What is the Niceane Creed,i mean the exact wording of it?Could some one e mail me a copy?

-- Richard goodman (motleyjack@yahoo.ca), April 13, 2003

Answers

Richard

The Nicene Creed is as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This is used at Mass here, but I believe in some countries they would use the Apostle's Creed.

God bless, Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 13, 2003.

This is the translation of the Nicene Creed we use at the Traditional Latin Mass:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God. Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. By Whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.

(here all present kneel)

AND BECAME INCARNATE BY THE HOLY GHOST OF THE VIRGIN MARY: AND WAS MADE MAN. (here all arise.)

He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets. And one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I await the resurrection of the dead and the life + of the world to come. Amen.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 19, 2003.

Happy Easter to all.

Jake, your introductory words were a bit ambiguous:
"This is the translation of the Nicene Creed we use at the Traditional Latin Mass."
Someone may take your words to mean that you actually proclaim (or sing) that English translation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed at Mass. But you actually speak or sing in Latin, don't you?

Also, was the translation you reproduced released by the Vatican, or was the translation made in the U.S. and approved by an American bishop? Just curious.

Richard, the translation produced by Sara was produced by an international body of translators and approved by the Vatican around 1970. I believe that a new translation has been, or soon will be, prepared and will eventually be used in the newer rite of the Mass. (I think that I've heard that it will return to the use of "I believe" in place of "We believe.")

God bless you.
John

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

Someone may take your words to mean that you actually proclaim (or sing) that English translation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed at Mass. But you actually speak or sing in Latin, don't you?

Well, the priest (and sometimes the choir) actually says the words on behalf of the people, but yes. It's done in Latin. What I offered was a translation. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear.

Also, was the translation you reproduced released by the Vatican, or was the translation made in the U.S. and approved by an American bishop? Just curious.

It was taken from a 1962 missal, so I'm not sure by what you mean by "approved." Would you like the Impramatur information? Do you have reason to suspect that it's some sort of renegade or non-authentic translation?

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

The reason, (I think}, why traditionals say "I" instead of "we", is that I can't vouch for the fellow next to me. Maybe he does not believe in the creed.

Traditionalists also say "Holy Ghost" instead of "Holy Spirit".

You can leave "Holy" off of Spirit, but not off of Ghost.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Jake-1 and Ed R.

ME: ... was the translation you reproduced released by the Vatican, or was the translation made in the U.S. and approved by an American bishop? Just curious.
YOU (J): It was taken from a 1962 missal, so I'm not sure by what you mean by "approved." Would you like the Impramatur information? Do you have reason to suspect that it's some sort of renegade or non-authentic translation?
ME AGAIN: Actually, Jake-1 I found it offensive that you copied that translation here, because Sara had already produced a Vatican-approved translation for Richard. Your action appeared to be just another insult -- a way of saying that Sara's translation wasn't good enough. "Here, have a gander at a REAL translation, Richard," was the message that came through pretty loud and clear. I decided to have you reveal that your translation had a lower degree of approval behind it (if any at all) than Sara's translation.
As you now realize ... I'm fed up with the months and months of abuse of orthodox Catholicism, and I'm just not going to let you get away with anything. You would be doing yourself and us a big favor by leaving us alone.

YOU (E): The reason, (I think}, why traditionals say "I" instead of "we", is that I can't vouch for the fellow next to me. Maybe he does not believe in the creed.

ME: Actually, Ed R, according to what Jake-1 just said, you say neither "I" nor "we." Instead, the priest (and sometimes the choir) says/sings the Latin word "Credo," which literally means "I believe." Since a large group of people were all saying "I believe" aloud, it was deemed acceptable by the Church to show unity by using the freer translation, "We believe."

