When I started both threads, I had no idea they would become so long and so heated.

If Jesus were in the world today, would he be welcomed by the SSPX? He ate and drank too much according to one scripture passage. He associated with undesireables. He cured on the sabbath. He broke the rules of the establishment.

Vatican II didn't even do that. Have errors occurred in the interpretation of the teachings of Vatican II? Yes. So what!! Errors have a way of correcting themselves -- with a little help from the Spirit.

Did Bishops screw up with the sexual abuse cases. You bet!! But, let me state this, with the knowledge given to some of them by respected psychiatrists and psychologists at the time, they did what they thought was right. It used to be a common belief that pedophilia could be cured or at least effectively treated. We now know that is wrong.

But, you take a Bishop who has been taught and believed deep in his heart that reconciliation is forever possible, combine that with the fact that it's a priest that has sinned, a priest who has sworn to obey that Bishop in all matters, and has alledgedly given his life to God, and add an institution (the institutional Church) who is always vulnerable to liability (as any other "business", in today's world) and you have a powderkeg.

I can not believe that any Bishop would intentionally place a child in harm's way.

But,the buck has to stop somewhere.

As far as the pedophiles go, kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. (Only a saying, remember the 6th commandment!)

But, how do we prevent this situation in the future --

1) Open,transparent dealing by the Church in all matters. The laity are educated, use that education. The clergy would still be the spiritual leaders of the Church. Other denominations do it, it works.

2) Celibacy by chose, not mandate. That would take away that inherent suspicion.

4) Ordination of women to the diaconate. Maybe, Mary would not have to show up so often to correct us, like the wonderful mother she is. My mother was about 5'2". She's been dead about 10 years. I'm still scared of her. LOL! She would smile, also.

3) When a priest abuses his position, make it public. St. Paul stated that -- not me.

I fully expect a long thread on this one...go for it. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 04, 2003

Answers

3 and 4 are backwards, I know. sorry.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 04, 2003.

> "2) Celibacy by choice, not mandate. That would take away that inherent suspicion".

Inherent suspicion? I not aware that there is an inherent suspicion of priests being pedophiles.

I think they should laicize all priests who are known homosexuels, as that would solve 99 percent of the problem. But I think some people see this as mean, and unfair.

Celibacy is always a choice, since if a person feels they cannot be celibate, they are not called to be a priest.

> "Ordination of women to the diaconate."

Of course, that would eventually mean they should be priests, and then Pope. Fine by me, if the Church decides that, but since the Church says this is not allowed, we should leave it alone. Some people are obessed with this, and hound the Church to no end over this.

> "When a priest abuses his position, make it public."

Well the tabloids would sell more copies, as nothing sells better than scandal!

I remember this was a so called solution once somewhere in Ontario (Canada), as they would publicize the names, of those that were caught in a police sting, of men having relations with others in a public washroom. One of the men, who had his named published in the local paper, was married, and so ashamed of what he did, he set himself on fire, and succeeded in burning himself to death. You got to be careful sometimes, as destroying people's reputation for making a mistake, can drive them to suicide. Is this how a compassionate Christ would behave?

Those who are guilty of crimes, like molesting a child, should be handed over to the police, and let things take their course, but the Church should not publicize information, beyond telling the police the details.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.

John, I don't expect Paul John Paul II to do or make any changes in the Church now. Most likely his successor will introduce them.

With changes always occur schisms. Nicea the separation of Catholics and Arians, Ephesus: catholics and Nestorians, the 4th council of Constantinople the schims between East(Greeks) and West Catholics (Romans) Chalcedon: Catholics and monophosites (Armenians, copts..), Council of Trent: separation of Catholics and protestants,Vatican I created the schism of the German bishops, Vatican II the SSPX.

Are we ready for a new schism, John?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (EGONZALEZ@SRLA.ORG), April 04, 2003.

Timothy 5-1

Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching. 18 For the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing," and, "A worker deserves his pay." 19 Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. 20 Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid. ***************************************************8 I didn't make it up. It's in scripture. As for schism, I have found in my studies that the Church has always had different factions. Even Roman Catholic is an oxymoron. God Bless.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 04, 2003.

What is the solution to the shortage of priests in the United States?

And no, I do not want the U.S. to become a "mission country".

God Bless, John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 04, 2003.

Hi John I have no problems with any of your points and think theyre logical progressions that will occur in my lifetime. God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.

When I started both threads, I had no idea they would become so long and so heated.

Uh huh.

He ate and drank too much according to one scripture passage.

What Bible are you reading?

Have errors occurred in the interpretation of the teachings of Vatican II? Yes. So what!! Errors have a way of correcting themselves -- with a little help from the Spirit.

THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER. THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME.

I can not believe that any Bishop would intentionally place a child in harm's way.

To those who don't believe, no proof is sufficient, I suppose.

I fully expect a long thread on this one...go for it. God Bless,

You really seem to enjoy baiting the hook & watching all the fish bite.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 05, 2003.

I don't think discussion in the Church about women deacons has ended yet, but I'm certain that it has for priests. The biggest problem that we have is simply the dearth of information about Phoebe. Whatever happens, I will be counted amongst those of simple faith in the Magisterium.

I think the priestly promise of celibacy should remain. And I think all of my seminarian brothers here would agree. From a simple perspective, people simply don't want priests who are "just like everybody else." Celibacy is the jewel in the crown of the Catholic Church; let's not do anything regrettable with that, eh?

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.

Phoebe notwithstanding, the Pope has declared that the church does not have the authority to ordain women. Deacons are ordained clergy, so they are covered under that teaching.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 05, 2003.

> "the Pope has declared that the church does not have the authority to ordain women."

Really? I always thought this was up to the Church.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 05, 2003.

the Pope has declared that the church does not have the authority to ordain women. Since when has that made a difference? Really, every liturgical abuse you witness in your parishes started as an illicit practice to which the bishops turned a blind eye. Time wnt by, people swallowed it, the bishops clamored, and Rome caved. Why would the "ordination" of priestesses and deaconettes be any different?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 05, 2003.

Dear jake,

The "ordination of women" is entirely different from liturgical abuse. In the case of liturgical abuse, the Church tells us we "may not" do certain things, or we "must do" certain things within the context of liturgy. It is possible to act in disobedience to the authority of the Church, and illicitly do what we are forbidden to do, or omit what we are commanded to include. But most such abuses, while they constitute sins of disobedience to lawful authority, and in some cases sacrilege, do not invalidate the Mass, or more specifically, the Eucharist. It is of course possible to do something so gravely illicit that it does invalidate the Eucharist. My point however is that most liturgical abuses consist of disobedience to what the Church says we MUST do, or MAY NOT do. The Church does not say it is IMPOSSIBLE to do such things, and the fact that some people ignore the Church and do them anyway indicates that such actions are not impossible, just illicit.

In contrast, the Pope has categorically proclaimed that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Church to ordain women, because that power was not given to the Church by God, and therefore does not exist within the Church. It isn't a matter of allowing or forbidding a certain action. Of course, there is nothing to stop a bishop from going through the actions of ordaining a woman, and a few have done so. But in spite of the sins of disobedience and sacrilege inherent in such an action, the greater issue is that no ordination occurs as a result of such an action. It is something that CANNOT happen, not just something that should not, or may not happen.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 05, 2003.

the Pope has categorically proclaimed that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Church to ordain women, because that power was not given to the Church by God, and therefore does not exist within the Church.

The Pope could rescind this for whatever reason he wished, or a future Pope could abbrogate it. You surprise me, frankly. I would have thought you would say that the Pope has full authority over liturgical matters (binding & loosing & such). So, the discussion is not over until either a true infallible pronouncement is made, or the fat lady sings, and she's practising her scales as we speak.

The Pope, under all but the most explicit and rare circumstances, can and has made decisioons concerning liturgical discipline that have been not only unwise, but harmful.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 05, 2003.

The Pope does have full authority over liturgical matters, and yes, some poor decisions have been made. Liturgical form is not subject to infallibility. Also, some decisions were made that were appropriate for the time in which they were made, but inappropriate or inadequate to meet the needs of the Church at a later time. None of which has the slightest bearing on the issue of ordaining women; or rather, the non-issue, since the matter has been closed for all time.

The words of the Pope didn't leave much to the imagination:

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Jesus to the Pope: "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven".

Still, in case the Pope's words left room for doubt in the minds of some, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following followup commentary:

"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren, has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."

That is the end of the discussion, the end of the issue, even if some people don't wish to recognize it as such. No article of the faith has ever been abbrogated by any subsequent pontiff, or ever will be; and what a sorry state the Church would be in if that were not so!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 05, 2003.

No article of the faith has ever been abbrogated by any subsequent pontiff, or ever will be;

The problem there is whether or not the Pope's words in this matter will be judged by history as rising to the level of an "article of faith." This was not an issue of faith & morals, after all, but of liturgical discipline.

I'm sure Pope St. Pius V never imagined that what he had to say regarding liturgical matters would one day be completely and utterly cast aside, without even being expressly abrogated:

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force...

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 06, 2003.

Jake, I read the New American Bible most of the time, although at times, I read other translations (interpretations) to get a broader picture.

The passage to which I referenced is:

Matthew 11

19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, 'Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners..."

Granted, I used that passage to show that Jesus associated with "undesireables" and put himself in positions that "righteous" people of his time did not.

It has amazed me lately how this forum has become not a place to find Catholic answers, as it used to be, but rather a forum for debate.

You're right, I have started some debates. Some, I'm not proud of. I keep hoping that some of the people who post will open there minds and hearts to other views. But, sometimes it's frustrating. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. All you do is frustrated yourself and annoy the pig.

In my heart,I wish that everyone would think about what the true message of the Gospel was/is.

Jesus made no new statements of doctrine or dogma. He advocated no new theology. He only advocated the love of God rather than the Old Testament view of an angry God.

All statements of doctrine, all arguments of what was meant by his presence on earth, came later.

It's akind to attending a meeting, listening to the greatest speaker you have ever heard, then having someone tell you, "I know what he said, now I'll tell you what he REALLY meant."

From my heart,I wish people would recognize the simplicity of Christ's message. LOVE YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND ALL YOUR MIND, AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. God Bless.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 06, 2003.

The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, 'Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners..."

I see. You twisted the Scripture to suit your own purpose, which was to say that Sacred Scripture says that Our Blessed Lord was a sinner. Any of the first Communion students in my church's Catechism class could tell you that the passage you cited were the words of the Jews of the time, accusing our Lord of sin, which you echo here. They were trying to make Him look bad by calling him names. There were liberals back then, too; and there's nothing new under the sun.

Granted, I used that passage to show that Jesus associated with "undesireables" and put himself in positions that "righteous" people of his time did not.

I don't think that was your purpose at all, and now I think you're backpedaling.

It has amazed me lately how this forum has become not a place to find Catholic answers, as it used to be, but rather a forum for debate...

...You're right, I have started some debates. Some, I'm not proud of.

That doesn't stop you from being a catalyst for that process.

sometimes it's frustrating. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. All you do is frustrated yourself and annoy the pig.

Tell me about it.

From my heart,I wish people would recognize the simplicity of Christ's message. LOVE YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND ALL YOUR MIND, AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.

There's more to loving God than being warm and fuzzy. Almighty God is not some kind of big John Lennon in the sky. He expects things of us. He has a right to expect things of us. He is not our Buddy, and He's not "one of the guys." He is Who Is. He created us out of nothing, and we owe Him everything.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 06, 2003.

You're wrong Jake, being warm and fuzzy toward others is exactly what God wants. I'll try harder. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 06, 2003.

being warm and fuzzy toward others is exactly what God wants

The defense rests, Your Honor.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 06, 2003.

LOVE YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND ALL YOUR MIND, AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.

But what exactly do you think Our Lord meant by "love", John?

Our Lord's concept of "love", I believe, is far different than ours - or yours, rather. Handing out hugs, handshakes, compliments, social pleasantness, and....ahem..."warm fuzzies" are nice things without real, honest substance.

