chart this stuff... hahaha! No way. Seems so artificial, without the art in it. Call if "ficial"; I don't know.

I don't like it.

And if someone is using it as a means of birth control, while they say that they aren't but in effect really are... or whatever rationalizing they want to use to get out of an essential part of life and marriage, then they need to take a serious second look at the whole thing and ask themselves some tough and honest questions.

But I'm in no way required to like NFP to be faithful to Holy Mother Church; she didn't use NFP on me, thank God.

Besides that, I've got a headache... =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 25, 2003.

Besides that, I've got a headache... =)

LOL! Now that's NFP!! :) Good post Emerald.

Actually Gordon, one day I may start a thread on that. Just not now. Timing isn't right.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 25, 2003.

I agree NFP can be abused, but that does not make it wrong. If that was so, then religion is wrong, because people can abuse it. Your intentions towards NFP is important.

I've heard this objection before, and after attending eight Human Life International conferences I know a lot about NFP, birth control, etc. Probably why I have no interest in really discussing it, unless someone wants to know about it, and then I will point them to some good websites on the matter.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 25, 2003.

Did you guys buy KLIC at $5/share on April 20th like I said upthread?

"If I wanted to chart something, I'd be looking at KLIC right now; it seems tempting at this $5 range."

It's over $9 today.

Shoot! I forgot I quit the forum! lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 14, 2003.

I want to see a pic of this St. Francis of Asisi

-- NvDm Godwar (doesnmatter@whocares.com), September 12, 2003.

Here. See a bunch.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 12, 2003.

To post to this threads orginal topic...

I speak of the United States only.

I agree with john in many regards; HOWEVER...

"Repeatedly, I have heard people denounce Vatican II, yet praise John Paul II."

john,

There are 'bad' things and abuses that have resulted from poor implementation & misinterpretation of Vatican II. The poor implementation & misinterpretation at its root is the fault of the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). The USCCB, this unaccountable entity has many problems inherent to its very nature & construct. In an interview recently aired on EWTN, Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, expressed some concerns regarding the USCCB - although he stopped short of saying it should be dismantled. To quote Cardinal Ratzinger within the context of discussing the recent sex scandals he made a general statement: "Coordination between the bishops is certainly necessary because the United States is a great continent. From the outset it is clear that the personal responsibility of the bishop is fundamental for the Church, and perhaps the anonymity of the Bishops' Conferences can be a danger for the Church. Nobody is personally, immediately responsible. It was always the Conference and you do not know where or who is the conference." hmmm...

"Come on guys, you can't have it both ways."

john,

YES, we have no choice BUT to have it both ways; however, not in the context you present. The context you present suggests that ALL in our Church is good. People are complaining for a reason -many less eloquent voice concern in simplistic fashion by blaming Vatican II. It is simplistic to dismiss valid concerns by touting Vatican II or our Pope. It is self evident and faithfully accepted that our Pope and or the spirit of Vatican II are unquestionable. However, we can & we do have it both ways -it is our nature to have sin & sinners amongst us & our Church.

"Just for the record, I believe that the Holy Spirit was/is very much alive and well in the reformation/renewal processes of Vatican II.

May the Church continue to move forward. God Bless, John"

john,

The Holy Spirit was/is very much alive in our Church -Vatican II is but one facet of our Church...

There is no 'May' regarding the Church and I would suggest that the Church does not move forward or backward as these are relative positions of man. Our Church 'IS' always -the administration of our Church -the people that embody it must be faithful to God, Christ, Church (Rome) -they can only be faithful or not faithful. Where are we moving too john? Who is leading this movement and who is following?

To paraphrase Cardinal Ratzinger again from his recent interview on EWTN, Cardinal Ratzinger in disussing liturgical abuses resulting from Vatican II again made a general statement (this one too was aimed at the United States I would guess the USCCB specifically -whoever that guy is); anyway, Cardinal Ratzinger said there have been abuses as a result of "poor implementation" -that the reforms of Vatican II were poorly implemented AND that there will be a reform of the reform...

I pray that those who have been led astray by error will be led to truth with the reform of the reform that will truly bring those in our Church closer to embodying the full intent of Vatican II.