YOU (E): Traditionalists also say "Holy Ghost" instead of "Holy Spirit". You can leave "Holy" off of Spirit, but not off of Ghost.
ME: If anyone ought to want to say "Holy Spirit," it is you. The word is "Spiritus" in the Latin Vulgate (official Bible of the Church since St. Jerome), so "Spirit" is such a natural translation. The word "Ghost" is Anglo-Saxon, and you use it because it was used in the Douay version of the Bible. Besides the fact of the Latin "Spiritus," it's not a bad idea to avoid the word "Ghost," because that word has taken on a lot of "baggage" in English now. One last thing ... Even in the Douay version, the third Person of the Trinity is called "Spirit" without the word "Holy" --- because that is what the Holy Spirit sometimes inspired authors to write. Example:
Romans 8:9 (from Douay) -- But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
(To be consistent, the translators should have written "Ghost of God" and "Ghost of Christ.")

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Your action appeared to be just another insult -- a way of saying that Sara's translation wasn't good enough. "Here, have a gander at a REAL translation, Richard," was the message that came through pretty loud and clear.

Funny, you're apparently the only one who thinks so.

You would be doing yourself and us a big favor by leaving us alone.

Do I have reason to fear if I choose to ignore you? If so, on what basis and to what degree should I be afraid? If not, please explain the above statement in greater detail. Thank you.

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

A very good MODERN link to questions of prayer and catechism is: http://www.nccbuscc.org/

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 23, 2003.

Here is a link to genuinely Catholic catechesis and solid doctrine.

My you find it helpful!

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

John; You are expert in translaations . When they translated "For Many", into "For All", was it also a correction of the Consecration, that we had been wrongly using for centuries. Even Trent did not catch that one.

God Bless

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

Richard,

I don't think anyone addressed the issue of the FILIOQUE in the version of the Nicene Creed that is often used today in the Roman Catholic Church.

The majority of Western Churches recite the Nicene Creed with the "Filioque," the part that says, 'We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [AND THE SON.] The addition of the Filioque, "and the Son," was not part of the original Creed written by the Fathers of Nicea, but was added later by a local Council (NOT Ecumenical Council) of the Latin Church, and has often been a source of controversy between the Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church officially rejects the use of the "Filioque" in their recitation of the Nicene Creed, saying that it obscures the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, while about half of the Eastern Catholic Churches adopted the use of the "Filioque" while the other half continue to omit it. Eastern Catholics retain the right to include or omit the "Filioque" in our recitation of the Creed, both privately and publically.

The "problem" with the "Filioque" is more semantical than theological. The Orthodox Church maintains that to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from BOTH the Father and Son, is to somehow imply that the Holy Spirit is a manifestation that is "created" by union of the Father and the Son. Obviously, this theology would be incorrect since the Holy Spirit is not created, but co-eternal with the Father and the Son. HOwever, the wording of the "Filioque" might imply such an idea.

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you." -- John 14:26

From St. John, we clearly see that the Holy Spirit is solely "sent" or "proceeds" from the Father, but in the "name" or "will" of the Son. Technically, it would be more proper to say, 'We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father AND THROUGH THE SON.

I do remember in my CCD class as a kid, being taught that the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son. I remembered liking that idea. Howeber, while it sounds nice and cute, it's actually heretical. I know this idea still lingers around in the minds of some Catholics who do not clearly understand the Person of the Holy Trinity.

If I am not mistaken, I understand that Rome is/has looking/looked at "revising" the Nicene Creed, returning back to the original Creed, minus the Filioque. Again, that's a rumor that I heard.

Joseph

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 23, 2003.

In my second to last paragraph, I meant to say, "Person of the Holy Spirit," not Holy Trinity.

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 23, 2003.

Jmj

Thank you, Josephwill, for your interesting post about the "filioque." I have studied this subject in the past, so I can share with you a correction or two of what you stated ...

Actually, the creed that we profess at Mass is not the "Nicene Creed" of the Council held in the year 325. Rather, it is the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" of the Council of Constantinople of the year 381. (I know that the pope uses this longer name in some of his addresses.) According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the creed we use is distinguished from the original Nicene Creed in that the final section ["I believe in the Holy Spirit ..."] was enlarged significantly in 381.

It is true that "filioque" was added after Nicea (and even after Constantinople). However, the Catholic Church has now sanctioned its use so strongly and clearly that we know it to be an infallible teaching. No one is free to deny it, though (as you said) the pope has given permission to the Eastern churches to omit it.

