The Great Apostasy : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Jesus said, just prior to his return, that there will be a great apostasy. What role does or will the Catholic Church play in allowing that apostasy? We know the the gates of hell can not prevail against the Church. How can the Church be so powerful, so gifted, and yet the majority of those living at the return of Christ may lose faith? It makes me wonder if the leadership in the Church is or will be much good at building up the faith of the Church. Where should we look to become sanctified? Hopefully you won't tell me to read a book.

-- Mike H. (, April 29, 2003


Subject: The Great Apostasy

-- Mike H. (, April 29, 2003.

Christ hinted, but Saint Paul stated it.

No one, not Christ, not Paul told us Rome was to blame for this apostacy. We are, in fact promised as a Church, that Jesus will be with us to the end of the world. Not with an elect society, not with those who don't display ''the sign of the beast'', not with anybody except His Church.

The main question should be, '''Which Catholics, which believers; in the end will be faithful?'' It does no good to be baptised, to go to church, to have a little faith. All the faithful who remain to the end must persevere under trials and tribulations. Most of all when that apostacy comes into the world. That's a reason to worry. Many of us are fat and comfortable. In hard times, what might become of us?

-- eugene c. chavez (, April 29, 2003.

We cannot judge the heart, of course, but we have every right to judge external actions of the pope vis a vis the Roman Catholic Faith. Many of the Saints vilified the popes of their time, who corrupted their office: St. Catherine (who called the pope a coward), St. Gertrude (who called the pope a spiritual murderer), St. Augustine (who condemned the pope on oath for heresy in the public square). Because the pope can do more damage than anyone else, he must be criticized more harshly than anyone else. That is the Catholic theology of the matter.

We have every right to judge a pope by his external actions, as the papacy is an external office. The Novus Ordinarians certainly do when they criticize Pope Pius XII for, in their personal opinion, not being as anti-Germany as they think he should have been. Aren't they themselves judging the pope? Hypocrites! When the pope acts like a Protestant in public, or even a pagan, we have not only the right but the duty to censure him. This right is given us in Scripture and in Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

People probably don't know that one pope was excommunicated. They probably don't know that 40 popes personally taught heretical doctrine, according to dogmatic Vatican I. Catholics understandably are confused by the recent run of bad popes (Paul VI, John Paul II, some say John XXIII) after a run of good popes (Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII). However, there were many bad popes in previous centuries.

The touchstone of truth is not the person of the pope, but the Catholic and Apostolic Deposit of Faith, which the pope by his very office is held to. If he departs from it, we as Catholics have the duty to call him on it, so that he does not create scandal and confusion for others. John Paul II ranks with Paul VI as being the most scandalous pope in recent memory. One day he's a Buddhist, the next day an Indian Animist, the next day a Mohammedan.

But from evil, God brings good. This pope's errors are becoming so manifest that even the normally somnolent secular press is beginning to wake up to the fact that there is a large body of traditional Catholics who are opposing his modernistic ideas. The Novus Ordo structure continues to crumble, whereas traditional sites continue to grow. We've even got movie stars now arguing publicly for traditional Catholicism!

And the Novus Ordo bishops and their minions certainly don't withhold judgment from traditional Catholics. But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Now, the bishops are getting hit aside the head by even the liberal secular press. The Novus Ordo, including, sad to say, the pope himself, has been exposed as suborning perversion, by silence in many cases and by overt action in others. A pope who refuses to take any punitive action against his archbishop, who fornicates with a young man and then uses church funds to buy his silence, is a pope that has lost the respect of the Church, and the world.

-- Ed Richards (, April 29, 2003.

What's a novus ordo in . . . English?

-- Leon (, April 29, 2003.

Look at it this way Ed,

All those saints you talked about were criticising popes practicing the Tridentine rite weren't they? There must be something about the tridentine rite that encourages heresy then right Ed? After all, no saints have criticised the "novus ordo", have they?


-- Someone (, April 29, 2003.

Ed is not about to let go of his bone; in each and every post he returns with another attack on the hierarchy, claiming he has the right to oppose the Pope.

Ed wants us to know his evaluation-- of our Pope, the others since the 2nd Vatican Council, and our Holy Mass is-- they're all worthless. In Ed's estimation, we are only obstacles to his Utopian Catholic Church, a return to the times when no sin existed at all in Catholicism. Not a trace; because only with and following Vatican II did we meet with sinful conditions in our Church.

He wants only the best for us. He wants God to approve of us; and right now, says Ed-- Nothing would please God about the Catholic Church. (Except Ed.)

-- eugene c. chavez (, April 30, 2003.