Sincerely in Christ,

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 13, 2003.

oops oops

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 13, 2003.

Holy smoke! KLIC stock is almost $12/share!!!

You never lose money selling at a profit. That's what I always used to say.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 13, 2003.

Shalom John P,

We agree that Vatican II was of G-d indeed, and we believe it was foretold in prophecy in Zech.11.7 where Yeshua takes two staffs into His hands through a righteous pope, one of kindness (mercy) and one of pledges (unions). This is the essence of what Vatican II was about, showing mercy to those who cannot see for whatever reason (Protestants, Jews, and non-believers) giving these the benefit of doubt regarding issues of faith and building bridges on common ground (pledges) so we can combine our efforts against the coming apostasy.

Isabelle said,

>>>Lady of Fatima when she told us to pray the Rosary daily, and offer up many penances and sacrifices for the conversion of Russia and the salvation of souls. >>>

It’s interesting she mentioned the Fatima prophecies, as we believe Vatican II was within these as well. In the third prophecy we read:

“And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a bishop dressed in white ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other bishops, priests, men and women religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark;”

The bishop above we do see as the pope, and it is he who in the end was called to first carry those two staffs of Zech.11.7 that ultimately our world will reject. We suspect it is the Magisterium that arose from that great council to try and implement this precarious course, which Our Blessed Mother and Zech.4.7 call a great mountain at the top of which was a cross. However, we are getting ahead of ourselves for before this council was even called and implemented, we were told through the Fatima prophecy that our Church was facing HaShem’s judgment:

“After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!'.

Zech.11.4-6 explains this sin as shepherds trafficking in the sheep, buying and selling these. It was our Blessed Mother whose radiance broke through Yeshua’s pending judgment and brought this mercy upon our Church, yet only for a time. So who are these evil men who are trafficking in sheep before the call went forth to our Church for Vatican II to be written and enforced?

We believe these are same group(s) that we see in Zech.5.3-4 describes as “one who steals” and “everyone who swears falsely”. We believe they are those who reject our Church and bought and sold those above. Yet how was our Church guilty of their sins that is why was that angel standing above with that flaming sword over our church (as she is part of this earth) ready to strike, and how did Vatican II redress this error at least within His Church?

We suspect that many things that those of the SSPX group treasure so much (though not evil in and of themselves) were used by evil because they were so far different from those things of our world today, that they actually stood in the way of some coming to Christ’s Church. What we needed then, as now, is a merciful bridge for these children to cross over in their own time and only when they feel they can. We need to remember that Yeshua died while we were still sinners, that He reached out to the lost as our Church should, as well as seek sinners while taking these with nothing expected by faith.

Yet to the credit of the SSPX, they perceive that many in our Church have taken this as a license to lawlessness and that there are great dangers in seeking this unity (that why it is a steep mountain in the first place). We agree that many will and have wander(ed) away from our faith due to lawlessness while others are reacting to lawlessness, however others we believe will turn to legalism as bad as that of the scribes and Pharisees in reaction to this. And although the ecumenical movement is of G-d, we suspect from our studies of prophecy (including the Fatima prophecy) that our enemies will seek to subvert this movement by creating one of their own alongside this that will lead to the one world religion.

Isabelle also wrote: "Now, while I realize this would probably (hopefully) never happen but I will use this as an analogy, if the Pope wrote an encyclical or letter one day totally denying the Real Presence, are you going to say, "Oh, OK, well he's the Pope, he knows better than anyone." I would think not. I would think you would climb to the highest rooftop and proclaim this is not so."

In doing so, he would indeed depart from DOCTRINAL truths. Vatican II did not overturn any such doctrines, but rather challenged long- standing dogmas of faith. For a pope to change dogmas, this is part of Papal infallibility (that extends to the point of Divine Revelation), however doctrines are not to be changed and the Eucharist stands upon doctrine. Hence for example, the way we chose popes is not necessarily written in stone from what we perceive, however the Incarnation and Trinity are.

From what we understand and perceive, there are some here who will complain that Vatican II, all of Vatican II, was also dogma and they likely would be right (at least from everything we been taught on this). Yet contrary to popular opinion, we have been taught dogma is binding upon all Catholics unless the pope or the Magisterial Authority appointed by him replaces these. We do not however know if this precludes giving a opposite opinion, however even if this does should we not do so with great humility and a willingness to back down if need be?