I believe that the pope has also said that we may speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father "through" the Son. However, you were wrong to say that it is "more proper" to say "through the Son." Rather, the Church teaches us that it is equally proper to say "through the Son" or "and the Son," as long as we bear in mind the proper relationship of the Persons.

You also stated that "The wording of the 'Filioque' [as proceeding from the Father and the son] might imply" that the Holy Spirit is "created" by union of the Father and the Son.
I don't agree that it "might imply" that. In order to "create" something/someone, there has to be a time before which the created thing/person did not exist. But the Catholic Church has always made it clear that all three Persons of the Trinity are eternal (i.e. uncreated). Therefore, no one in the East should ever have imagined that the "Filioque" "might imply" a "creation" of the Holy Spirit.

Josephwill, you quoted John 14:26 and stated that, based on this verse, "we clearly see that the Holy Spirit is solely 'sent' or 'proceeds' from the Father, but in the 'name' or 'will' of the Son." You are mistaken, because you are explicitly denying what the Church teaches -- namely, that the Holy Spirit does not "proceed" "solely" from the Father ... is not "sent" "solely" by the Father. By quoting only John 14:26, you are neglecting John 16:7, which illustrates my point:
Jesus said, "... it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you."
We see then, that Jesus also "sends" the Holy Spirit, which logically implies that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" also from Jesus, not "solely" from the Father.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 24, 2003.

John says:

Jmj Thank you, Josephwill, for your interesting post about the "filioque." I have studied this subject in the past, so I can share with you a correction or two of what you stated ...

Joseph says:

John, in order for you to correct, you'll have to be right. Something I am not too sure of :)

John says:

It is true that "filioque" was added after Nicea (and even after Constantinople). However, the Catholic Church has now sanctioned its use so strongly and clearly that we know it to be an infallible teaching. No one is free to deny it, though (as you said) the pope has given permission to the Eastern churches to omit it.

Joseph says:

John, can you please reference which document/statment that says the Filioque is an infallible teaching of the Church. I am not aware of something just being automatically "infallible" just because it's held as common belief by the faithful. I will say that your comment is very orthodox. The Orthodox maintains that if the faithful hold and accept a "universal" belief, it is therefore so.

John says:

I believe that the pope has also said that we may speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father "through" the Son. However, you were wrong to say that it is "more proper" to say "through the Son." Rather, the Church teaches us that it is equally proper to say "through the Son" or "and the Son," as long as we bear in mind the proper relationship of the Persons.

Joseph says:

Therefore, I am saying essentially the same thing the Holy Father is.

John says:

You also stated that "The wording of the 'Filioque' [as proceeding from the Father and the son] might imply" that the Holy Spirit is "created" by union of the Father and the Son. I don't agree that it "might imply" that.

Joseph says:

Unfortunately, I've heard many Roman Catholics profess an idea that the Holy Spirit is somehow a manifestation of the relationship of the Father and Son, and this notion does imply that the Holy Spirit is "created" from a particular union. However, we both know this is wrong. The Eastern Churches have been concerned with the addition of the Filioque as it *could* imply what I stated above.

Here's a clear example from a Catholic Webpage, incorrectly explaining the personhood of the Holy Spirit:

'God the Father is the Creator of Heaven and earth. His Word is God the Son, Jesus. The love between God the Father and God the Son is so perfect, and so complete that it is another Person, equal to the Father and the Son. (Your child loves you and you love your child, but sometimes you get mad at each other, or sometimes you do things for yourself instead of for each other - God's love is better than that, he never gets mad, or tired, or impatient with us or with His Son.)' http://www.domestic- church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19990901/ARTICLES/holyspirit.htm

While above person sincerely tries to communicate a mystery of our faith, it's this idea of a "union" of the Father and the Son, that manifests the Holy Spirit that is troubling. This is just ONE webpage of many that uses the same analogy. I personally think people get this idea from the wording of the Filioque. This idea/theology DOES NOT exist in the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Church that often use the Creed, minus the Filioque.