The true meaning of the love Our Lord was referring to has more to do with correcting those in error and guiding them toward Him and His Church. Too many Catholics will bend way over backwards to avoid stepping on their neighbor's toes so as not to 'make waves' and 'offend' him in his beliefs - even when we know the neighbor's beliefs offend God terribly. Doing so robs the neighbor of getting to know God and His Church, and the "nice" guy misses out on two golden opportunities: Pleasing his Lord and giving the gift of true love.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 07, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, folks. Some odds 'n' ends ...

QUOTE (from John Placette): "... how do we prevent this situation in the future? ... Celibacy by choice, not mandate."

COMMENT: Catholic priests of the Western/Latin rite already are celibate "by choice." They make the choice before entering the seminary. The word "mandate" implies force, but the Church never forces a man who wants to get married to enter the seminary. [PS: John P, are you a convert from Protestantism? I ask for two reasons: (a) you referred to the commandment against killing as the "sixth," rather than the "fifth"; and (b) you referred favorably to something done by "other denominations," though the Catholic Church is not a denomination. No offense intended by my asking.]

QUOTE (from J.P.): "Ordination of women to the diaconate."

COMMENT: In the 1980s, I thought that the Church might approve of this, but I no longer do. Here is a short article on the subject. The article leaves the final decision (after several years of Vatican study) "up in the air," but I think that the article contains a pretty clear hint of the way the Church will discern. It even seems pretty clear from these words of the Catechism:
"1577 Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible."
[Skoobouy, my recollection is that the best available research points to the likelihood that Phoebe and other "deaconesses" of the early Church were not "ordained," but installed especially to help bishops with the baptism of women (immersed in the nude).]

THANK YOU, PAUL, for your lucid and complete presentation of the facts regarding the infallible Church teaching on ordination (being reserved to males).

QUOTE (from Jake-1): "The problem there is whether or not the Pope's words in this matter will be judged by history as rising to the level of an 'article of faith.' This was not an issue of faith & morals, after all, but of liturgical discipline."

COMMENT: You couldn't be more mistaken, Jake-1. Paul showed, via quotations, that this is indeed "an issue of faith & morals," and not "of liturgical discipline." It has to do with what Jesus himself decided (and why) with regard to the ministerial priesthood. The language used by the pope (and especially Cardinal Ratzinger) makes it 100% clear that we have an infallible teaching (on a matter of faith), unchangeable by "history" (i.e., a future pope). One cannot even dream of making a comparison between this firm, perpetually true, doctrinal proclamation and the disciplinary decree of Pope St. Pius V (who lacked the power to bind future popes on the elements of a liturgical rite). [I realize that you believe differently, Jake, but the Church says that you are wrong, and that's good enough for me.]

God bless you.
John
PS: Folks please use a final initial ("P" or "G") to distinguish between me and John P. Thanks.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 08, 2003.

Novus Ordo Sect Pastor Turns Church into Nightclub The "Nightclub Mass" at Monsignor Comedian's Parish As Pope Paul VI himself had to admit, the New Order will "auto- destruct" (his "infallible" words). Just look at the recent Commentaries about what is going on in Novus Ordo parishes and with Novus Ordo bishops. The aberrancies used to be whether to kneel or stand receiving communion; whether to kneel or stand at the Canon -- excuse me -- Eucharistic prayer. The Novus Ordo has gone far beyond that now to the realm of madness. These people have lost their Catholicism (that is clear), but is the Devil leading them to lose their minds as well?

What's the latest? Monsignor James Reynolds runs a 300-seat nightclub on his Pompano Beach, Florida, parish grounds, and he himself entertains there as Lord of the Lounge Lizards (sounds blasphemous to me). This 78-year-old nut is the opening act for its professional Vegas-style floor shows, modeled after the Copacabana in New York. At the laborate, mirror-backed bar, two bartenders dispense beer, wine, martinis and other drinks.

I know what the conservative members of the Novus Ordo sect will say. "Where is the archbishop? He must not know anything about this." Oh really? As a matter of fact it was Miami Archbishop Edward McCarthy who originated the idea!

And this is the perverted, unCatholic "hierarchy" to which the indultarians think they have to kowtow for "approval" of Traditional Latin Masses? Well, the indultarians are barking up the wrong tree. They should be asking for "approval" for a nightclub mass! The answer from the Novus Ordo archbishop will be a resounding Yes!

The monsignor admits: "We got 500 letters. About half approved; the other half thought we were going to hell on horseback." Well, monsignor, the day of reckoning will come for you very shortly, and your saddle is ready.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 08, 2003.

You couldn't be more mistaken, Jake-1.

Believe me, JFG; I hope I am mistaken. My comment was not so much a statement of my own opinion on the matter of ordination of women as it was speculation on what current and future proponents of that movement would use to justify their position.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 08, 2003.

John G., Youre right again. Catholic is not a denomination.

I grew up Roman Catholic, was exposed to a variety of denominations, and returned (formally) to the Catholic Church. I am very active now.

As for the 6th commandment reference: For whatever reason, I have always had trouble memorizing numerical orders. In this case, I clicked on the first 10 commandments to which I came and referenced from there.

Too many times, I get in a hurry or respond "off the top of my head". When I do, it usually gets me in trouble. I try to make corrections and apologize when this happens.

By mandated celibacy, I mean that in order for a man to be a priest the must take a vow of celibacy. (I do recognize that a bishop may make exceptions).

What is inconsistant in my opinion is the treatment of married men who have converted; such as a married Episcopal priest who converts and is subsequently ordained or whose ordination is reaffirmed in the Roman Catholic Church.

Granted, a person does always retain personal choses. And I'm not saying that celibacy as a chose, is wrong by any means.

One of the problems, I think, is the recruitment of priests. Many times, priests are "recruited" by vocational directors and encouraged from a young age, maybe too young.

I saw an explanation by a psychologist that went something like this: You take a young man who has budding homosexual tendencies or sexual perversions (pedophilia). He knows he is different from the other young men around him. He knows what he feels is wrong and he suppresses those feelings. He comes from a religious family and the family encourages his religious participation. He may, in his emotional immaturity, misinterpret his suppression of feelings, feelings of difference and lack of interest in the opposite sex, as a calling.

Later in life, these tendencies manifest themselves, of course, at a cost to all around him.

How can something like this be prevented? As always, John G., thanks for the corrections.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 08, 2003.

disciplinary decree of Pope St. Pius V (who lacked the power to bind future popes on the elements of a liturgical rite).

As we have been discussing on this thread & others, Popes are not infallible in the exercise of their legislative power; they are capable of enacting both foolish and bad laws, of commanding that which is foolish and that which is sinful, and of acting imprudently. Quo Primum couldn't remove the possibility that, at some future time, a Pope may attempt to alter the Mass radically, or even to abolish it. Its main concern is to put the Mass in the hands of him who is least likely to desecrate it or to allow others to do so (the Pope).

From the time Pius V issued this decree until very recently, no one questioned its validity. Many folks nowadays, not understanding it clearly, have presumed to disregard its uncompromising language and claim that, as a "merely ecclesiastical law," it could be abrogated by any of the successors of Pius V.

Perhaps they will be checked somewhat in their offhandedness by being challenged to find an explicit admission from Pope Paul VI that he considers this law either revocable or to have been revoked by himself.

It can also be said that no one haf ever suggested that the Saint was over-reaching his Papal authority by codifying the Roman Mass, or by doing so in such clear terms. No one was startled or surprised when he issued Quo Primum, and the Church in his day accepted it without quarrel or difficulty. It is only since the issuance of the Novus Ordo of Pope Paul VI that many Catholics have begun to question its validity. They do this out of their need to reconcile Quo Primum with the N.O. and with the murmurings of their own consciences.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 08, 2003.

Ed, your biggest problem, is that you think every liberal abuse in the Church is result of the Novus Ordo. Saying things like "Novus Ordo Archbishop" just cements this absurd nonsense that you are always spewing. It's crazy how you just have post in so many threads repeating this nonsense over and over again, and yet not one complaint will ever come out your mouth, on an Archbishop who disobeyed the Pope directly, simply because he has "perserved" some old rituals that make you happy.

Novus Ordo does not equal liberalism! The two are seperate. You want crackdowns on liberals, which I agree, but you never want crackdowns on so called traditionalists who openly disobey the Pope. That's hypocritical.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Mahony Resisting Disclosure Mon Mar 3,12:07 PM ET Add Local - Los Angeles Times to My Yahoo!

By William Lobdell and Richard Winton

Citing 1st Amendment protections, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony is resisting the disclosure of scores of his communications sought by prosecutors and attorneys working on sexual abuse cases.

The strategy is a switch for Mahony, who has cultivated the reputation of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles as openly confronting the church's sexual abuse scandal.

Last May, threatened with a grand jury investigation, Mahony vowed to give law enforcement officials documents tied to molestations by his priests. "We want every single thing out, open and dealt with, period," he said.

Last week, however, Mahony's lawyers began asserting the prelate's privilege in Los Angeles civil court, as they had the week before in criminal proceedings in Ventura and Los Angeles counties. They are arguing that priest-bishop confidentiality is a foundation of the Catholic religion, and that interfering in that violates the free exercise of religion.

Full story at Los Angeles Times

Gordon this Cardnal is one of the prize examples to come out of V2.This man is also an appointment of JP2. How could a good pope appoint so many clunkers... It has to be deliberate, or extremely incompetent. One thing I give JP is that he is not incompetent. Why should ABP. Lefebvre have trusted him.. FSSP trusted , and now are paying, so did the Campos bishop. Trust? no indeed. Bishop Williamson knows the score.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Forty-six Christian churches asked to consider unity plan

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- A plan to foster a greater united Christian witness in the United States has been sent to 46 Christian church bodies for consideration. The proposal for what is provisionally called Christian Churches Together in the U.S.A. outlines a vision for the most inclusive Christian organization ever in the United States, said a Feb. 28 news release from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The news release outlined the proposal and quoted from supporters, including Cardinal William H. Keeler of Baltimore. "Please God, we are moving toward creating an instrument that will help make more visible the spiritual bonds among Christians in the United States," said the cardinal. Do these bihops truly believe that the Catholic church is the one true church? I don't think so.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

(AP Photo) N.H.: Church 'Willfully Blind' to Abuse Diocese of Manchester Was 'Willfully Blind' to Danger of Molesting Priests, N.H. Report Says

The Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. March 3 — For decades, leaders of the Diocese of Manchester were "willfully blind" to the danger that molesting priests posed to children, state prosecutors said Monday in a long-awaited report.

Even when priests admitted sexual misconduct with minors, Roman Catholic officials sometimes did nothing to restrict the perpetrator's conduct and failed to monitor him, the 154-page report from the state attorney general's office said.

The report, laying out evidence the state would have used against the diocese in a criminal case, was accompanied by roughly 9,000 pages of church documents, including personnel files and correspondence. Some more of the pope's "good men"Gordon, please come into the real world.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Catholic Group asks the Faithful to Join in Protest Read protest brochure (Adobe Acrobat Required) Fr. Richard Sparks, a well-known modernist heretic and blasphemer, has been invited to the diocese of San Jose to give a series of lectures on "Catholic" moral teaching. This, of course, is a joke – since Fr. Sparks is about as Catholic as Saddam Hussein. He has only denigrated and criticized traditional Catholic morality. Among other blasphemies, he has suggested that Jesus fondled Mary Magdalene and she fondled Him. That Our Lady and St. Joseph fondled each other. That homosexuality in not only normal and healthy but actually a "God given gift". His heresies regarding morality are too numerous to cite here. The point is that in the midst of one sex scandal after another by perverted priests and the bishops who harbor them, the diocese of San Jose is being subjected to another sexual pervert that seems so obsessed with sex that he can't seem to stop talking about it, and all within the context of furthering the agenda of the sexual revolution. He believes in a woman's "right" to choose and is the priest moderator for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender group at Newman Hall/Holy Spirit Parish in Berkeley, CA. Gordon, And we are the schismatics? And this guy is still a priest in good standing... Smell the coffee. Why isn't this bird out on the sidewalk right now? And what kind of Catholic would listen to his drivel? No traditional would. fact is he might need an ambulance. Gordon.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Ed, some of your criticisms are good, and some are questionable. You complain to me, like I agree with abuses in the faith, and I don't. I know our Pope does not agree it also. Our Pope is a considered conservative, and even has a long history of appointing conservative religious to positions of Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals. To make the claim he is liberal, and supports liberals makes no sense! If that was the case, he would never appoint conservative Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals! As matter of fact, if the Pope was so liberal, he would be loved by the liberals in the Church, but he is hated by them!