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), September 14, 2003.

You say some things as if you're a Catholic, and some:

G-d

HaShem (???)

Yeshua

Shalom

like you're a Jew. Are you a "Jew for Jesus?"

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 14, 2003.

Jmj

Jake,
Mr. and Mrs. Foegen are Catholics who were born into Judaism. I believe that they belong to one of the Catholic groups of "completed Jews" -- the one known as the "Association of Hebrew Catholics." [You must not have been reading too many threads if you are just meeting the Foegens now!]

I am over 50, but the Foegens are the first Catholics I have ever met who have used the stylistic devices that you have listed. I have been wondering if it is proper for them to do so -- and if I can get accustomed to this. At the risk of offending them, I have to say that my preliminary answers to my "wondering" are "no" and "no."
For 2,000 years, Christians, day in and day out, have spoken and fully written the divine names and titles -- Yahweh, Jesus, God. This includes people who were raised in Judaism. It is unnecessary for any Catholics suddenly to break with this custom. Suddenly choosing to use new names in public [especially without even bothering to explain] seems like the action of folks who are arrogating authority to themselves, to force their way upon the rest of us. I find that I frequently cannot even concentrate on what the Foegens have written, because I am so distracted by their stylistic anachronisms.

I believe that "Ha Shem" means "The Name" -- and is another device used to avoid saying "God." When I see "G-d" and "Ha Shem," a subliminal message comes across: "We are holier than Catholics, who don't regard the Lord with enough reverence. We can teach them, though!"
At this forum, we are speaking English, and when Catholics have written in English (for over 500 years), the anglicized Greek form, "Jesus," has been used -- not "Yeshua." There's no reason for this to change, in my opinion.

C & C, I'll grant you "shalom," though.
Although it was difficult for me to follow parts of what you wrote, I think that I did notice that you appear to be transposing the words "dogma" [solemn definition of a truth] and "doctrine" [general word for a "teaching"].

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

[You must not have been reading too many threads if you are just meeting the Foegens now!]

I don't read very many threads. I'm sure that I've stumbled across some of their posts, but admittedly skimmed them and assumed they were from a Jewish person(s).

I believe that "Ha Shem" means "The Name" -- and is another device used to avoid saying "God." When I see "G-d" and "Ha Shem," a subliminal message comes across

To me, big red flags come across; particularly when the same person(s) is not even consistent in their supposed reverence for the name of God. I've seen them use "God," "G-d," and "Yahweh" in the body of the same post. It presents a credibility problem, especially if their intent is, as you suspect, an attempt to correct people who don't know any better.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 15, 2003.

At this point, I'd be interested in *asking* them why they use each term rather than implying their actions are inappropriate. Perhaps there is a nuance in Judaism to use one term or another that as a non- Jew I'm unaware of, and they are just trying to be correct as they were raised. OTOH, it really doesn't bother me if someone says "G-d", I just attribute it to their being raised in another (generally Islamic) faith and to them, this is a sign of *respect*.

I'm suprised that Jake would object, they could also just be trying to be "traditionalists", and not doing anything specifically forbidden and saying they are therefore acting within the will of the Magesterium ;-) . (a joke with a point)

As a Catholic though, I perfer my relationship with Christ to reflect a more personal level by saying "God" "Christ" and "Our Savior" as appropriate.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 15, 2003.

I'm suprised that Jake would object,

I don't object, just questioned the reason for it. However,

they could also just be trying to be "traditionalists", and not doing anything specifically forbidden

Would it follow, then, that the non-Traditionalist thinks it's OK to do things that are "specifically forbidden"?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 15, 2003.

LOL!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 15, 2003.

Shalom Jake,

No, we are not Jews for Jesus, but rather as John already noted, Hebrew Catholics and the terms we use are an outgrowth of our traditions. The term HaShem literally means "the Name" and we use this in reference to His Holy Name (which is sacred) that we don't usually use in common language (few Catholics do) but only in prayer or song. We do this for two reasons; the first being that term HaShem is as natural to us as "Jesus, Mary and Joseph" are to many lay Catholics. The second is because we have run in with those of the Sacred Name cult that treat His Name as common, something our Church strongly condemns (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm as well as Chapter 1 "I believe in G-d the Father" pg.55-57 in the Catechism Cat.203-209).