John says:

In order to "create" something/someone, there has to be a time before which the created thing/person did not exist. But the Catholic Church has always made it clear that all three Persons of the Trinity are eternal (i.e. uncreated). Therefore, no one in the East should ever have imagined that the "Filioque" "might imply" a "creation" of the Holy Spirit.

Joseph says:

Well, some Roman Catholics seem to think it does (see my cut/paste from a webpage above.)

Bottom line, both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church holds the same understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit with slightly different interpretations. As an Eastern Catholic, we use the Creed minus the Filioque. However, both are valid. Peronally, I see the Filioque possesing certain theological dangers. I've NEVER heard an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox use the analogy of Holy Spirit being a "union of love" of the Father and Son. However, I was taught this in CCD and I see that it continues to be taught to this day.

I am just glad that the Holy Spirit exists.

John says:

Josephwill, you quoted John 14:26 and stated that, based on this verse, "we clearly see that the Holy Spirit is solely 'sent' or 'proceeds' from the Father, but in the 'name' or 'will' of the Son." You are mistaken, because you are explicitly denying what the Church teaches -- namely, that the Holy Spirit does not "proceed" "solely" from the Father ... is not "sent" "solely" by the Father. By quoting only John 14:26, you are neglecting John 16:7, which illustrates my point:

Jesus said, "... it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." We see then, that Jesus also "sends" the Holy Spirit, which logically implies that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" also from Jesus, not "solely" from the Father.

Joseph says:

John, you're incorrect. With all due respect, please get a dictionary and look up the definition of "proceed" and "send." To "proceed" carries an implication of coming from a source; originate or issue. Therefore, if you say the Holy Spirit proceeds from BOTH the Father and the Son, it can be implied that the Holy Spirit is originate from the TWO (which seems to be the foundation of the the idea that the Holy Sprit is a manifestation of a union of the Father and Son...) which would be incorrect. To send is to dispatch, to direct on a mission or journey, etc., Very different from "proceed." Therefore, in John 16:7, Jesus says that He will SEND the Holy Spirt, not that it will PROCEED from HIM. Proceed or send? Close, but not exact. The Baltimore Catechism had to clarify the potential misunderstanding of "proceed":

Q. 106. From whom does the Holy Ghost proceed? A.The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. (a) The Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father and the Son by spiritual generation. Only the Son proceeds from the Father by generation. This is one of the mysterious truths that we know only from revelation.

We are clearly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son as your Scripture passages confirm. Therefore, the Pope allowing that it may be stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds THROUGH the Son as being correct is the one I use.

Joseph, sinner

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 25, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, "josephwill".

QUOTE: John, can you please reference which document/statement that says the Filioque is an infallible teaching of the Church.

REPLY: Joseph, I am aware of the fact that many people mistakenly believe that there must be such a declaratory document before a teaching can be considered infallible. The fact that you ask for such a document means that you must not be aware of the case of Catholic doctrines being taught infallibly through the "ordinary and universal magisterium." The "Filioque" is one of these doctrines. (I believe that you can read about this exercise of infallibility in Vatican II's "Guadium et spes," in the Catechism, and probably in the recent "Ad tuendam Fidem.")

QUOTE: I am not aware of something just being automatically "infallible" just because it's held as common belief by the faithful. I will say that your comment is very Orthodox. The Orthodox maintains that if the faithful hold and accept a "universal" belief, it is therefore so.

COMMENT: It's funny that you should mention that. I didn't make such a claim about "filioque," so it surprised me that you even raised it. I said nothing about what the "faithful" believe. However, it really is true that the most basic form of the four forms of infallibility is very close to what you have stated -- wherein a doctrine is known to be sure if it is universally held by the Body of Christ. This too is stated in "Gaudium et spes" and perhaps the CCC.

QUOTE: Therefore, I am saying essentially the same thing the Holy Father is.

COMMENT: Well, no. You said something different, which is why I had to correct you. You said that it is "more proper" to say "through the Son" than "and the Son." I explained that it is not "more proper," but equally proper, provided "we bear in mind the proper relationship of the Persons."