This was not meant to be a hierarchy bashing thread. If the hierarchy members are weak in faith than probably so am I and so are the rest of the faithful. We can also say that we get the priesthood we deserve. We sink together and we swim together. I just want to know how we can all swim together when all hell breaks loose. Will there be much hope?

-- Mike H. (, April 30, 2003.

Sorry Mike about your thread. The schismatics turn every thread into a Catholic-bashing session though, it's just something to put up with. Personally, though, I've come to put my trust in Christ that all will work out in the end on most everything.

Think about it, there were followers of Christ who actually LEFT CHRIST HIMSELF because of His teachings! There will always be apostasies, and people who are trained in apostasy who may not hear the truth. I'm sure our Father will know those who are seeking him. Peter denied Christ and was forgiven, the thief on the cross was forgiven when he asked, heck, Christ even asked for forgiveness of His tormentors! I think that apostasies will come and go, but the good shepherd will still gather His own at the end of it all, so no need to worry too much now.


-- Someone (, April 30, 2003.

Someday those of us who stand accused of schism will come to know the truth.

-- Emerald (, April 30, 2003.

Assuredly, Emerald, just keep praying for guidance.

-- Someone (, April 30, 2003.


Speaking of your post, did you know it was Divine Mercy Sunday, or is that just a fav. of yours? Also, are you big on personal revelation as a guide to others?


-- Someone (, April 30, 2003.

Last Sunday, yep. By personal revelation, you mean something like Saint Faustina or the like?

-- Emerald (, April 30, 2003.

Mike H, you raise a good question. Jesus does say, after all, "Will the son of man find any faith on this earth when he returns?".

He wants intimacy {in to me see}.. with His people. So many are afraid of this. This sacrificial love means going to the cross, dying, being crucified for love of Him. This means keeping our eyes on Him, not on the world which is passing away. This means wanting approval only from Him, not man. No man has shed his blood for me but Him.

The Church provides the tools, the means to stay close to Him. We need each other, though. Seek out a Christ-minded committed prayer community, much like the ones in Acts, who are corporately seeking Him regularly. Many Catholics unfortunately are luke-warm, and when comes time for Him, they will not know Him, and He will not know them. It mustn't be that way. The Holy spirit wants to set our hearts on fire for love of Him, He's looking for people to use, people who say 'yes' to Him and are willing to be sanctified and help in the healing and sanctification of others. Have you assessed your parish? Does it provide this kind of life for you? Theresa

-- theresa Huether (, April 30, 2003.

Mr. Someone,

The saints cannot criticise the Novus Ordo, because they thankfully all died before they could see what had happened. I cannot ever imagine Thomas More saying, "Let me stay around for one more performance of Bozo the Clown, or Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy"... "Gee thanks, now I can go in peace".

As far as me being the only one who believes the old mass should be the only mass, check he stats. Like the big board , N.O. is down 500 points, and Trad is up 500 points. Apparently there is a big sell off on N.O. stock. Unless there is a big turn around they may have to declare bankruptcy.

You have less people coming in, than are leaving... especially priests. The CEO and other executives are a bit concerned, dont you think? Downsizing is the only option right now.

-- Ed Richards (, April 30, 2003.

Dear Ed--

You think the well is running dry for the Church as a Vatican II stock?

As far as me being the only one who believes the old mass should be the only mass, check he stats. Like the big board , N.O. is down 500 points, and Trad is up 500 points. Apparently there is a big sell off on N.O. stock.''

Who said you were the only one? There's one born every minute, Eddie; and the market is a fine analogy. Your investment in the elitist church is growing. Might be a SPLIT soon; since little companies like yours keep coming up with capital. A real Schism would bust your bubble; but after all. Risk can be leveraged; you'll keep one foot in the Pope's company as long as you can. (Don't sell it short, Glamor Stock.)

-- eugene c. chavez (, April 30, 2003.

Dear Ed--

You say a downturn in our Church as Vatican II stock is all to your benefit? You're selling better stock, Hmmm?

''As far as me being the only one who believes the old mass should be the only mass, check he stats. Like the big board , N.O. is down 500 points, and Trad is up 500 points. Apparently there is a big sell off on N.O. stock.''

Who said you were the only one? There's one born every minute, Eddie; and the market is a fine analogy. Your investment in the elitist church is growing. Might be a SPLIT soon; since little companies like yours keep coming up with capital. A real Schism would bust your bubble; but after all. Risk can be leveraged; you'll keep one foot in the Pope's company as long as you can. (Don't sell it short, Glamor Stock.)

-- eugene c. chavez (, April 30, 2003.