As for the term "G-d", it also helps denote the difference from other religious groups (pagans, wecans, etc.) who call their deity by the exact same "name" with the same spelling as you commonly use. We do not wish to have any type of related significance to their "god" when we truly desire to praise our G-d yet those without this experience have no reason to do the same.

Yeshua is the Hebrew form for Jesus and is as common for us as Jesu is for Mexicans. The closest meaning to shalom is "peace", but more accurately it is the spirit of the 23rd Psalm and really cannot be translated to English as there is not English word that means the exact same thing, so we use this everywhere for that reason.

Hope this helps and we will be more careful when we write future posts to police the terms we use and if we feel they needed to use one, that we make sure we include a definition in that post as well.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@anglefire.com), September 15, 2003.

Jmj

C & C,
Thanks for the explanatory post. However, I came away still feeling unconvinced.

This is an international forum, wherein people have created threads in (at least) English and Spanish. If you were to create a thread in Hebrew, THEN it would make sense for you to use "Ha Shem" and "Yeshua" and other such words and names. But you have been contributing to English-language threads, in which it is inappropriate (in my opinion) for someone to start using foreign words and names that are bound to be unfamiliar to some. [Remember that these threads will remain online for years, and future readers will probably not have had the chance to read your explanations.] We have had visitors here from Italy, but none of them ever dreamt of writing "Gesu" on an English thread. [Mexicans use Jesus, not Jesu.]

You wrote: "... the terms we use are an outgrowth of our traditions."
But, dear new friends, "traditions" are only customs, and some of them need to be left behind when one makes a radical change in life. I think that I have never before had occasion to say with more appropriateness the following famous words: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." You have come to Rome, o Foegens. Please help us to believe that you are whole-heartedly Catholic (not half-heartedly), by the symbolic act of using the same words and names that the rest of us use.

You wrote: "The term HaShem literally means 'the Name' and we use this in reference to His Holy Name (which is sacred) that we don't usually use in common language (few Catholics do) but only in prayer or song."
I believe that the reason "few [English-speaking] Catholics do" use "Yahweh" is not because we think that we shouldn't use it, but because it doesn't roll off our lips. People find it difficult to say, and its sound doesn't seem to blend into a mix of English words. That's probably why my "inner ear" finds your use of "Yeshua" and "Ha Shem" so jarring. These words/names just don't blend in.

Coming back to "Yahweh" ... I believe I've read that there was no pressing reason for the pre-Christian Jews to stop saying God's name -- "I Am." That is, God himself did not direct them to do it. Instead, the silence (or switch to Adonai, etc.) was a choice that was made by a Jewish leader or priest as an act of piety. For some reason, that private action eventually was imposed on all the Jewish people. But you are now Catholic, and it is no longer imposed on you (even though you may still identify yourselves as Jewish). God expects our reverence, our awe of him, but not the kind of abject, servile fear that is symbolized by being unable even to pronounce a beloved and loving Father's name. Jesus is "God-with-us" -- Immanuel, not a distant, spirit-only God, but a God with a face and a name ("Before Abraham came to be, I am").

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 15, 2003.

Shalom John,

You are correct that we are Hebrew Catholics and this is why we use Hebrew words and idioms, though we usually put in the definitions in places where they are needed. However, occasionally we do forget and for this we do apologize. Also we know of your recent response to us but that was to Jake and this one we planned for you knowing you needed more detailed information. Hopefully this will help you understand our position better.

You also had mentioned:

>>>I am over 50, but the Foegens are the first Catholics I have ever met who have used the stylistic devices that you have listed. I have been wondering if it is proper for them to do so -- and if I can get accustomed to this. >>>

According to the Catechism, we are to give respect and honor to His Holy Name, and it then proceeds to mention the common uses, however it does not prohibit other usages, providing they meet the criteria of the Catechism. Perhaps our group’s declaration may help you to understand more:

“The Association of Hebrew Catholics aims at ending the alienation of Catholics of Jewish origin and background from their historical heritage, by formation of a Hebrew Catholic Community juridically approved by the Holy See.”