QUOTE: Unfortunately, I've heard many Roman Catholics profess an idea that the Holy Spirit is somehow a manifestation of the relationship of the Father and Son, and this notion does imply that the Holy Spirit is "created" from a particular union.

COMMENT: Again, Josephwill, you are mistaken. It does not, and could not, imply such a thing. Perhaps the problem is caused by your (or the Orthodox) giving an improper definition to the word, "created." I myself do not call the Holy Spirit a "manifestation [etc.]," but when people say things like that, no one should infer that a "creation" is intended. Something that is "created" has a beginning ... at one point, it did not exist. However, those who speak of a "manifestation" (or some such term) are referring to an eternal, uncreated manifestation, not a manifestation created "in time."

[By the way, I am a Catholic, not a "Roman Catholic," and I strongly disapprove of that anti-papal slur, which was invented by heretics in 16th-century England. When you wish to distinguish my church from yours, please refer to "Latin Cathoic" or "Western Catholic." (I realize that you were not aware of this, so I am not at all angry with you.)]

QUOTE: [After you quoted, from a site, a frequently encountered description of the Holy Spirit ...] This idea/theology DOES NOT exist in the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Church that often use the Creed, minus the Filioque.

COMMENT: I certainly believe you, but that mere fact does not mean that the theology is heretical. As you know, the Church breathes with "two lungs," and different insights are sometimes given to East and West. I will grant you this: I myself have never been able to grasp this frequently expressed concept of the Holy Spirit as the "personified," mutual Love of Father and Son ... and this concept is not taught in the new Catechism (though that does not necessarily mean that it is false). I cannot insist that the concept is right or wrong. It is not my place to decide.

QUOTE: John, you're incorrect. ... We are clearly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son as your Scripture passages confirm.

COMMENT: This is amazing, Josephwill. I pointed out that you were wrong, but you did not even admit it. Instead, you only wanted to talk about how I am "incorrect." Can you please do the gallant thing and admit that you were wrong, and as I proved to you? Let me show you again
You previously stated (after quoting John 14:26): "[W]e clearly see that the Holy Spirit is solely 'sent' or 'proceeds' from the Father, but in the 'name' or 'will' of the Son."
I then quoted John 16:7 to show that Jesus also "sends" the Holy Spirit -- contrary to what you had stated.
Now, in replying, you say: "We are clearly taught that the Holy Spirit ... is sent by the Son as your Scripture passages confirm." But why didn't you say, "I was wrong, last time, to say that the Holy Spirit is 'solely sent' by the Father"?

Changing gears ... Again, in your previous post you stated (after quoting John 14:26): "[W]e clearly see that the Holy Spirit is solely 'sent' or 'proceeds' from the Father, but in the 'name' or 'will' of the Son."
Notice that you (correctly) equate "is sent" and "proceeds." You said "is ... sent or proceeds." In replying, I agreed with you, thus showing that the Holy Spirit "is sent" by both Father and Son ... and "proceeds" from both Father and Son. If this were not true, there could never have been a "Filioque." A billion Catholics, every Sunday, say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father AND the Son" (qui ex Patre Filioque procedit). If you wish to claim that a billion Catholics are professing heresy, Josephwill, then you need to join an Eastern Orthodox church. As a Catholic, you have no right to think or say that there is an error in the Profession of Faith. The Church has decided that you may say "qui ex Patre per Filium procedit" (through the Son), but has also decided that you may not doubt the rightness of Filioque (and the Son).

QUOTE: The Baltimore Catechism had to clarify the potential misunderstanding of "proceed": Q. 106. From whom does the Holy Ghost proceed? A.The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.

COMMENT: Well, great. By quoting the BC, you have just made my own point and contradicted your previous statement. As the BC says, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Persons. [Since you have quoted the BC on this, it would be logical for you to say "Filioque" (and the Son) yourself!] The BC, as you pointed out, says that Personhood is not by "spiritual generation." I have read, in more than one source, that the theological term used is, instead, "single spiration" from Father and Son.

Take it easy, Josephwill.
God bless you -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2003.

Well, again we will have to agree to disagree. Peace be with you.

Joseph

-- Joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 26, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Joseph.