Ed, you trying to spin a yarn, and hook something on the Pope which makes no sense!

For example, almost everything you list about Fr. Richard Sparks, the Pope speaks out against. If he was a liberal, why would he do that? You see, your argument holds no water! It's full of holes!

Continue slandering the Pope with lies Ed, as in the end you will answer for it, along with you schismatic excommunicated buddy Lefebvre.

Who's the better man, you or our Pope? It's not even a contest, Pope John Paul II, is the man!!! May God protect him all the days of his life.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Gordon, Where are all these "conservative" cardinals and bishops. Give me one name, just one. Why are all these "conservatives" allowing the horrible sacrilege and abuses, and coverups?....I will not settle for what is said but for what is done. Just one name Gordon, just one! Ratzinger maybe? I don't think so. Yhe pictures that Jake and Isabel posted, show what is going on. These bishops are killing the Church and you are covering for them. As for the pope, I said before ,he speaks like a humanitarian, but then acts like a flaming liberal. He is not what we wish that he would be, but what he really is.I can only judge his acts and not his soul. That is for God alone to do. I can, and do pray for him.

-- Ed Richards (loztr@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Ed, Archbishop Exner of Vancouver is a very conservative bishop, and so is the newly consecrated Bishop Monroe of Kamloops (former Msgr Monroe of Vancouver). I know both of these men personally, for a long time, and am proud to say they are good men, and both of their positions appointed by the Holy Father.

> "Ratzinger maybe? I don't think so."

And what do you mean by that?

> "The pictures that Jake and Isabel posted, show what is going on."

You mean, one of the pictures, which I haved PROVED to be an outright lie against the Holy Father?

The picture in question, had the caption:

"John Paul II being anointed with the pagan "Sign of the Tilak"."

I already indicated in other thread, that the caption under that picture is an outright lie, which you continue to promote. You can read about it here again.

People who post links to those pictures, and who continue to say that our Holy Father was anointed with the pagan sign of the tilak, are committing a very grevious sin of slander, that's based on a lie.

You know, when people have to resort to lying against the Holy Father, I take everything they say with a grain of salt, as I cannot trust what they say. It your cause is so just, why do you have to resort to lying?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Interestng article Gordon. Even given, if he is correct {and I don't entirely buy it}, because Loughlin is just as much an excuser for the pope,s actions, as the others are accusers.Thin Vatican has their spin doctors, perhaps a lot better than anyone else.One thing they cannot cover is the pope praying with Jews, Moslems,Budhists,Shintos, and Lutherans. Heretics all... That gives greeat scandal to the Church, and causes an indifferent behaviour for Caatholcs that trust him. "If he can do it why can't I". Why can't I marry a Moslem, or a Jew or anyone else? Raise my kids Caatholic? No big deal if I don't. Catch the trend? Bad business Gordon, bad business.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Therefore neither media nor people are essentially to blame. We come back to the churchmen. And if, as said, men who are Catholic priests have in all times and places given proof of their human weakness, then what is special about today's problem is its scale. The sin of h— amongst priests seems to be no longer scattershot but rather systemic. And, what angers so many people, it seems to have been systematically swept under the carpet by the higher clergy.

Alas, it is notorious that for tens of years now the Catholic Church has been infiltrated in the USA by h—s. Back in the 1980's, Fr. Enrique Rueda published his book "The h— network" to document this fact with a mass of evidence. Today one learns that the mainstream seminaries are riddled with h— professors and h— seminarians. As one bishop recently commented, a first step in cleaning up the present mess would be to "de-lavenderise" the seminaries. Another bishop commented how apprehensive are normal (i.e. "straight") young men of entering the U.S. seminaries today, for fear of being harassed by these perverts who are protected by the system!The Catholic Hierarchy ha an internal disease, and if the antidote is not taken soon it will die. But who will administer the antidote?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Today, many Catholics would raise an exception to the defined dogma, and constant teaching of the Church, that only those who die as Catholics will be saved. They say that people can be saved as non- Catholics if they have not sufficiently heard the gospel so to recognise its truth, without culpable neglect on their part. "But if it is no fault of their own that they do not know the Church, they can be saved," they say. Thus the dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, "outside the Church there is no salvation," as always believed and infallibly taught by the Church is contradicted and negated. The error is encouraged by the new Catechism. It says: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church [...] - these too may be saved." (Lumen Gentium) This, of course, is fine, so long as "may be saved" is taken in the future tense, to mean that they may be saved if they later become Catholics; but John Paul II and his liberal clergy use it in an heretical sense that people "may be saved" if they continue to not know the gospel and die as unbelievers. We will see, from authoritative sources, that it is entirely contrary to Catholic faith and teaching to say that those that die 'invincibly ignorant' of the faith can be saved: it is actual heresy, and is to be openly rejected by all the faithful.

But first, we will state the modernist argument alleged to render the novelty acceptable to those alert enough to know that the Church has always previously taught that only Catholics can be saved, with no exceptions. Apologists of the heresy of salvation for those that die in 'invincible ignorance', often state that the Church has only gradually come to consider that many people "do not have the opportunity" to accept the gospel. They ridiculously propose that the Church always thought that every single person in the world, without exception, had an opportunity to be sufficiently instructed in the faith so as to recognize its truth. For them, this theory changes everything, or specifically the faith. If the Church had known of their plight, they say, it would never have said what it said about salvation. Of course, this is if they acknowledge that the Church has traditionally taught that no non-Catholic can be saved if he dies as such, and then the truth is conceded to, as the doctrine of the faith can never change; the Church teaches what God has revealed, not theories based on the latest 'considerations.' Anyway, there is ample evidence that the Church has perennially considered the 'invincibly ignorant' when discussing salvation. I shall document and discuss some of this evidence, along with the Church's infallible ex cathedra definitions of that only those that die as Catholics can be saved. Then, the concept of 'invincible ignorance' will be placed into the correct doctrinal and historical perspective. We shall see that the theory of salvation for those dying in 'invincible ignorance' is actual heresy against the Catholic faith; and that it is nonsense to say that the Church had not previously considered the 'invincibly ignorant.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 11, 2003.

The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church is the only true Church of Jesus Christ. It is error to believe that men can find the path of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation in the practice of any religion whatsoever. It is error to believe that Protestantism is nothing other than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is permitted to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. (Ven. Pope Pius IX)

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 11, 2003.

It is correct to recognize Protestant churches as forms of Christianity, since Christ is their focus, and Catholicism is the source of their true doctrine. However, we must recognize that they are incomplete forms of Christianity, whose denominational identity is defined by that specific measure of Christian truth they have each rejected. Therefore, the expression "a different form of the same true Christian religion" is probably a confusing description, as it could be taken to mean "a different form of Catholicism". However, each of the myriad forms of Protestantism is based upon a partial version of that body of truth, the fullness of which defines Catholicism. That part of the truth which they have retained is just as true for them as it is for Catholics. The problem of course, is the specific truths they have rejected, and the human traditions with which they have replaced many truths.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 11, 2003.

As an ecumenical Roman Catholic, let me use a quote I used just recently (by Max Lucado), "When we get to heaven, we may all be surprised by who is there, and who isn't". God Bless, John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 11, 2003.

As an ecumenical Roman Catholic, let me use a quote I used just recently (by Max Lucado), "When we get to heaven, we may all be surprised by who is there, and who isn't".

As an UN-ecumenical Roman Catholic traditionalist, I echo the quote above.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 12, 2003.

I believe the neo-correct version, in my case, would be the logical inverse deduction:

"When I get to Hell, I may all be surprised by who is there, and who isn't."

Of course, based on the fact that I don't have the fullness of the understanding of the interpretation of the dialogue about the truth.

Did you catch all that? Surely this is damnable.

At rate we're going, I could have the whole place to myself. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 12, 2003.

Surely this is damnable.

JFG sould be along shortly to confirm.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 12, 2003.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 12, 2003.

Protestants say, "When I get to Heaven". Catholics say, "If I get to Heaven".

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

These Catholics believe that the church was taken over by pro-communist, Jewish, Protestant, Zionist, Satanic, and/or Freemason forces at a series of meetings of all the world's bishops known as the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II, that ran from 1962 to 1965. It was at these meetings that Roman Catholicism toned down its age-old war of attrition against the world's other religions and attempted to bring several of its own rites up to date. Among other things, the mass that had been elaborated at the Council of Trent between 1545 and 1563, known as the Tridentine Mass, was changed and the use of languages other than Latin was approved.From thence it was all downhill. Speaking of Vatican 2, how many souls have been lost because of its "watered down" faith.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

john placette

Jesus made no new statements of doctrine or dogma. He advocated no new theology. He only advocated the love of God rather than the Old Testament view of an angry God.

That Jesus taught nothing new is heretical. Especially see condemned theses number 5 below.

QUOTE

"On account of these doctrines (quoted below), which clearly contain the quintessence of Pelagianism, Caelestius was summoned to appear before a synod at Carthage (411); but he refused to retract them, alleging that the inheritance of Adam's sin was an open question and hence its denial was no heresy. As a result he was not only excluded from ordination, but his six theses were condemned.

1)Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died. 2)Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race. 3)Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall. 4)The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.

5)The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.

6)Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin." Catholic Encyclopedia

UNQUOTE

If by that statement above, you have issues with the proclamation of dogma by the Church, you are in good company. That is the earmark of a Modernist, the ultimate enemy of the Church. If I am wrong than this is for anyone who might misread your statement.

QUOTE

"...the name of "essential" modernism. What is this error? It is nothing less than the perversion of dogma. ... But no real modernist keeps the Catholic notions of dogma intact. Are you doubtful as to whether a writer or a book is modernist in the formal sense of the word? Verify every statement about dogma; examine his treatment of its origin, its nature, its sense, its authority. You will know whether you are dealing with a veritable modernist or not, according to the way in which the Catholic conception of dogma is travestied or respected." Catholic Encyclopedia

UNQUOTE

It has amazed me lately how this forum has become not a place to find Catholic answers, as it used to be, but rather a forum for debate

As if there is something wrong with debate? Debate is essential. Jesus himself debated with the scribes and Pharisees. If we can't have a regulated discussion than what is the point of the gift of human reason?

All you do is frustrate yourself and annoy the pig

Be careful of unintentional name calling in the expression of your frustration to the public forum.

He may, in his emotional immaturity, misinterpret his suppression of feelings, feelings of difference and lack of interest in the opposite sex, as a calling.

Good point. Recovered homosexuals should not be ordained. Nor should recovered alcoholics or addicts. (let alone active ones)

I thought I'd end on a positive note for you. I don't take issue with everything you said.

>;-)

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 12, 2003.

As the "conservatives" would have it, even if a Pope were, for the sake of "dialogue" among religions, to command that all of our children study and learn the tenets of the Hindu and Islamic religions, we would – if I am understanding the "conservative" position correctly – be on a "dangerous trajectory towards schism" if we suspended obedience to this papal command. Likewise, according to our accusers, we are schismatics in fact because we resist and oppose the scandalous ecumenical waltzes with heretics being staged almost weekly at the Vatican. Another example: the Pope recently called for outlawing the death penalty because it is cruel and unusual, and said that "the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil." (L’Osservatore Romano, weekly edition, February, 1999, p.8) What? Are we now schismatics if we hold fast to the constant teaching of the Church that the state has the right and even the duty to impose the death penalty for a sufficiently grave offense?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

The ordination of women to the priesthood and to the diaconate if anything, has accelerated the decline of mainstream protestant denominations, especially with so many of the Protestant ministers and deacons spewing eco-feminist ideology.