>>>For 2,000 years, Christians, day in and day out, have spoken and fully written the divine names and titles -- Yahweh, Jesus, God. >>>

In England, we fully agree, however elsewhere it was common practice prior to Vatican II to use only the Latin references, such as Kyrios. Once these terms were commonly said and the English terms were less common, not to mention that different nations and CULTURES usually maintained the terms of their language. In recent years these groups have come to mourn having done this and more traditional forms are resurfacing from many cultures, not just among Jews.

>>>It is unnecessary for any Catholics suddenly to break with this custom. Suddenly choosing to use new names in public [especially without even bothering to explain] seems like the action of folks who are arrogating authority to themselves, to force their way upon the rest of us. I find that I frequently cannot even concentrate on what the Foegens have written, because I am so distracted by their stylistic anachronisms. >>>

No one is forcing their “way” on anyone, and again, if we have failed to define HaShem or any other idiom, we do apologize. Please just simply bring it to our attention and we’ll be happy to do our best to elaborate. Still if you really find our Hebrew idioms so distracting you “cannot even concentrate”, then perhaps you would prefer that we rewrite it with the English equivalents. Let us know if you need this done.

>>>I believe that "Ha Shem" means "The Name" -- and is another device used to avoid saying "God." When I see "G-d" and "Ha Shem," a subliminal message comes across:

“We are holier than Catholics, who don't regard the Lord with enough reverence. We can teach them, though!" >>>

This is not the intended perception, but it seems more that it is a feeling from within you. We do not force our way upon anyone, for we do believe you have the right to abide the ways and traditions of Church as they are, which we defend using our knowledge of the Jewish traditions and teachings. Also as we explained to Jake, HaShem is not equal in meaning to G-d though some Jews place G-d in its place. The term G-d means “Almighty” or “Mighty” and is not the same as the Holy Name. Further, we often encounter many other religious groups, including cults that use the term “God”, but it is clearly not the same deity as we hold so it also is used to denote that significant difference

>>> At this forum, we are speaking English, and when Catholics have written in English (for over 500 years), the anglicized Greek form, "Jesus," has been used -- not "Yeshua." There's no reason for this to change, in my opinion. >>>

Although we do not seek to force our way upon anyone, it does seem that the same cannot be said towards us, even though we do hold high reverence to our L-rd and His Holy name. And ironically, during the time of our Savior, we are sure His name spoken by the Jews was either Yeshua or Y’hoshua, which our Church even recognizes.

So it seems this has changed over the years, but are you suggesting that no longer is there room to allow it to resurface? Yet, we see presently within our Church ha called for peace and reconciliation, especially after the role her people have played in the Holocaust. This is why we believe G-d called for Nostra Aetate to come into existence, therefore shouldn’t we be a little more alert and careful not to rush to judge Jewish things?

>>>Although it was difficult for me to follow parts of what you wrote, I think that I did notice that you appear to be transposing the words "dogma" [solemn definition of a truth] and "doctrine" [general word for a "teaching"]. >>>>

We do admit that we lack clear understanding of the deference of dogma, which is why we sought a Canon lawyer to explain, and his response is as follows:

“ It is true that Vatican II did not define any doctrine on faith or morals infallibly. Such definitions have to be made explicitly and none were so made in the Council. But this does not mean that its conclusions are not binding on Catholics. Apart from the fact that that Vatican II re-affirmed all that had been definitively taught before, there are also truths taught by the ordinary Magisterium that have not been defined by the extra-ordinary means of the Pope acting ex cathedra or by a General Council. This does not make them any less true.

By and large, dogmatic definitions only arise when a truth is contested, such as the Real Presence by the Protestant Reformers but that does not mean that Catholics prior to Trent were not required to believe in the Real Presence!

The following quotes illustrate the point:

Code of Canon Law

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 892

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

The Pius Xth Society are the followers of the late Archbishop Lefevbre and are sadly in a state of schism. It is to be hoped that the schism may soon be healed. Some members simply have a strong attachment to the Tridentine Mass and some have joined in an over- reaction to 'liberal' liturgical abuses. But there are some who reject parts of Catholic teaching especially with regard to religious freedom; some, especially in France, are adherents to Action Francaise and the political views of Vichy.