DJIA: up 134 OEX: up 34 EUGENE: up 2 no good (just kidding) NASDAQ: down 66 Charity: trading suspended SSPX: delisted? SDCA: sunny, warm...

-- Emerald (, April 30, 2003.

Little companies are bought out by the biggies all the time, Eddie. I think your company's stock is due for a huge leap in value. The big merger with is driving it up. Hey; tell us about that company? Is that where the smart money's investing? Thanks for letting me in out it. Biggest thing since, they say.

-- eugene c. chavez (, April 30, 2003.

I like it, Emerolled,

Why is it Teal? You don't have Emerald Green? I'll pay for that /

-- eugene c. chavez (, April 30, 2003.

Well... it's in short supply right now. =)

-- Emerald (, April 30, 2003.

Hey...HEY now! What's with the "bad popes" business, lumping Paul VI and JP2 in the mix?

We all know that Peter could and did do less than perfect things - went fishing when perhaps he should have been somewhere else (Acts), failed pastorally at Antioch out of fear of offending the party of James (cf. Paul)... but personal failures or omissions do not make the papacy per se bad or individual men untrustworthy or bereft of real spiritual authority.

Your boss might be wrong about X, but still be owed obedience in Y. If he said "Yankees will win, Mets will loose" and it turns out both don't make it into the playoffs, the Papacy isn't proven untrustworthy and the Pope isn't proven to lack moral authority (all that would prove is lack of acumen in baseball lore and guesswork.)

Maybe that's not your point with the "bad Pope, good pope" line.

Maybe you don't subscribe to the theory that everything that happens can be blamed on the Pope and Bishops rather than on other factors and actors as well.

But we should take care to not sit in judgment of a Pope's moral virtue, especially on matters of pastoral prudence - when it's often times a toss up at the time; such as debating whether Paul VI released Humanae Vitae too late or whether John XXIII called for the Council too soon, or whether JP2 was right to consider continued diplomacy stood a chance of effecting real tranquilitas ordinis in Iraq....

On the latter issue I've repeatedly said that had I been in his shoes and operating on the suppositions and information he had, I'd probably have said the same thing. But I'm not so I didn't. Unfortunately no one at the Secretariat of State asked my opinion...

They may all have been proven wrong by events, but that doesn't mean they were morally guilty of committing sins or that their office and authority hinges on perfection. "Bad Popes" is an unfair characterization of men who confronted hugely complicated issues on a daily basis and often times had less than perfect associates and supporters helping them carry the cross and guide the bark of Peter.

Sometimes shepherds make mistakes. Sometimes they could have done X better or quicker, or with more finesse... but then, hey, so could you in your role as husband and father!

If any of you apply the same moral yardstick to yourselves how many would be left with any spiritual and moral authority over your wife and children? When you make a mistake does that ipso facto make you forever a "bad father"? If, like John XXIII you presumed that things were better in the orders (SJ) and priesthood (diocesan) than they actually were (as most of YOUR parents also assumed when sending you to Catholic schools)... would that forever mean you lack authority?

Hardly. It would mean that mistakes can be made in prudential decisions when the information we have to go on is incomplete, incorrect, or simply not available. People can make honest mistakes without being morally culpable.

-- joe (, April 30, 2003.


Personally, I've got nothing against prior Popes, but was pointing out to Ed how all of his "bad examples" occurred in the time of the Tridentine rite which he believes will somehow "restore" the church if re-mandated. He missed it though.


I just thought it mildly ironic that you approved of St. Faustina's vision (which was approved by JPII), and of her Canonization (also by JPII) but don't believe in Vat II. Was wondering why you'd accept his authority on some things in the cafeteria line, but not others.


-- Someone (, April 30, 2003.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

-- Ed Richards (, April 30, 2003.

Masonry Triumphs at Vatican: At Papal Mass: "Let us pray for all peoples and cultures of the world, for all those who seek God in different religious ways. May there always be dialogue among them, may intolerance and contempt be extinguished, and together may they seek ways of concord and fraternity"! Welcome to Indifferentism, Humanism, and Sillonism! Is this really what Our Lord told his Apostles to do? Doesn't sound much like "Go uut and preach the gospel to all men.

-- Ed Richards (, April 30, 2003.

Dialogue is indifferentism?? Contempt is the opposite of humanism?? Praying for people of other faiths is the stuff of Masonry?? Gee, maybe Masonry isn't as bad as I thought!

-- Paul (, April 30, 2003.


I think you're reading into that prayer. It could be a prayer said by anyone. It's pretty general. I think I'd wait for clearer evidence before blowing the whistle. I'm glad you are on the watch though.