By accident yesterday, I came across an interesting page that I wanted to recommend that you read.
This is a brief essay on the "Filioque," followed by supporting quotations from some of the early (Eastern and Western) Fathers of the Church. I just wanted to let you know that I am not the only Catholic saying the things that I've shared with you on this thread. The page that I've linked here was created by Catholic Answers, Inc., professional apologists who are not going to mislead you on doctrine.

You wrote, "Well, again we will have to agree to disagree." I'm not sure what you meant by "again," since I don't think that I had agreed to do that previously. As I had to tell an ex-Catholic (now Anglican), Michael Duffy, on another thread yesterday, it is not my practice to "agree to disagree." Doing that leaves a matter undecided, like breaking off the singing of a song in the middle of the last line. It's an unpleasant experience for me. Maybe it's better to say, "Let's suspend our discussion for now," because that leaves me some hope that you will eventually come around.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.

John, my late father once said, "Every bird likes to hear himself sing." Now, I truly know what he meant.

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 30, 2003.

May I suggest, Josephwill, that you take a good look in your mirror and notice your own feathers and very big beak!

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 01, 2003.

USCCB wants Filoque removed from the Creed.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 04, 2003.

Moderator, I ask you again to ban Jake. In his latest crude action, he is trying to mock the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He is trying to make all the bishops of the U.S. look like cowards or heretics who don't want to use the "Filioque" any more.

We don't need people like this at the forum. He is too stupid or too lazy to use his eyes and brain to see that the page he linked contains the following words, which make clear that the content of the page was NOT composed by the USCCB at all, nor was it posted as something sanctioned by the full USCCB:

[From the top of the page:]

An Agreed Statement of the
North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
October 25, 2003

[From the bottom of the page, showing that it was posted by committe bureaucrats:]

Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs

Jake, you're spelling your name wrong. It's will be properly spelled "J-e-r-k" -- as long as you keep this garbage up and get away with it, without being banned.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 04, 2003.

John

-your protests are hollow -IT is posted on thier website where ALL will read it -the fruits are on the tree...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 05, 2003.

Moderator, I ask you again to ban Jake.

Moderator, I tell you again that if you ban me, you'll be rid of me forever. Until then, though, as you've stated multiple times both implicitly and explicitly over the last several months, I am here just as legitimately as JFGBSDYCBS.

Your call.

He is trying to make all the bishops of the U.S. look like cowards or heretics who don't want to use the "Filioque" any more.

If the shoe fits...

Maybe not all of them, but enough of them to have their demonic position outlined on THEIR OWN website.

He is too stupid or too lazy

Guilty. Both counts!

the content of the page was NOT composed by the USCCB at all

It doesn't matter if it was composed by them as a body, a few of them as a committee, or one of them with a wild hair up his rear. The fact is that there is at least a faction of the USCCB that is in open heresy.

nor was it posted as something sanctioned by the full USCCB

Yet, mysteriously, it appears on THEIR website.

Jake, you're spelling your name wrong. It's will be properly spelled "J-e-r-k"

Ouch.

as long as you keep this garbage up and get away with it, without being banned.

The fact that it makes you uncomfortable (and I'm glad it does, it shows you still have some small semblance of the Faith in your hardened, bitter soul. Thank God!) hardly qualifies it as "garbage." It came from the USCCB, those people to whom you believe I owe absolute and unquestioning obedience. You might want to reconsider whom you refer to as purveyors of "garbage." They are lawful shepherds and teachers of the Church appointed by the Holy Father.

Shame on you.

As for my being banned, that is the decision of the Moderator. Reminding you of that fact almost daily is becoming tiresome.

Viva Cristo Rey!

-- jake (j@k.e), November 05, 2003.

(Me, last time): "nor was it posted as something sanctioned by the full USCCB"
(Jerk, in response): "Yet, mysteriously, it appears on THEIR website."