Basically, they are a mixed bag, ranging from the misguided to out and out 'nutters' who are sede vacantists, a view that the Society itself rejects.

Finally, there is a distinction between what Vatican II actually said and taught, and what some allege Vatican II said but did not. There certainly have been abuses done in the name of Vatican II, which were never intended or envisaged by the Council Fathers. Pope John Paul has been resolute in proclaiming the authentic teachings of the Council. The true Traditionalist is the one who accepts what Peter says.”

Now, in our perception, if you were to add this to the Scriptural evidence of what we see in the third Fatima prophecy, we fully believe there is no reason for any to reject Vatican II, just because some twist its meanings.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@anglefire.com), September 16, 2003.

Shalom Frank,

We appreciate your comments. By now you may have seen answers to your inquiries in our other posts. But to elaborate further on what may not have been mentioned is that the term G-d, though Jewish (as is L- rd), could have been used by Muslims, but we suspect the origins are still Jewish. However, the reason for this usage (removing the “o”) is a reminder to show respect for His Name in all its forms.

We do not dispute the desire of a close relationship with Christ, though we prefer to use the terms HaMoshiach (the Messiah) or "Goel" (Redeemer). However, we fully respect your preference of saying "God" "Christ" and "Our Savior", for you this expresses your personal level (as the others terms are for us). This is why we believe we should be tolerant of each person’s idiosyncrasies. After all, it is the Eucharist that unites us in Him, not the conforming to every little detail like homogenized milk.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@anglefire.com), September 16, 2003.

C& C,

Thanks. BTW, I didn't mean I thought that Muslims have some claim on saying "G-d", only that my experience *here* has been with them using it. I can see that they could have easily inherited this from Judaism, which is something I've never thought of before.

I also believe that we need to be consistent in obeying the Pope and Magesterium, but other than that are free to worship in the way we feel is most appropriate for us. I have no problem with you using Ha- Shem, etc., but *would* caution you that you may get asked what it means fairly often! There are many people here who only read a thread or two and won't likely have heard your prior explanation.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 16, 2003.

Jmj
Good day, Corey and Carol.

I read your messages to me and to Frank with great attention, but I again did not find them convincing at all. I really don't want to become "Foegen's Foe," but I must elaborate on where I think you're going wrong, placing your words in quotation marks ...

"You are correct that we are Hebrew Catholics and this is why we use Hebrew words and idioms, though we usually put in the definitions in places where they are needed."

Actually, you are not using "Hebrew words and idioms" because you "are Hebrew Catholics," but because it is your will to use them. The words I just quoted make it sound as though you have no choice, but that is not true. You can choose otherwise, and I have been trying to present a case to show why you ought to choose otherwise.

Unless I am much mistaken, you are native speakers of English who have only recently been learning Hebrew. All the more reason that you should be joining us in using your native tongue, English. I think that I could be more tolerant and forgiving of what you have been doing if the use of these Hebrew words/names were somehow second-nature to you. But (again, unless I am much mistaken), these words/names are fairly new to you, and their use doesn't even seem to flow naturally within your prose. As I said last time, even native Italians don't come here using "Gesu," because it is an act of courtesy on their part to use the English "Jesus." Correspondingly, I think that the courteous thing for you to do is not to use "Yeshua."

"Also we know of your recent response to us but that was to Jake and this one we planned for you knowing you needed more detailed information."

Well, no. I don't "need more detailed information." I already had all the information you have provided. I was not writing to inform or to be informed, but to persuade.

[Just a tangential note: At this forum, even though a message seems to be addressed to someone specific, it is always "fair game" for others to respond to. There are no "private conversations" here, since e-mail is available for that. Feel free to say anything you wish in response to whatever I may say to someone else.]

"According to the Catechism, we are to give respect and honor to His Holy Name, and it then proceeds to mention the common uses, however it does not prohibit other usages, providing they meet the criteria of the Catechism."