As for the SSPX, what is your problem with them? Yes, their status with Rome is illregular, but these people are faithful to Catholic doctirnes and Dogmas, and if you ever see a SSPX parish, these people stick by each other and help each other when in need, and when it comes to being charitable, they donate a far higher percentage of their income to their parish than most typical diocean Catholics.

As for celibacy, I would not have a problem if celibacy ended, if it is handled the way Easteren Christians handle it, that is Bishops have to be celibate, and a man has to be allready married before being ordained. Also, with Catholics only donating 1% of their income or less to Sunday collection plates, they can not sustain married clergy.

-- John Bianco (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

John Bianco

they donate a far higher percentage of their income to their parish than most typical diocean Catholics.

Protestants often donate more than Catholics also. But that doesn't mean we ought to imitate them or treat them as equals in the faith. What is their motivation? Money "donations" in these cases may be something the congregation presents to validate its position. I have heard of Protestant pastors leaving congregations for another one because they pay him more at the new one. So maybe now I will be motivated to become an SSPX member with the hopes that I will make more money and still fulfill my "call".

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 12, 2003.

There are no SSPX members, they are simpily Roman Catholics. Do I agree with all of the SSPX tactics? Nope, and I do not attend SSPX chapels. That said, I have been to a SSPX chapel, talk to be who do attend SSPX chapels, and the clergy and laity there have far more zeal one would find at a typical diocean parish. As for being paid, what doe sthat have to do with anything Mike? The People at SSPX parish simpily have higher donations simpily to maintain and staff the parish, so they can have a refuge from the liturgical insanity.

As for a call, I will say this, per capita, Traditional Catholics produce more seminarians than any other Catholic group. Again, I do not agree with all the SSPX stances and tactics. I think there is value to having most of the liturgy in the Vernacular and I fully accept Vatican II as a valid council of the church. I will also say this, Evangelical Christians have a more balanced view of Social Justice than most "Peace & Justice" Catholics. The former base their views on Peace and Justice on the scriptures, the later base their views on Secular Humanism.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

Not more money Mike, just more of the truth, less of the nonsense, and less of the scandals.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

John B.

As for being paid, what does that have to do with anything Mike?

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep." John 10:11-13

And we know the shepherd is worth a reward of some kind, that is in scripture also, but we see here from John 10 that the money issue is not to dominate the shepherd's decision in how or if he will shepherd and do it well.

So the "being paid" topic has much to do with Christ's Gospel message. And you brought it up in mentioning the larger donations that SSPX groups collect.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 12, 2003.

I brought that up to point out that many acccuse traditional Catholics of being uncharitable, that is why I brought that up, and I simpily will point out is that is simpily untrue. Traditional Catholics donate alot to run the parish, and help each other, a community feel that too many suburban parish' lack.

-- John_B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.

OK thank you for clearing that up.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 13, 2003.

There have been factions, sects, cults, etc. forever.

Jesus' teachings were simple. He did not fit the catagories of the time: Pharisee, sadducee, zeolot, essene.

He was neither legalistic nor revolutionary.

My assessment is not heretical. Jesus' teachings were not a departure from Jewish religious law.

On the SSPX issue, let me ask a question:

If the ordinations conducted by the lineage of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre since 1968 are valid, are the ordinations conducted by Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa since 1945 also valid?

Both were Bishops who were excommunicated from the Church.

Both believed they were right.

Costa's founded the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church after battles with the Vatican alledgedly over the issuance of Vatican papers to Nazis fleeing Germany to Brazil as World War II was ending, amoung other issues.

How about the ordinations in the Old Catholic Church (Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland).

All are "valid,but irregular".

What makes one rogue Bishop better than another?

Vatican II was no less valid than Vatican I. In my opinion, Vatican I was less valid. Was Vatican I ever closed?

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 14, 2003.

John, the answer to your question is easy enough. The bishops you mentioned - from the Old Catholics and the Brazilian Church - ordained priests and consecrated bishops with the full intent of breaking from Rome and establishing areas of jurisdiction over which they would govern. This is the power of jurisdiction, which none of them had.

The difference between them and Archbishop Lefebvre is that in consecrating the four bishops of the SSPX, he did so for the purpose of ensuring the proper formation of priests, and that the faithful would have access to the Sacraments in the Old Rite after he was dead. As it happened, he died just a few years thereafter. He did not give them jurisdiction. He could not, as it was not his to give. His intent was merely to pass on the fullness of his priestly orders, not to set up a parallel or separate Church.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.

john p,

My assessment is not heretical. Jesus' teachings were not a departure from Jewish religious law.

Your view is very heretical. They were absolutely a departure, as He instituted a whole new Church.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

SSPX or SSPV or other bishops do not have jurisdiction, but their ordinations are certainly valid.More can be said for them the the Novus Ordo ordinations The N.O.'s are licit but are they valid? The new rite of ordinations leaves one to doubt.

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

Isabel,

The founding of the Church was not a departure from Jewish law, but a fulfillment of prophecy.

Jesus' teachings were an extention of that law, not a departure from them.

His words, MATTHEW CHAPTER 5, "17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 14 20 I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The THEOLOGY OF THE MESSIAH was very solidly in place before Jesus' life on earth. The Jews were waiting for the fulfillment of that theology.

But, we may be getting into semantics here. If we are, I apologize. I fully believe in and adher to the teaching on the founding of the Church, please don't misunderstand that or my motives. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 14, 2003.

Jake, The same could be said for the preservation of the Old Rite for the people after Vatican One by the Old Catholic Church. , God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 14, 2003.

The founding of the Church was not a departure from Jewish law, but a fulfillment of prophecy.

Well, maybe it's a matter of the way we are looking at it. I am looking at it from the angle of it being a fulfillment of God's law, not Jewish law. The Jewish law (as in the laws of Judaism - the religion - were abolished [such as Passover, etc.]) But God's law is for all eternity.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

John P, how can you say Vatican I is any less valid than Vatican II? All Councils the church has are valid, and are still binding.

As for Bishops being valid, yes, some schismatic Bishops such as ones that belong to the Old Catholic churchs are still from valid lines, others they are not so sure. The SSPX Bishops are indeed valid as well, though illict like the Old Catholic Bishops.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

There is a technical issue for some theologians that the documents from Vatican I were never formalized due to an interruption of the Council because of war.

I really feel that both councils were valid. But, if one wants to get technical...which I don't want to do, really.

To me, the legalistics get in the way of the real message. God Bless.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 14, 2003.

The awnser, and it is not debatable, no matter what some dissenting theologians may say, is Vatican I was indeed a valid council. There is no debate what so ever on that, and any theologian who disagrees can go to the Old Catholic church.

As for legalistics, church doctrines, dogmas, the teachings if you will are not legalistic, they are a matter of faith. Sorry John, you can not have a Protestant mindset, because then, everything is open to interperation, and then you get the situation we have today, with thousands of different denominations.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

The protestant movement caused the Church to exaimine it's inner workings. It needed reform --no private interpretation, fact.

The people today are educated. We are not peasants from the middle ages who need someone to translate documents from latin.

The Church is losing people to the evangelical churches. How do you stop that? Not with legalistics.

I am saddened by the attitude:

If you don't agree with the Church's teachings, you're a protestant, therefore, you need to get out of the Church.

Disagreeing with the Church on issues such as, celibacy of priests, or lack of evangelization, is "protesting".

Have you ever been to a contemporary Christian praise and worship concert? If you have, I can't imagine that you didn't feel the Holy Spirit at work. For some people, that may be the first step toward the "fullness of truth".

The Roman Catholic Church needs to be a the forefront of helping people make that first step, not telling the faithful, "You don't agree with everything, you're not a good Catholic, get the hell out of my church."

Even Jesus convinced Thomas.

If I'm wrong, academically, convince me I'm wrong. Don't label me.

The Church needs to make every effort to evangelize and teach.

Unfortunately, we are all leaving too much up to the poor parish priest who is overworked, most of the time older, and just plain worn out.

The Church has to change. The laity needs to be more involved.

The mission of the Church is not self-perpetuation. The institutional autocratic curial system is bogging down the real mission of the Church, bringing people to Christ.

The apostles recognized that differences can be avoided by open communication between factions. That was the reason for the Jerusalem Council.

God Bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 15, 2003.

The Church is losing people to the evangelical churches. How do you stop that?

By sending missionaries to PROSTHLETIZE and CONVERT and BAPTIZE and TEACH, that's how. It worked until 1964, and it would work again if churchmen weren't so busy running around apologizing, and affirming people in their error.

Have you ever been to a contemporary Christian praise and worship concert? If you have, I can't imagine that you didn't feel the Holy Spirit at work. For some people, that may be the first step toward the "fullness of truth".

Have you ever been to the Traditional Latin Mass?

I mean, contemporary Christian praise & worsip concert Are you kidding The mission of the Church is not self-perpetuation.

The mission of the Church is the salvation of souls. Period.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.

a rockin' Life Teen mass

A "rockin' Life Teen mass?"

Is that some kind of liturgy that uses rock music? Are you aware of what Vatican II had to say about liturgical music? I'm just asking. I wouldn't want to see you fall into disobedience by denying something taught at Vatican II.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.

The Catholic church is not going to gain a large number of converts by imitaion of Evangelical Christians John. Sorry, but all what Life Teen does is imitate the Evangelical Christians, while it does attrack a good siezed number of youth, it lacks substance. All Life Teen amounts to for the most part is the Liturgy with poor rubrics and like rock Christian music. To the credit of Evangelical Chruches, they teach far more substance than most parish' do today, why? Because they go by Sola Scriptura, yes Sola Scriptura and how it applies depends on who interperts the bible, but that message even with the modern music trppings is quite strong, while too many Catholic parih' are lost in a politically correct fog scared to offend anyone.

As for converts, per capita, the Catholic church in the US did far better before Vatican II than it does now. As for education, sorry, the Catholic before Vatican II on average knew far more about their faith than they do now, thats why so many catholics are being lost to Evangelicals, because too many politically correct parish' are not feeding them the faith. John, you seem to lack much in the way of understanding the faith as well.

Finallym Vatican II did not call on for the church hirearchy to be lowerd down to the level of the laity, it did not call on for the liturgy to become horizontal in nature, it did not even call on the fixed altars to be moved, it did not call on the priest to face the people during the prayes of the mass, nor did it call on Latin to be removed from the liturgy. What Vatican II was, was a call for the Catholic laity to grow up. The Catholic laity to involve church teachings in their every day life, not to bring the modern world into the church, but the church into the modern world. Some of the positive, authentic fruits of Vatican II are the laity ran and funded EWTN, the Catholic bookstores, new Catholic universities like Ave Maria, who supported by the laity.

The church is not going to get lost sheep by imitation of Evangelical services. The saying is, why go to somthing that is a imitation(Life teen, Christiamtic masses) when you can get the real deal in Evangelical churches. It is going to get lost sheep back by telling people what it is about, about the real presence of the Eucharist and embraceing of, not running away, from its tradition.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Another thing John, while it was true there was corruption in the Catholic church that helped lead to the reformation, the counter- reformation, in addition to rooting out the corruption, also clearified what the Catholic church was far, what it stood for, what its dogmas and doctrines meant. It dod not move the church in any way towrds the Protestant line of thought, if anything, is further seperated it. It gave awnsers on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and appostolic sucession, and its importance.