-- Mike H. (, April 30, 2003.

I just thought it mildly ironic that you approved of St. Faustina's vision (which was approved by JPII), and of her Canonization (also by JPII) but don't believe in Vat II. Was wondering why you'd accept his authority on some things in the cafeteria line, but not others.

Probably the reason why you find in somewhat ironic is something like this:

Since I accept Vatican II for only what it is, that is, a pastoral council... and don't accept for what it is not, that is, a dogmatic council, that I must reject the Pope's authority and the Vatican.

But that just wouldn't be the logical conclusion, nor is it my real position. It's an invention of those who are bothered by traditional Catholic teachings.

To say Emerald doesn't believe in Vatican II is too ambiguous. Anything in Vatican II that is a re-statement of existing doctrines of the Faith, I must submit to. Anything in there that is contrary to the Faith of the ages, and there are things in there like that, I don't have to partake in.

That's actually a fact; it's not a concoction, an excuse, or a willful cafeteria choosywoozy thing at all.

So it's not so ironic at all.

Want to know what's ironic? Let me tell you what really is ironic. Jesus came along and gave some words to Saint Faustina. Someone else came along, and in the name of Vatican II (by their own admission), they changed the words of Jesus. Where He said schismatics and heretics, they put "separated brethren", and where He said pagans, they put "those who do not know You" or something.

Someone thinks they know more than Jesus. I've heard of about people who think they are holier than the Pope, but this one tops them all. Someone is holier than Jesus. lol!

It was actually done in the name of Vatican II, specifically.

Or course, I don't say that one; I say the original one and ignore this other thing about whatever the reason was whatnot this and that. At some point, someone needs to just get the job done, get it done right, and get it done on time.

One of these days, sooner, later, whenever, y'all's gonna have to try to actually understand what motivates people in these matters.

-- Emerald (, April 30, 2003.

Emerald; If that's all that motivates you, you need counselling.

By ME -- NOT by Ed, absolutely; nor Jake & Regina. This email addy is my new one. You have serious problems. The worst problem I notice is, you like ivory towers. We can't build you any in this site. We're not engineers or ivory traders. We're simply Catholics. So actually, you came to a better place. Let's snap you out of it, Man.

-- eugene c. chavez (, April 30, 2003.

What is lost on me is the desired outcome.

Let's say I go to counseling, right... ok; there's a motivation reason. Then the counselor finds some sort of reason why; the thing that's actually wrong with me. Then I assume would be the proposed solution.

Questions that come naturally:

1. What's my problem which invokes the need for counseling;

2. What is the underlying problem at work here; and

3. What is the proposed solution.

I can answer that. lol, really. I can do it!

1. Sin and blindness

2. Orginal and actually sin, and

3. The seven Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church.

So the good news is, I've already sought counseling. Praise God! lol.

-- Emerald (, April 30, 2003.

OH; OK--

I thought this was motivationg you:

[Who?] came along, and in the name of Vatican II (by their own admission) --they changed (Who's THEY?) the words of Jesus. Where He said schismatics and heretics, they put "separated brethren", (Odd; what COULD ''they'' mean?) and where He said pagans, they put "those who do not know You" or something. (OK; very implausible; you caught ''them''.)

Someone thinks they know more than Jesus. I've heard people who think they are holier than the Pope, but this one? (I know; tops them all. She-eee!)

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 01, 2003.

Here is the actual footnote explanation for changing Christ's actual words to a Saint:

"*Our Lord's original words here were "heretics and schismatics," since He spoke to Saint Faustina within the context of her times. As of the Second Vatican Council, Church authorities have seen fit not to use those designations in accordance with the explanation given in the Council's Decree on Ecumenism (n.3). Every pope since the Council has reaffirmed that usage. Saint Faustina herself, her heart always in harmony with the mind of the Church, most certainly would have agreed. When at one time, because of the decisions of her superiors and father confessor, she was not able to execute Our Lord's inspirations and orders, she declared: "I will follow Your will insofar as You will permit me to do so through Your representative. O my Jesus " I give priority to the voice of the Church over the voice with which You speak to me" (497). The Lord confirmed her action and praised her for it."

I aint fallin' fer that! lol.

-- Emerald (, May 01, 2003.

Go ahead, but don't forget to tell us if you ever see anything you can agree with. Because you and the others have played this kazoo much too long and hard. It has gotten redundant.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 01, 2003.