It "does not prohibit other usages," but you prohibit yourselves from using them, and that is wrong. There is no valid reason for you to isolate yourselves and avoid words/names that are "part and parcel" of Catholicism. It is unnatural, as I think I explained in a previous message.

"'The Association of Hebrew Catholics aims at ending the alienation of Catholics of Jewish origin and background from their historical heritage ..."

"[A]lienation ... from their historical heritage"? Was "alienation from" an improper choice of words? Wouldn't "ignorance of" have been more accurate? I don't see how folks could be "alienated" by someone/something from their Jewish roots. But, by growing up as non-religious (even atheistic) Jews -- as so many do these days -- they could be "ignorant" of their historical heritage. I see nothing wrong with such folks becoming better informed about their "roots," but it should not be taken to the extreme of inserting foreign terms into everyday conversation with non-Jews, as you are doing here. If this kind of thing is favored by the AHC, I wish that you had instead become associated with a group of "completed Jews" called Remnant of Israel, who do not impose Hebrew terms and odd usages [e.g., "G-d"] upon fellow Catholics.

"In England, we fully agree, however elsewhere it was common practice prior to Vatican II to use only the Latin references, such as Kyrios."

When you say "elsewhere," the idea communicated is "everywhere other than England." That would be an entirely innacurate thing for you to say. When you have had a chance to read things written by the Catholic saints of all cultures, through the centuries, you will find that they speak with great tenderness and familiarity to, and about, "God" and "Jesus" and so on -- without any hesitation, self-consciousness, masking of vowels, etc.. Someone has given you a false idea about the Church, if you think that the kind of exaggeration you are promoting has been a part of Catholicism outside of England. When the New Testament was written, there was no omission of the Holy Names -- nor any omission of vowels. You and I should follow suit. We are not pre-Christian Jews following a manmade custom. [PS: Kyrios is Greek for "Lord," rather than Latin. The Greeks and other "easterners" wrote the names "Jesus" (Iesous) and "God" (Theos) on their ancient icons.]

"Still if you really find our Hebrew idioms so distracting you 'cannot even concentrate,' then perhaps you would prefer that we rewrite it with the English equivalents. Let us know if you need this done."

Well, if you are willing to do this, then I see that you do not, as a matter of principle, object to using "English equivalents." That being the case, it makes sense for you to use ONLY the English equivalents, not both Hebrew and English. Please do so. It will save all of us a lot of time and trouble.

"We do not force our way upon anyone, for we do believe you have the right to abide the ways and traditions of Church as they are, which [while?] we defend using our knowledge of the Jewish traditions and teachings."

But you have been "forc[ing]" me to read it and to try to translate it, while simultaneously trying to grasp the main focus of what you are writing. Please allow me to do just the latter.

You correctly say that I "have the right to abide [by] the ways and traditions of [the Catholic] Church as they are". But you have somehow missed the point that those "ways and traditions" are now YOURS too, by virtue of your having become Catholic. If you won't accept them, but instead cling only to "Jewish traditions and teachings," it is as though you don't want to be fully Catholic.

"The term G-d means 'Almighty' or 'Mighty' and is not the same as the Holy Name."

By "the Holy Name," I presume that you mean "Yahweh." If so, I need to surprise you by telling you that, for all intents and purposes, "God" and "Yahweh" are equivalent in Catholic practice. For example, you may be familiar with the hymn that begins, "Yahweh, I know you are near ...". Well, in a Catholic's mind and heart, the same thoughts and feelings would have been evoked if the lyricist had used, "O God, I know you are near ...". In other words, the word, "God," is not a mere title or description to Christians, but has become a name itself.

"Further, we often encounter many other religious groups, including cults that use the term 'God,' but it is clearly not the same deity as we hold so it also is used to denote that significant difference."

This is no problem for Catholics. We know that there really is no other "deity," so one cannot say that "it is clearly not the same deity," as though it were some other deity. The cultists you mention, insignificant in numbers and soon to disappear, believe in a non-entity, and that is their problem. We Catholics say "God" (with a capital "G"), and everyone understands whom we mean, without any confusion. We don't need to further "qualify" the word/name by removing the vowel "o".

"Although we do not seek to force our way upon anyone, it does seem that the same cannot be said towards us ..."