John, while the laity is part of the church, they are NOT the church, we all have are roles to play. The church is all those in union with the viccar of Christ, all those who share the belief in the Eucharist in unbroken appostolic succession. If you do not like the hirearchy John, I do not know what to tell you, but it stems of the time of the original apostles.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

john placette

Read what the early Church Fathers wrote about liturgical music, music listening in general, theater attendence in general and art in general. They practically condemned it all. Rockin' Life teen mass is theatrical trash being brought right into the house of God. The Early Fathers would not have had anyone attend such an event even outside of a church service let alone bring it on in to a house of prayer.

QUOTE

"But the fact remains that by the Fathers of both East and West all forms of the drama were banned indiscriminately and in terms of the severest reprobation....For Chrysostom and nearly all his contemporaries the theatre is the temple of the Evil One, and all wbo frequent the theatre thereby acknowledge him as their master (P.G., LVI, 263; LVII, 71, 426; LVIII, 120, 188, etc.). Even Julian the Apostate forbade access to the theatre to the new pagan priesthood he was anxious to create. Almost alone amongst the Fathers, St. Augustine ("De Civ. Dei," ii, 8) seems to make some distinction between the gross indecency of the mimes and the classical drama of an earlier age, approving the study of the latter for educational purposes." (Catholic Encyclopedia : Theatre)

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM: "If any admirable musician come amongst them, they leave all that they had in hand, which often is necessary and pressing business, and mount the steps (in the arena), and sit listening very attentively to the words and the accompaniments, and criticising the agreement of the two. This is what the many do." (Homily I, Theatrical Worship of Satan)

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)

AUGUSTINE "musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)

CLEMENT "Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men." (Clement of Alexandria, 190AD The instructor, Fathers of the church, p. 130)

AUGUSTINE "But in regard to pictures and statues, and other works of this kind, which are intended as representations of things, nobody makes a mistake, especially if they are executed by skilled artists, but every one, as soon as he sees the likenesses, recognizes the things they are likenesses of. And this whole class are to be reckoned among the superfluous devices of men, unless when it is a matter of importance to inquire in regard to any of them, for what reason, where, when, and by whose authority it was made." (On Christian Doctrine, in Four Books)

UNQUOTE

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 15, 2003.

Here's what Pope Pius XII had to say regarding liturgical music:

"The progress of this musical art clearly shows how sincerely the Church has desired to render divine worship ever more splendid and more pleasing to the Christian people. It likewise shows why the Church must insist that this art remain within its proper limits and must prevent anything profane and foreign to divine worship from entering into sacred music along with genuine progress, and perverting it.

18. The Sovereign Pontiffs have always diligently fulfilled their obligation to be vigilant in this matter. The Council of Trent also forbids "those musical works in which something lascivious or impure is mixed with organ music or singing."[11] In addition, not to mention numerous other Sovereign Pontiffs, Our predecessor Benedict XIV of happy memory in an encyclical letter dated February 19, 1749, which prepared for a Holy Year and was outstanding for its great learning and abundance of proofs, particularly urged Bishops to firmly forbid the illicit and immoderate elements which had arrogantly been inserted into sacred music.[12]

"rockin' Life Teen mass," huh?

Please.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.

jake, didn't you hear the man? They're beautiful!!! Just as nice as the Tridentine Mass.

(Stomach churning.)

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Pope John Paul II on liturgical music:

"The Christian community must make an examination of conscience so that the beauty of music and song will return increasingly to the liturgy. It is necessary to purify worship of deformations, of careless forms of expression, of ill-prepared music and texts, which are not very suited to the grandeur of the act being celebrated."

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.

HTML impaired today. Apologies.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.

The New Vatican has lost control over the Novus Ordo "liturgy," as messes sauvages [wild masses] abound: witches masses, coffee masses, pontoon masses, nightclub masses, camouflage masses, and all the rest. Catholic doctrine is being rejected right and left with impunity, not only by Nouvs Ordo presbyters who openly mock the Church with their witches and priestesses, but even the Novus Ordo bishops, who seem to think that they are petty potentates who can do and teach anything they please, the pope and God be damned, as the saying goes.

First, Card. Ratzinger tried to cash in on the groundswell of Catholics trying to get back to the traditional Faith. Ratzinger was able to sell some of his otherwise dull books by including nostalgic tidbits about the return of the traditional Faith. But eventually he was exposed as a fraud, when he admitted to the Italian press that he, the third most powerful man at the New Vatican (the second being the Secretary of State, Card. Sodano), intended to do absolutely nothing to achieve any of the traditional notions he discussed in his books. Then, to top it off, it turns out that he tried to play both ends against the middle by teaching the heretical doctrine, in a preface to a book published by the Pontifical Biblical Institute, that the Jews did not have to accept Christ as their Messias. They could wait for another! Ratzinger seems to have pretensions to papacy.

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

jake - King of the Website Links! >:) But I thought you were putting up a link to a Catholic Mass??

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

I thought you were putting up a link to a Catholic Mass??

No, that was a "rockin' Life Teen mass." Those kids looked reeeeeaaal interested, didn't they?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 16, 2003.

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggggg!

OK, I'm done. There went lunch. Yea, the kids looked real interested, especially during 'Consecration'. No one kneeling, standing with their arms folded, and at the elevation the priest is more worried about having his picture taken than adoring Our Lord.

The only skirt I saw was one above the knees. Mass was brought down to a horizontal worship by bringing the kids up on the altar. Kids as Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. It looked like a Protestant Church. Ugh, need I say more?

Oh, yea, and Emerald, good thing you weren't there during the Our Father!! I would have feared for those kids lives. lol.

All in all, good thing I wasn't there period. Sacrilege and disrespect for Our Lord looked so commonplace there, that no one attending even seemed to notice how unCatholic that Mass was. This is a shining example of why I never set foot in a church during a Novus Ordo Mass.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

The difference between the novus ordo and the Tridentine is not the rite but the attitude of the priest and laity.

I was married at Christ the King parish in Ann Arbor MI. For those that know that parish, the pastor is outstanding, awesome homilist, absolutely reverent priest who really connects with everyone. And partially because of his tireless work, and partially by grace, there are hundreds of serious Catholics (and loads of kids) who attend with great fervor...

It makes all the difference in the world - and you don't need Latin and smells for the "magic" of reverence to happen.

News for the unfamiliar: Pre-Vatican II masses were just a boring in some parishes as they are now. If the priest and laity didn't really believe in the awesome nature of the Mass and didn't really care terribly about singing or participating - then how edifying could it all have been?

It's tempting to just blame the rubrics as though the priest and laity have nothing to do with it - makes it all so easy to correct, makes things nice and tidy. Just change the rite and viola! instant reverance, faith, and Catholic fidelity.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

The difference between the novus ordo and the Tridentine is not the rite but the attitude of the priest and laity.

That may be one very noticable differece, Joe, but it's far from being "the" diffrence.

you don't need Latin and smells for the "magic" of reverence to happen.

You're missing the point. The use of the Latin language (which, BTW, Vatican II said was to be "retained"), and the external trappings of the Mass are not the issue with traditionalists. Lex orandi, lex credendi; the Church believes as she prays. The concern is not primarity one of beauty in the liturgy [which it should, of course, possess - and the Old Rite possesses to the highest possible degree]. The issue is that the Holy Mass is an expression of our beliefs as Catholics. The way we worship is supposed to reflect what we hold to be true. It's an externalization of everything we believe as Catholics. The "rockin' Life Teen mass" just doesn't cut the mustard. I'm sorry, but it expresses nothing more than feel-goodiness, youthful indifference and liturgical abuse gone wild. It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with what I believe.

Pre-Vatican II masses were just a boring

That word "boring" is troublesome to me. Novus Ordos refer to what they percieve as bad liturgy to be "boring." It would follow, then, that the same folks would consider good liturgy to be "entertaining" or "action-packed." The Holy Mass has nothing at all to do with how you feel about anything. It's about offering worship and sacrifice to the Most High God, and about deriving graces from that same God. Whether or not one is entertained or imbibed with warm fuzzies as a result is, I would think, of litle concern to the Almighty.

It's tempting to just blame the rubrics as though the priest and laity have nothing to do with it - makes it all so easy to correct, makes things nice and tidy. Just change the rite and viola! instant reverance, faith, and Catholic fidelity.

But isn't that what you Novus Ordos are claiming; that the New Mass came about, and *poof*, things were better ("beter" than what - I still don't know)- or if things weren't made better in 1969, that the New Springtime must be just around the corner? If I should happen to see the Old Rite restored in my lifetime, it would make me, needless to say, very happy. However, it wouldn't mean much if the traditional teaching of the Church was not restored as well. It really would be an exercise in externals if, for example, the Mass was still considered to be primarily the "banquet of the community" rather than a propitiatory Sacrifice offered to God. If the theology of the Mass is restored, the rubrics will follow.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 16, 2003.

jake covered it all above, and has expressed exactly the way I feel about things, so I will just comment on this instead of repeating what he said.

News for the unfamiliar:

Not sure what you meant by that, but I can assure you I am very familiar with both rites of the Mass. This is why I attend the Tridentine and chose to longer set foot in the Novus Ordo.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 18, 2003.

A Hybrid Concoction

The Missal of 1962 has its own particular integrity as does the Missal of 1970, albeit greatly different. They each stand alone as monuments to the liturgical expressions of their day. In between 1962 and 1969 there were so many and varied adaptations introduced that so seriously attacked the structure and rubrics of the Missal of 1962, that by the time the new order of Mass was introduced in 1970 the hybrid concoction that had evolved by the late 1960s had absolutely no integrity remaining. It had become acceptable to no one, and was loved by no-one except those who created it - the consilium appointed to implement the new, revised, liturgy.

-- Ed Richards (loztrt@yahoo.com), April 18, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Jake-1.

You correctly quoted me as saying (with reference to "Quo primum"): "... disciplinary decree of Pope St. Pius V (who lacked the power to bind future popes on the elements of a liturgical rite)."

Then you responded: "As we have been discussing on this thread & others, Popes are not infallible in the exercise of their legislative power; they are capable of enacting both foolish and bad laws, of commanding that which is foolish and that which is sinful, and of acting imprudently."

Although I think that you were using this sentence as a way of trying to say that Pope Paul legislated badly in implementing the newer rite of the Mass, I wonder if you see the great irony in your words?
You don't? Well, your very words could be used by someone who may want to refer to "Quo primum" itself as a case of a pope "enacting both foolish and bad laws, of commanding that which is foolish ... and of acting imprudently".

Well, just as I do not recognize in you a right/duty/ability to judging what Pope Paul VI did as "foolish ... bad ... imprudent," so I will not arrogate to myself a right/duty/ability to judge Pope Pius V as having spoken improperly in "Quo primum" by trying to bind future popes' actions. Instead I will stand with and the Vicar of Christ, who, as the Church's supreme legislator, does have the right/duty/ability to determine that the "disciplinary decree of St. Pope Pius V" was reformable. Your action of not standing with the Vicar of Christ is an act of schism. This is not a question of infallibility, but of disobedience by SSPX and its sympathizers.

You stated: "From the time Pius V issued this decree until very recently, no one questioned its validity."

Actually, this is not a matter of "validity," but of "effectiveness." The decree was "effective" until a subsequent pope chose to put an end to its enforcement.

You continued: "Many folks nowadays, not understanding it clearly, have presumed to disregard its uncompromising language and claim that, as a 'merely ecclesiastical law,' it could be abrogated by any of the successors of Pius V."

On the contrary ... "folks [like you] nowadays, not understanding it clearly" -- and not having the right/duty/ability to pass judgment on its meaning -- have presumed to say that "it could [not] be abrogated." You simply cannot "win" this argument, because the person whom the Holy Spirit chose to legislate this [Paul VI] was the only one who had a right/duty/ability to tell Catholics whether (and how) "Quo primum" could be abrogated. Just as Pius V knew that it could be, so did Paul VI. Likewise, the current pope can wholly or partly abrogate the decisions of Paul VI -- and he has done so, by the vehicle of "Ecclesia Dei."