Jake, can anyone really be so ignorant as you and Danny Dingleberry show yourselves to be?
I said that it was not "sanctioned by the full USCCB" -- meaning that its publication (in print or at the Internet site) was not authorized by a vote cast by a majority of the nation's bishops.
Only people with rocks in their heads lack the common sense to figure out that any entity within the USCCB (e.g., a committee, subcommittee, secretariat) has the power to post pages at the site -- WITHOUT plenary approval, WITHOUT causing those pages to become Conference policy, WITHOUT implying that any or all of the bishops agree with the page, and WITHOUT binding any bishop.

There is no doubt in my mind that at least 90% of the U.S. bishops would vote against the removal of the "Filioque" from the Creed -- and the other 10% would recommend its removal without their intention having anything to do with heresy.

(Me, last time): "Your name will be properly spelled j-e-r-k -- as long as you keep this garbage up and get away with it, without being banned."
(Jerk, in response): "The fact that it makes you uncomfortable (and I'm glad it does, it shows you still have some small semblance of the Faith in your hardened, bitter soul. Thank God!) hardly qualifies it as 'garbage.' It came from the USCCB, those people to whom you believe I owe absolute and unquestioning obedience. You might want to reconsider whom you refer to as purveyors of 'garbage.' They are lawful shepherds and teachers of the Church appointed by the Holy Father. Shame on you."

Jake, I hope that the above words from you were just a feeble attempt at playing a word-game, rather than an attempt at a legit comment. But consider past blunders of yours, I have to consider the latter possibility and refute it, lest anyone think that you made a valid point.

I never said that "it" (the linked page) makes me "uncomfortable." I hardly read any of the page, and I didn't evaluate it at all, since doing those things was unnecessary. My comments were solely about your misbehavior. THAT'S what I was referring to -- your continuing bad behavior, not the linked page -- when I used the word "garbage." Day after day, you make it your sleazy, demon-inspired mission to track down some site or quotation to link here -- to make a mockery of someone or something within Catholicism.
As if that wasn't bad enough, now you come up with different form of "garbage" -- falsely claiming that I "believe [you] owe absolute and unquestioning obedience" to the USCCB. You are a bloody liar, Jerk!

You closed with, "As for my being banned, that is the decision of the Moderator. Reminding you of that fact almost daily is becoming tiresome."

I don't need to be "reminded." I'm not a mental midget like you, who would forget such a thing.
But "reminding" me is not really what is "becoming tiresome" to you. Rather, it is my words that are wearing on your conscience, and this is "tiring" your soul. You want me to stop, but I will never stop. The Bible requires me to point out to my brothers that they [here, you and the enabling moderator] are sinning.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

Jake, can anyone really be so ignorant as you and Danny Dingleberry show yourselves to be?

Only people with rocks in their heads

sleazy

demon-inspired

You are a bloody liar, Jerk!

I'm not a mental midget like you

If you'd learn to argue more effectively, you'd win more of them.

I forgive you.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.

Jmj

You're wrong, Joke.

When I talk to a NORMAL person who is worthy of engaging people in conversations, I "argue ... effectively."
But when I talk to YOU, Joke, I am not "argu[ing]."
Instead, I'm REPRIMANDING you as your elder and as a Catholic who is punishing a fallen-away Catholic for his crime.
And I'm TELLING YOU OFF for coming to a Catholic forum and trashing the Mass and pope.
Get it???

I no longer debate with you, because you are incapable of engaging in a debate. What a laugh -- your advising someone on how to "argue more effectively"! Even if Jesus himself appeared to you to "argue" against your sick position, you would try to defend yourself, because of your EGOMANIA -- Anti-Pope Jake I.

And I reject your phony forgiveness.

May God bless you with a very humbling experience that changes you completely for the better.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

You're wrong, Joke.

I'm REPRIMANDING you as your elder and as a Catholic who is punishing a fallen-away Catholic for his crime.

And I'm TELLING YOU OFF

Get it???

I'm afraid not. Could you rephrase what you're trying to tell me?

Anti-Pope Jake I.

I thought it was "Joke." Oh, no. Wait. "Jerk."

And I reject your phony forgiveness.

I know, but you will always have it. I give it freely and unconditionally.

May God bless you with a very humbling experience that changes you completely for the better.

Thank you! I'm quite sure He will, if we both keep praying.

Viva Cristo Rey!

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.