Now, now, don't get so defensive that you stop thinking rationally. I cannot reach through this screen to threaten you and "force" you to do anything. I am only making proposals and providing evidence and arguments -- not using "force." Once we finish talking about this, it will be up to you to exercise your free will, one way or the other. And if, in the end, you opt in the direction I think is wrong, you won't catch me nagging you.

"... during the time of our Savior, we are sure His name spoken by the Jews was either Yeshua or Y’hoshua, which our Church even recognizes."

Even on the very first day you came to this forum, I considered the fact that the Apostles and parents of Jesus called him some form of Yeshua. I immediately realized, however, that this was irrelevant. Christ's Apostles and parents surrounded the name "Yeshua" with other Hebrew or Aramaic words that we now ALSO don't use -- because we speak English! So, I come back to what I said last time ... if you want to use "Yeshua" (etc.), please write fully Hebrew threads. But if you want to write in English or Spanish or French, please use "Jesus."

"So it seems this has changed over the years, but are you suggesting that no longer is there room to allow it to resurface?

For speakers of English (who never said "Yeshua"), it was never "on the surface," so it is not possible for it to "resurface." What is being attempted is not a revival/resurfacing, but a replacement of something perfectly good and well-understood and an insertion of something that is good in a Hebrew context, but extraneous, unnecessary, unhelpful, distracting, and confusing in an English context. We already have what we need, and we understand it. It's only a matter of your adopting it and not trying to replace it.

"... we see presently ... our Church ha[s] called for peace and reconciliation, especially after the role her people have played in the Holocaust. This is why we believe G-d called for Nostra Aetate to come into existence, therefore shouldn't we be a little more alert and careful not to rush to judge Jewish things?"

This is quite unkind and unjustifiable. You are trying to lay an anti-Judaic "guilt trip" on me. It won't work. For many years, I have been a benefactor to Fr. Arthur Klyber and Remnant of Israel, an organization started by former atheist Jewish Americans who now practice Catholicism. I have known of "Nostra aetate" since I was in college in 1970, and I don't need for you to lecture me about it. Contrary to what you have implied, I do not "rush to judge Jewish things." Instead, I calmly try to explain why I think it would be better for certain Hebrew words/names and one manmade Jewish custom (dropping vowels) to remain absent from this forum. What I have done is in no way prohibited by "Nostra aetate" -- a document that did not say, "Catholics, from now on remember that Jewish people (especially Hebrew Catholics) can do no wrong!"

Last time, as you quoted, I wrote "... I think that I did notice that you appear to be transposing the words "dogma" [solemn definition of a truth] and "doctrine" [general word for a "teaching"]."
I have to say that your response to this correction left me confused. I didn't understand why you wanted to quote from a canon lawyer to me concerning what Vatican II did or did not do, what Canon Law and the Catechism have to say, something about the SSPX, etc.. I was already aware of all the things you quoted, and I don't think that I wrote anything that should have motivated you to mention those things. Yikes! I felt as though you were addressing me as some kind of dissenter!

The only topic that I brought to your attention was the simple meanings of the words "dogma" and "doctrine." I believe that, in an earlier post (to Jake?), you used the first word as though it had the meaning of the second -- and vice versa. Are you now able to admit that you accidentally slipped on this, or are you saying that you think that I am wrong? This is important, because you will be using the words "doctrine" and "dogma" in the future, and I want to make sure that you understand what they mean.
You said that the canon lawyer wrote: "It is true that Vatican II did not define any doctrine on faith or morals infallibly." Another way of stating this is to say that the Council Fathers did not raise any doctrine to the level of a dogma.
All teachings are doctrines. Dogmas are the most formally proclaimed, distinctly defined doctrines. But not all doctrines are dogmas. I hope that helps to pinpoint the distinction. If not, we can talk some more.

Frank wrote: "I have no problem with you using Ha-Shem, etc., but *would* caution you that you may get asked what it means fairly often! There are many people here who only read a thread or two and won't likely have heard your prior explanation."

This is one of the several reasons for my recommending that "HaShem, etc." not be used at all. No confusion, no need to ask for explanation, no need to give one.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 16, 2003.