You wrote: "It can also be said that no one has ever suggested that the Saint was over-reaching his Papal authority by codifying the Roman Mass, or by doing so in such clear terms. No one was startled or surprised when he issued Quo Primum, and the Church in his day accepted it without quarrel or difficulty."

Two points: (1) I cannot quote anything to you or give you URLs, but I have read that, contrary to what you just stated, there was indeed notable and futile resistance to the Missal of Pius V -- i.e., from schismatics (somewhat like your clique, who now put up futile resistance to the Missal of Paul VI).
(2) No pope can, or has ever, bound the legislative hands of subsequent popes. Pius V wrote "Quo primum" in language that appears to some to bind the Church in perpetuity, but that is a misreading. The pope merely using a sort of "shorthand" one that, in light of the current schism, we can lament that he used. He wrote: "This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world ..." Schismatics are wrong to think that the pope's words (that are translated here as "forever") meant "until the end of the world." Rather, because Pius V knew that he could not bind future popes, his words were an abbreviated form for the following: "this ordinance applies from this moment forward, from now, throughout my reign, and indefinitely into the future, unless and until a successor of mine should choose to rescind or modify it."

PM: Here we have it again (in spades). What a terrible waste!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 20, 2003.

Correction John; Quo Primum was never officially abrogated.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 20, 2003.

wrong to think that the pope's words (that are translated here as "forever") meant "until the end of the world."

Oh my.

Rather, because Pius V knew that he could not bind future popes, his words were an abbreviated form for the following: "this ordinance applies from this moment forward, from now, throughout my reign, and indefinitely into the future, unless and until a successor of mine should choose to rescind or modify it."

1. If that's what he meant, that's what he would have said. He was not one to mince words as, far as I can see. I just don't know how he could have been any clearer.

2. No successor of his has ever expressly rescinded or modified Quo Primum.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

Actually, the different rites within the Westeren church by the council of trent were all very similar to each other, and the Missal of Pope Pius V basically standardised the rite used in Rome itself all over the church, but he also allowed pre existing rites, such as the Dominican rite, the Mozambaric Rite and Carmelite Rite to be used as well.

As for the missal used betwene the 62 missal and the Novus Ordo, it was the 65 missal, and if it was celebrated properly, it was the same as the 62 missal except it used some vernacular, and it omitted the last gospel, but it is true that by the last days of its use, abuses to the missal were so widespread, that in many places, there was little difference noticed when the Novus Ordo was introduced.

The opposition to the Novus Ordo is not futile, they have gained some concessions from Rome, such as the indults, the permission to open up seminaries to train priests to celebrate the Tridentine mass. Some of the opposition to the Novus Ordo is based on the fact is it usually celebrated poorly, with rotten liturgical music from OCP/GIA hymnals, 10 EEMs on the altar, a entire altar server corps that consists of females, not to mention how bland new parish' look, with the seating in the half shell.

The Novus Ordo missal itself, if used in Latin(no translation errors) using Eucharistic Prayer I and the Confetior, and celbrated with Tridentine rubrics such as the Priest facing the liturgical East, the communicants using the altar rail for communion is indeed in line with tradition, the problem is it is rarely celbrated in this manner. Eventually I would not be surprised if both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo missals are combined, so priests can take various options to celbrate a Novus Ordo or a Tridentine mass. If the Novus Ordo has a better track record, and sadly, so far its track record in many cases is quite poor, there would have been no call for the Tridentine mass today, more than 33 years after it was initially supressed, but its ironiic that young Catholics have among the strongest voices in support of the Tridentine mass.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 20, 2003.

Well said, John B.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

If the Pope ordered the immediate end to all Novus Ordo masses and replaced everything with the 1962 rubrics we'd still have lousy homilies and people distracted during Mass by less than angelic choirs, crying babies, and annoying neighbors. You'd still be faced with less than reverant priests - who would only be able to HIDE their lack of faith a bit better!

So apart from a fiction that everything is nice and rosy, what would it accomplish?

You people seem to thing the Lex Orandi makes up for terrible seminaries, awful theology and non-existent philosophical studies!

You seem to imply everything was wonderful in the Church in 1950...just because it seemed to be OK in the USA. Meanwhile Europe was in a shambles, Atheistic communism swept the world everywhere else and whole swaths of "cultural catholic youth" were led away....all while the T-Mass ruled supreme.

The Eucharist is OF COURSE, essential. But I have seen more active and reverent laity at Christ the King Parish, celebrating in English with incense and gregorian chant, than at St. Juan's parish with the 16th century high altar and T-Mass done with all its splendor.

The difference? Hard to say. Both had really great pastors whose homilies were wonderful. But the folks at Christ the King actually spoke about the Homily and the faith while spilling out to the parkinglot.. and many visited the Eucharistic adoration chapel, the kids were reverent and well behaved...

I like Latin, but I also know that unless you know enough of it, it sounds nice but isn't helpful. All these little rublics - helpful, but not essential.

I think you all should avoid the temptation to turn what is not essential into a dogma - while neglecting what IS essential.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Joe, you only have to know enough latin for the purpose of Nass, not to shop at Walmart. I have yet to hear of one motorcycle entrance at the traditional Mass. not even one clown.... Boooring!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

The General Secretary of the SSPX has stated that the story spread in the press that the SSPX will capitulate to the New Order "is all wrong." The General Secretary also stated publicly at Easter Sunday Mass that "the Society of Saint Pius X will have no official representation at the Traditional Latin Mass [the modernized 1962 version] to be celebrated by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos at St. Mary Major in Rome on May 24th." That is the venue at which the capitulation was supposed to be announced.

The SSPX has publicly made it know that it will not negotiate with the New Vatican unless " every priest in the world," not just SSPX priests, may celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass without any restriction. In response, although Card. Hoyos has admitted that the Traditional Latin Mass "has never been abrogated," nevertheless, he has stated that priests "cannot say it publicly because there will be too much rebellion and difficulties with the bishops."

Typical Novus Ordo nonsense. What is right and just the New Order sublimates to what is popular amongst a craven Novus Ordo hierarchy. "Thus, the Vatican is aware that there are no restrictions on priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, but does not make this truth publicly known. Instead, it maintains the falsehood that special permission for that Mass must be obtained from the New Vatican or the local Novus Ordo bishop."

-- Ed Richards (loz@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

terrible seminaries, awful theology and non-existent philosophical studies!

That's pretty much it right threre, Joe. I could only add: blatant homosexuality, a total abandonment of Thomistic principles, and a genuine and rabid hatred for everything from Pentecost until 1964.

You seem to imply everything was wonderful in the Church in 1950

By all accounts, it was.

Christ the King Parish

In Ann Arbor, right? Is this the same place that's basically a Charismaniac "prayer cell" that got the nod from the bishop to form its own parish?

and many visited the Eucharistic adoration chapel,

read: They have no tabernacle in the church.

the kids were reverent and well behaved...

Easily accomplished when there's only one or two per Nuvo houeshold!

I like Latin, but I also know that unless you know enough of it, it sounds nice but isn't helpful. All these little rublics - helpful, but not essential.

You know what's really helpful? A missal with the Latin on one side, and...get this: English on the other.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 21, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Ed R and Jake-1.

I'm very sad that you think that you can persist in these pro-schismatic posts. How terribly you offend almighty God by defying the Vicar of Christ! You truly endanger your souls and you mislead the poorly informed Catholics who come here.

I really think that the moderator needs to ask you (and the other three schismatic traditionalists to move along (perhaps to found your own forum elsewhere). This forum is a Catholic one, and is thus no place for you. You have been stating the same porous arguments -- over and over and over again -- for at least nine months. Numerous people have refuted your errors -- over and over and over again -- but you have not shown the slightest intellectual integrity by admitting that you have been wrong (and in the grave sin of schism).

If a group of five Baptists or Lutherans had come here and tried to push "sola scriptura" or "sola fide" -- over and over and over again for nine months -- the moderator would not have permitted it. Why? Because it is against the rules. Your behavior is very much alike -- against the rules -- but even worse, because you pretend to be Catholic and are thus more likely to be able to fool young uninformed Catholics than those Baptists or Lutherans would be.

So I ask you (Jake-1, Ed R, Emerald, Regina, and Isabel) to voluntarily absent yourself from the forum, beginning today and continuing until you become orthodox Catholics. If you should choose to ignore my request, then I would respectfully ask the moderator to require you to depart. There is real work to be done here at the forum -- apologetics, conversation about the (im)morality of people's actions, matters of spirituality, etc.. We cannot bother to waste even one more minute beating a dead horse (or, rather, a dead herd) -- i.e., the tired old grey mares of schismatic traditionalism that you keep riding into the corral of this forum.

Now, I wish I could stop right there ... but since you two (and newcomer John B) have stated some errors (addressed to me) in your latest posts, I will clear them up, wiping the slate clean.

QUOTE (from Ed R): "Quo Primum was never officially abrogated."
QUOTE (from Jake-1): "No successor of [Pius V] has ever expressly rescinded or modified Quo Primum."

COMMENT: This is incorrect. It was not necessary for a later pope (e.g. Paul VI) to mention "Quo primum" [QP] by name in order to cause it to be wholly or partially abrogated/rescinded or modified. As any honest person would admit, the action of Paul VI in promulgating an additional rite of the Mass in the Missal of 1970 constituted a de facto abrogation of a portion of QP. Wherever QP restricts priests to the (nearly) exclusive celebration of the so-called Tridentine rite, Paul VI abrogated the restriction.

QUOTE (from Jake-1): "If that's what he meant, that's what he would have said. He was not one to mince words as, far as I can see. I just don't know how he could have been any clearer."

COMMENT: No. You cannot determine what Pius V's words meant by reading them and interpreting them with your very limited understanding. Just as you cannot perform valid private interpretation of the Bible without also relying on the Magisterium, so you cannot determine the meaning and limitations of QP on your own. Instead, you are to be taught its meaning and limitations by the Vicar of Christ. By his actions, Pope Paul VI taught you and me that Pius V's words could not be taken as you are taking them. It is your place only to submit to Paul VI, not to fight him like a new Hank VIII or a new schismatic Eastern Patriarch.

QUOTE (from John B): "The opposition to the Novus Ordo [sic] is not futile, they have gained some concessions from Rome, such as the indults, the permission to open up seminaries to train priests to celebrate the Tridentine mass."

COMMENT: When I referred to "futile resistance" to the Missal of 1970, I meant the kind of resistance that seeks to have that Missal's entire rite suppressed. That kind of resistance is futile. I think that it was obvious that I was not referring to petitions for the wider use of the older Missal. I have no criticism of those at all. Contrary to what you might think, I have never spoken against the use of the older rite or against attendance at licit celebrations of older-rite Masses. I have utmost respect for the older rite (at which I used to serve as an altar boy and sing as a choir member) -- and I have equal respect for the later rite, the kind of respect that all good, orthodox Catholics have.

QUOTE (from John B): "Some of the opposition to the Novus Ordo [sic] is based on the fact is it usually celebrated poorly, with rotten liturgical music from OCP/GIA hymnals, 10 EEMs on the altar, a entire altar server corps that consists of females, not to mention how bland new parish' look, with the seating in the half shell."

COMMENT: We are totally aware of all this. What you need to do, though, is realize that all the "opposition" that you have listed is not to the rite itself but to liturgical abuses that the Church rejects. Theoretically all the same abuses could suddenly appear in older-rite Latin Masses, but no one would then fault the older rite. They would correctly say that they had witnessed sinners doing wrong things, not that they had witnessed a bad rite. Therefore, John B, do not ever criticize the later rite.

QUOTE (from John B): "The Novus Ordo [sic] missal itself, if used in Latin (no translation errors) using Eucharistic Prayer I and the Confiteor, and celbrated with Tridentine rubrics such as the Priest facing the liturgical East, the communicants using the altar rail for communion is indeed in line with tradition, the problem is it is rarely celbrated in this manner."

COMMENT: I'm sorry, but you don't have the right/duty/ability to make these demands and judgments (or even to express your opinions publicly). The Church's leaders alone have the required right/duty/ability. They have made the judgment for us, and we are to humbly obey. If you disobey, you move toward (and possibly into) schism. John B, please don't make the same mistake that Jake-1 and Ed R have made.

QUOTE (from John B): "Eventually I would not be surprised if both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo [sic] missals are combined, so priests can take various options to celebrate a Novus Ordo [sic] or a Tridentine mass."

COMMENT: For "technical" reasons, I don't think that the missals can be combined -- but they don't need to be. Many parishes around the world have both missals, and that's good enough.

QUOTE (from John B): "If the Novus Ordo [had] a better track record, and sadly, so far its track record in many cases is quite poor, there would have been no call for the Tridentine mass today, more than 33 years after it was initially supressed ..."

COMMENT: You have two errors here. (1) A rite cannot have a "track record." As I told you above, the later rite is perfectly fine, but some human beings have committed abuses. It is not your place to rate or to rank or even to criticize a rite. (2) Even if the later rite had always been celebrated in the way you wish, that would not have satisfied the Lefebvrist schismatics, who would still have demanded the use of the older rite, because they wrongly think that the later rite contains flaws.

QUOTE (from John B): "... it's ironic that young Catholics have [been] among the strongest voices in support of the Tridentine mass."

COMMENT: It is true that, among people attending licit indult Masses (and among schismatic people attending illicitly celebrated Masses), there are a notable number of young folks. This should not surprise anyone, since young, immature people are restless and are attracted to things that are new and different. But don't try to read too much into that. You see, what you have failed to state is that the great majority of young folks are comfortable with the later rite and have no desire to attend older-rite Masses in Latin.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2003.

So I ask you (Jake-1, Ed R, Emerald, Regina, and Isabel) to voluntarily absent yourself from the forum...

No.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 22, 2003.

So I ask you (Jake-1, Ed R, Emerald, Regina, and Isabel) to voluntarily absent yourself from the forum

Not gonna happen.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

Wherever QP restricts priests to the (nearly) exclusive celebration of the so-called Tridentine rite, Paul VI abrogated the restriction.

Are you now making you own interpretation, John? (Something you say no one else can do?) Because the Vatican itself has said that Quo Primum was never abrogated.

And really John, if it is so futile, why do you respond, as if your uninformed answers convince anyone? You pass judgements, and claim this or that, when you yourself cannot prove it to be so. Especially when things have been posted, from the Vatican no less, to prove otherwise to your judgements and claims.

I don't care that Emerald hasn't answered your hypothetical questions.......his questions are not hypothetical. They are fact. Fact that can easily be found if one spends the time to research. And if you know the answers to those questions of his (or think you do), then why do you not answer them? I think I know the answer to that.....because the correct answers will totally vindicate us, and that you do not want. You want to sit on your imaginary throne, pass judgement on all those who do not see things your way, and glory in your (false) sense of righteousness.

Nice pics jake and Emerald. Wish I could do that.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.

This strategy, John, is vaguely familiar.

Call someone to Rome on nebulous or non-existant charges. Do it off the record as much as possible, not in compliance with proper protocol, and with minimal paperwork. Make the constraints required for compliance as uncomfortable as possible. Make the terms of the settlement of the case as obscure as the charges are themselves, while at the same time setting up whatever technicalities are available to make the judgement appear solid for retail to the public.

But never, ever directly address the issue at hand. Render only judgements on peripheral non-compliance.

You want us to leave the forum; let's single me out. Put me on trial.

Now...

What are the charges.

If I am found guilty, what is the satisfactory public display of rehabilitation that I must exhibit?

In clear and precise terms, of course.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 23, 2003.

JF, we as Catholics have a right to point out abuses, and question if a mass that has so many abuses may become invalid, and not be blindly obidient. Do as we were told in the 70s made many abuses against rubrics into the de facto norm, simpily because the great majority of Catholics did not support abuses, but simpily were doing as they were told and the changes were made "In the sprit of Vatican II".

Again, if celebrated properly I have nothing against the Novus Ordo, and all things being equal, the mass I would most like to go to, but there are none in my area is the Anglican Use indult, sadly this is used in only 8 parish' nationwide.

As for most of Gen X and Gen Y going to the new rite, thats true, but a far greater percentage of vocations come from young men who go to the Tridentine mass. As for combining both missals together, the truth is it would not be that difficult, since the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine mass arent that great when one looks at both missals side by side.

-- John_B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

By the way, even Pope Paul VI in the encyclical calle dthe new mass the Novus Ordo, so no need to place in the (sic), and it is less confusing that saying 1970/75 missal. As for expressing my opinions publically, JF, I have EVERY right to express them publically. I am saying nothing more radical that what Fr Fessio SJ, founder of Ignatius press is saying about the mass.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Jake,

Christ the King parish does have charismatics in it (maybe about 40% of the parish) all the rest are non-charismatic. The typical family size is 6 kids per couple. Alot of the students at Ave Maria go there, as to many Steubenville grads now forming families. There is a tabernacle - right below the life-size crucifix, flanked by life sized statues of Mary and Joseph. The altar is marble and raised up. The perpetual eucharistic adoration chapel is not accessible from the main nave.

As for seminarian formation in the Church - the Legionaries and Opus Dei guys have both Thomistic training and excellent human and spiritual formation - no cultural blinkers and no chips on their shoulders. Quite a few of them previously worked for pro-Life apostolates so understand the culture war from the trenches.

As their Masses are splendid. The Legionaries have Mass in Latin twice per week - always Latin on feast days with gregorian chant, incense, candles, all the pomp. Incidentally, they each do Eucharistic adoration every day - and yes, all their chapels have the tabernacle front and center, life-size crucifix (if possible given the chapel size). The abuses after Vatican II never occured in the Legion or in Opus Dei from what I hear.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Christ the King parish does have charismatics in it (maybe about 40% of the parish) all the rest are non-charismatic.

I'm having a little trouble understanding. You say that Charismatics constitute a minority at your parish (apparently to give more of an illusion of orthodoxy), but yet the online bulliten for Christ the King parish in Ann Arbor, MI says the following:

"During our evolution from the Catholic fellowship of a charismatic covenant community to a personal parish of the Diocese of Lansing, this process has had two very strong and consistent features: first, the constant affirmation of our charismatic identity and the support of that identity by our local Bishop and second, whole-hearted participation by men and women dedicated to surrendering to the Lordship of Jesus in the power of the Spirit in the heart of the Church.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

JFG:

Please close your HTML tags. As you can see, it makes for awkward and difficult reading. Thanking you in advance,

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

Funny how malice can backbite, eh, "Jake1"?

-- big (Bob@marley.com), April 23, 2003.

Funny how malice can backbite, eh, "Jake1"?

It's either high comedy or low tragedy; I'm not sure which yet.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

Ordinary Purpose. The ordinary purpose of the Mass is propitiatory sacrifice-----making satisfaction to God for sin. This end, too, has been compromised. Instead of emphasizing remission for sins for the living and the dead, the new rite stresses the nourishment and sanctification of those present. (10)

At the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Blessed Sacrament and thus placed Himself in It as Victim, in order to unite Himself to us as Victim. But this act of sacrificial immolation occurs before the Blessed Sacrament is consumed and possesses beforehand full redemptive value in relation to the bloody Sacrifice on Calvary. The proof for this is that people who assist are not bound to receive Communion sacramentally. (11)

3. Immanent Purpose. The immanent purpose of the Mass is fundamentally that of sacrifice.

It is essential that the Sacrifice, whatever its nature, be pleasing to God and accepted by Him. Because of original sin, however, no sacrifice other than the Christ's Sacrifice can claim to be acceptable and pleasing to God in its own right.

The Novus Ordo alters the nature of the sacrificial offering by turning it into a type of exchange of gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns it into "the bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into "spiritual drink:"

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have this bread [or wine] to offer, fruit of the earth [vine] and work of human hands. It will become for us the bread of life [spiritual drink]. (12)

The expressions "bread of life" and "spiritual drink," of course, are utterly vague and could mean anything. Once again, we come up against the same basic equivocation: According to the new definition of the Mass, Christ is only spiritually present among His own; here, bread and wine are only spiritually-----and not substantially-----changed. ( Jonn I believe that you are a bit confused Geographicly. This is America not Cuba. Read article 1. of the Constitution. CAREFULLY. If you don't like what we are selling, don't buy it. That is where your rights end.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Oh I see. Jake is "informed" because he visits websites! And get this folks, he actually thinks websites are 100% perfect images of the institutions they represent! I'll bet he believes everything he "sees" on television too! A brilliant mind is among us, let us tread lightly! ;-p

Oh, and Christ the King's website contains the parish census I suppose? What kind of "gotcha" do you think you made here Jake?

You a) have not disproven my assertion, based on talks with parishioners and actual attendance at various Sunday Masses, that the parish community, while originally charismatic, is becoming more and more diverse.

nor have you b) proven that somehow these charismatic Catholics lack orthodoxy because they happen to be different than your brand or tribe or rite.

A priori thinking about different charisms and Catholic groups - hasty generalizations, stereotyping... it's all very sloppy Jake.

You know what they say about a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing...openning one's mouth (in this case, posting on line) about something one knows little about is fraught with danger.

Good try anyway.

You've got potential kid. Just do a little more study before posting.

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Where are those weapons of mass destruction. In Syria maybe? Maybe Iran? Let's go bomb the hell out of them... just to make sure.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Oh I see. Jake is "informed" because he visits websites! And get this folks, he actually thinks websites are 100% perfect images of the institutions they represent!

If you're embarrased by the truth about your parish, I can only suggest two things:

1. Find a new webmaster or

2. Change parishes.

I'll bet he believes everything he "sees" on television too!

I don't watch television.

the parish community, while originally charismatic, is becoming more and more diverse.

Not according to its own bulliten. See numbers 1 & 2 above for my advice on that.

it's all very sloppy Jake.

"Sloppy" is painting a false picture with the knowledge that there's a verifiable resource out there that utterly refutes it.

Good try anyway.

I thought so.

You've got potential kid. Just do a little more study before posting.

I hope you inherited at least some of your cousin's good sense. May God bless you.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

""Sloppy" is painting a false picture with the knowledge that there's a verifiable resource out there that utterly refutes it. "

Sloppy is accusing someone else of something you're guilty of and of course NOT apologizing for.

-- yep (bob@marley.still), April 23, 2003.

Thank you for your revealing replies, Jake-1, Emerald, and Isabel.

I need you to be more specific. What did I say that was revealing, and exactly what did it reveal?

I asked what charges you wish to level against me. Please do it?

Because of the above and the widespread filth you have been planting on dozens of other threads this week...

What filth? Again, you need to be specific; preferably, showing how something has been stated by any one of the accused as being contrary to the Deposit of the Faith, thereby qualifying it as filth. I can't just take your word for it that what is being exhibited is filth; it needs to be shown to be such in the light of the doctrines of the Faith.

"I'm very sad that you think that you can persist in these pro- schismatic posts. How terribly you offend almighty God by defying the Vicar of Christ! You truly endanger your souls and you mislead any unsuspecting young Catholics who come here."

It makes for some good rhetoric, I guess, but I think by and large it can be roundly refuted. Nobody wants to go there, though. They just want to believe it because that's the path of least resistance and requires little effort. These are serious charges. You need to back them up by showing that the aforementioned persons have contradicted the Deposit of the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 24, 2003.

The bulletin says the parish was founded by charismatics.

It doesn't say or imply that the parish is 100% composed of charismatics - or that only charismatics are welcome. That's something which you INFERED, or supposed to be the case.

But it's not warranted even based on the Church bulletin.

It's a FACT that many families have members who are not endowed with that particular gift of the Holy Spirit, kind of like how you have the gift of faith but not wisdom (;-p just kidding hee hee hee). And it's a FACT that many families whose children attend the local Catholic grade schools or homeschools are not charismatic at all. They just love the orthodox Masses and homilies and environment.

Apparently the proof of the pudding is not enough for those who believe you can only be orthodox and holy if your liturgy is in Latin according to the 1962 rubrics! And no amount of counter evidence will convince them of their superstitious beliefs.

So, I'm not wrong. I don't read the bulletin to mean the above while you do. I have been there, you haven't. The parish is not apologetic for charisms and neither am I. I just don't see how "charismatic parish = 100% of the people are charismatic."

Apparently you have problems reading and understanding English. Oh well - sloppy thinking, that's all.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

"The bulletin says the parish was founded by charismatics. It doesn't say or imply that the parish is 100% composed of charismatics...But it's not warranted even based on the Church bulletin. "

I didn't say that either, but it does say that the parish has a "charismatic identity" which the bishop supports.

Read it again:

"During our evolution from the Catholic fellowship of a charismatic covenant community to a personal parish of the Diocese of Lansing, this process has had two very strong and consistent features: first, the constant affirmation of our charismatic identity and the support of that identity by our local Bishop and second, whole-hearted participation by men and women dedicated to surrendering to the Lordship of Jesus in the power of the Spirit in the heart of the Church."

It's a FACT that many families have members who are not endowed with that particular gift of the Holy Spirit

What gift is that?

Apparently the proof of the pudding is not enough for those who believe you can only be orthodox and holy if your liturgy is in Latin according to the 1962 rubrics!

I live a thousand miles away from you. The only "evidence" and "proof" I have of your parish's identity is the online bulliten from your parish. Again, if it's not painting an accurate picture, you should alert the webmaster, or maybe Father "Ed."

I just don't see how "charismatic parish = 100% of the people are charismatic."

...and I just don't see why the parish (what is a "personal parish", by the bye?) identies itself as a "charismatic" community, and not a Cathoic one.

Apparently you have problems reading and understanding English.

So help me understand, Joe.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 24, 2003.

Remember this 70's song by Abba? Dancing Queen (positively reformulated) You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life

See that church, watch that scene, dig in the Dancing Queen

Sunday night and the lights are low

Looking out for the parish to go

Where they play the right music, getting in the swing

You come in to look for a King

Everybody could be saved

The church is young and the music's high

With a bit of rock music, everything is fine

You're in the mood for a dance

And when you get the chance... You are the Dancing Queen, young and sweet, not like Tridentine

Dancing Queen, feel the beat from the tambourine

You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life

See that church, watch that scene, dig in the Dancing Queen

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 24, 2003.

:::APPLAUSE:::

Encore! Encore!

:::APPLAUSE:::

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 25, 2003.

Wooooooo, dig that girl
Watch that scene
Digin' the Dancing Queeeeen.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 25, 2003.

What of the Law to attend Sunday Mass?

Those who can only reach a NO “church” where communion in the hand has been perpetrated should desist from attending Mass on a Sunday. It would be a mortal sin to knowingly attend a NO “church” where one would risk trampling the Lord, whether for the NO “mass” itself or for Masses said under the Insult.

The law of Sunday Mass attendance is only ecclesiastical, human law, which like all human law seeks to implement the higher and more universal law to concrete situations. All subordinate law is to be evaluated by whether it leads the creature to its right end, which is the purpose of all law. This is the virtue of EQUITY, which manifests in acts of EPIKEIA, which is where the letter of human law is ignored for the spirit of the underlying law. It is holy DISodedience, which is a VIRTUE, called "EQUITY".

Trampling Our Lord does not lead one to one's end, salvation, but to hell. Therefore any human law which would entail that is null and void and of no validity in the sight of God.

Anyone who would risk trampling Our Lord underfoot by attending NO "churches" where communion in the hand has been given is most wicked and blind. No true Catholic would even contemplate committing such a wicked crime. Desecration of the MOST SACRED SPECIES is the most grievous crime there is.

Desist from stubborn desecration or prepare to pay the price!

Excuses wont cut with God.

-- Otis (Otis@goingup.com), April 25, 2003.

THE GREAT SPIRITUAL SABOTAGE"

For many realistic Traditional Roman Catholics the "Indult" Latin Mass is cynically referred to as the 'Insult mass'. They are too well aware that in many dioceses of AmChurch the growing Traditional Latin Mass Movement is as much a thorn-in-the-side for some Bishops as is the dissenting Call to Action group. (There, of course, any similarity ends!) Although Pope John Paul 11 in Ecclesia Dei urges the generous application of the "Indult" for celebration of the Tridentine Latin Mass, still many Bishops refuse permission - or, if they do agree to an occasional Latin Mass (at inconvenient times), they do so only begrudgingly and sparingly in the hope that the Latin Mass Movement will wither and die. (The fact that the Pope has never publicly said the Tridentine Mass, despite his favorable intentions in granting the Indult, does not help the Traditionalist cause.)

We Traditional Catholics must face it: in the opinion of too many Bishops, priests and lay people of the Novus Ordo establishment we are merely second-class Catholics. (Our detractors forget that only a few decades ago, they were us.) Nowhere perhaps is this stigma more deeply felt than among Traditional Catholics in the Utica (Syracuse Diocese) area. Indeed, events of the past few months in Utica - events that can only be described as spiritual sabotage - underscore the viciousness of Novus Ordo disdain for the Latin Mass.

After the now ten-year-old motu Pro Ecclesia Dei was announced, the Latin Mass was finally allowed in Utica, at St. Vincent's Chapel. Unfortunately the Vincentians left Utica in late fall of 1997, and for several months there was no Tridentine Latin Mass in the area. Those of the Faithful who could, traveled to Syracuse to assist at the Latin Mass there; those who couldn't stayed home, or attended the Byzantine sacred liturgy, or became members of Pius X or Pius V groups - or were forced to settle for what Traditional Catholics consider the Great Sacrilege of the Novus Ordo mass, thereby risking the theological pollution of their souls.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 25, 2003.

"(Our detractors forget that only a few decades ago, they were us.)"

That is not true. A few decades ago, mainline Catholics were following the teaching of Christ's Church - and you were US! Today mainline Catholics are still following the teaching of Christ's Church, which you have sadly turned away from.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 25, 2003.

Since the defense of Bishop Lefebvre is not allowed to be heard, I have no choice, but to drop the subject. Perhaps anything I have to say will also be censored. If one really has the truth they need not fear the liars. After all, God is in their corner.

I would like to make one point .

First; I am not a sedevacantist. I believe in the papacy. However....I find what I consider a legitimate complaint against the current pope. If these threads only want accolades, we traditionalists are in the wrong place. If you just tolerate academy award backslapping you are indeed a pitiful lot.

This pope has kissed the Koran and prayed with groups that deny Our Lord is the Messiah.....Contrast that with Abp John Fisher and Thomas More, both of who went to their death, rather than deny the pope.

No matter what excuses you make John Paul did what he did. You who defend that action share the guilt.... Remember when you come to judgement, the words of Our Lord ..

“He who denies me before men, I will also deny before My Father in Heaven.

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

The quote from Ed Richards, brought some troublesome thoughts to me. I never thought about it that way. I have attended some non- Christian functions, but am now having some second thoughts.

-- Mary B. (Mary45@pacbell.com), April 26, 2003.

Where does one start in reconciling differences with other groups?

Dialogue? Respect for each other?

Remember that guy you hear about that came before all the doctrinal regulations, Jesus?

Didn't he say something about loving your neighbor?

I'll even bet some missionary somewhere kissed a totum pole before proclaiming the gospel, want to bet?

God Bless,

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

Confessing Jesus as the Christ is an absolute necessity. Jesus himself said, "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32, 33). Romans 10:9 shows that the confession must be made before one can be saved: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus. . .thou shalt be saved." The next verse shows that this confession is made on the way to being saved: ". . . and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." You cannot get around this. Even denying once is enough for losing your salvation unless you confess.

-- Ed Richards (Loztra@yahoo.com), April 26, 2003.

Where does one start in reconciling differences with other groups? Dialogue? Respect for each other?

I'll even bet some missionary somewhere kissed a totum pole before proclaiming the gospel, want to bet?

Sure, I'll take a piece of that action. I'll also go double for nothing that he didn't succeed in converting a single soul!

Take, for instance, the example of St. Isaac Jogues. How does this grab you for "dialogue?":

"Jogues proposed not only to convert the Indians of Lake Superior, but the Sioux who lived at the head waters of the Mississippi.

His plan was thwarted by his capture near Three Rivers returning from Quebec. He was taken prisoner on 3 August, 1642, and after being cruelly tortured was carried to the Indian village of Ossernenon, now Auriesville, on the Mohawk, about forty miles above the present city of Albany. There he remained for thirteen months in slavery, suffering apparently beyond the power of natural endurance. The Dutch Calvinists at Fort Orange (Albany) made constant efforts to free him, and at last, when he was about to be burnt to death, induced him to take refuge in a sailing vessel which carried him to New Amsterdam (New York). His description of the colony as it was at that time has since been incorporated in the Documentary History of the State. From New York he was sent; in mid-winter, across the ocean on a lugger of only fifty tons burden and after a voyage of two months, landed Christmas morning, 1643, on the coast of Brittany, in a state of absolute destitution. Thence he found his way to the nearest college of the Society. He was received with great honour at the court of the Queen Regent, the mother of Louis XIV, and was allowed by Pope Urban VII the very exceptional privilege of celebrating Mass, which the mutilated condition of his hands had made canonically impossible; several of his fingers having been eaten or burned off. He was called a martyr of Christ by the pontiff. No similar concession, up to that, is known to have been granted.

In early spring of 1644 he returned to Canada, and in 1646 was sent to negotiate peace with the Iroquois. He followed the same route over which he had been carried as a captive. It was on this occasion that he gave the name of Lake of the Blessed Sacrament to the body of water called by the Indians Horicon, now known as Lake George. He reached Ossernenon on 5 June, after a three weeks' journey from the St. Lawrence. He was well received by his former captors and the treaty of peace was made. He started for Quebec on 16 June and arrived there 3 July. He immediately asked to be sent back to the Iroquois as a missionary, but only after much hessitation his superiors acceded to his request. On 27 September he began his third and last journey to the Mohawk. In the interim sickness had broken out in the tribe and a blight had fallen on the crops. This double calamity was ascribed to Jogues whom the Indians always regarded as a sorcerer. They were determined to wreak vengence on him for the spell he had cast on the place, and warriors were sent out to capture him. The news of this change of sentiment spread rapidly, and though fully aware of the danger Jogues continued on his way to Ossernenon, though all the Hurons and others who were with him fled except Lalande. The Iroquois met him near Lake George, stripped him naked, slashed him with their knives, beat him and then led him to the village. On 18 October, 1646, when entering a cabin he was struck with a tomahawk and afterwards decapitated. The head was fixed on the Palisades and the body thrown into the Mohawk.

Poor St. Isaac. Had he lived in this age of ecumania, he might have realized that all he needed to do was kiss a totem pole or two and he might have died of old age in some Jesuit retirement home. That would only leave him with the awkwardness of explaining himself to his Eternal Judge.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 27, 2003.

jake, I'm not debating with you.

I am praying that hearts will be opened to see the much larger picture of what God's love and the capable progressive work of the Holy Spirit.

God Bless,

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

Delete.

-- The Other Bumper (persona@non.gratra), July 07, 2004.

Delete.

-- The Other Bumper (persona@non.gratra), July 07, 2004.

Why?

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

Jake, thank you for posting that inspiring story of St. Issac. Is that from the Lives of the Saints? I'm always touched by the faithfulness of martyrs, because it makes me wonder if I would be faithful even unto death, like the early, and even later Christian martyrs. And he was trying to help save souls, which makes it even more thought-provoking. It's a sobering thought... LB

-- Lydia Byrd (oiseaumouche@aol.com), July 08, 2004.