I agree, that's consistent if dogma *cannot* be asserted in a pastoral council. Perhaps you can enlighten me, can there be dogma asserted in a pastoral council or not? If so, you'd better pay more attention to the details of Vat II. Also, if St. Faustina was instructed about heretics and SCHISMATICS, don't you get a little creeped out always taking the side of the followers (who may or may not be excommunicated themselves) of an excommunicated schismatic like Lefebvre?


P.S. going out of town for the next few days, so won't answer.

-- Someone (, May 01, 2003.

soon (won't answer soon)

-- Someone (, May 01, 2003.

Great question, and I have been thinking of it often lately. The Great Apostacy is a precursor to the "man of sin being revealed," the anti-Christ. Apostacy -- A falling away from the truth -- that could mean so many different things.

When the U.S. Bishops came out last year with their statement that "Jews are already in a saving relationship and don't need to convert" the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I think that is dangerously close to "falling from the truth." I know their statement can be interpretted in many different ways, but the message it sent was clear -- TOLERANCE at the expense of truth!

When John Paul II kissed the koran, he sent a message, perhaps not the message he intended, but it looked as those he was authenticating Islam's teachings -- they deny Christ as Lord and Savior.



-- Gail (, May 01, 2003.

Please don't panic,

What apostacy is isn't falling away from the truth. One is just a fool then, not an apostate. Apostacy means leaving the Catholic faith, denying what was before the true faith. Not even Judas apostacized, he betrayed Jesus Christ. If the great apostacy meant falling away from truth, every protestant apostacized.

The apostacy to come is a wholesale denial by Christians of their holy faith. They are to renounce Christ altogether.

No one can really understand this until it starts. It may mean (what else?) a vast atheistic movement out of the Church. It may be conversion to an opposing religion, like Islam. It may mean Catholic turning on Catholic, father against son, mother against daughter, brother against brother, as religion is completely destroyed. Except for the elect-- the saints. They were whom Christ referred to saying, ''Unless those days [are] had been shortened no living creature would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.'' (Matt 24:22.) That means the Church will be alive, with only the just remaining until Christ's Parousia. All sinners will have been absorbed by the anti- Christ. (Six-six-six --?)

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 01, 2003.

I think we're there, Eugene, imho.

That's just my opinion, you see; in all honesty, I couldn't prove this.

-- Emerald (, May 01, 2003.

We couldn't prove anything yet to come. Is an anti-Christ performing great wonders? Our Lord stated very clearly ''No man knows the hour.''

We are to watch and pray. He comes like a thief, when nobody expects Him.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 01, 2003.

1972 “In the city of Rome there will be great confusion and trial. Satan, Lucifer in human form, entered into Rome in the year 1972. He cut off the rule, the role of the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI. Lucifer has controlled Rome and continues this control now. And I tell you, My children, unless you pray and make My counsel known to all of the ruling fathers of the Eternal City of Rome, My Son’s Church, His House, will be forced into the catacombs. A great struggle lies ahead for mankind. The eventual outcome is for good of all, for this trial in My Son’s Church will be a true proving ground for all the faithful. Many latter-day saints shall rise out of the tribulation. “My child and My children, I need not repeat to you the necessity to retain tradition. It was like a valve, a safeguard from the eruption of My Son’s Church, a schism, a division within My Son’s House upon earth. I cry unto you, your Mother, as I hasten back and forth bringing you the Message, the counsel from Heaven. You must recognize—bishops, cardinals and pastors—you must recognize what is happening now in My Son’s House. There is being rebuilt before your very eyes another religion, another church of man. No angels are helping in this building.” - Our Lady, September 7, 1978

-- Ed Richards (, May 01, 2003.

"Our Lady", as "spoken through" whom? This drivel is a glaring example of the tremendous dangers of placing faith in private "revelation". This "Lady", whoever she/he is, should check her/his facts with Our Lord, who has guaranteed that He would be with His Church until the end of time, and that the powers of evil would NEVER triumph over it.

-- Paul (, May 01, 2003.

Another willful excursion into prophetic nonsense by the Trad Guru. Our Blessed Mother is being trivialized here, used as a mere loser's graffitti in this forum. It becomes clearer every day, Ed is capable of blasphemous hell- raising on even the Holy Virgin's own person. What an obnoxious man!

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 01, 2003.

I'm flattered Eugene, you may not have much between the ears, but your sweet disposition more than makes up for it.

-- Ed Richards (, May 01, 2003.

and that the powers of evil would NEVER triumph over it.

Triumph is when you win the war, not the battles in between. Unless the Catholic Church disappears completely, the devil has not triumphed, he has only won a some battles. The Catholic Church will not disappear completely because of the words of Our Lord, but He never said how big it would be or how small it may become.

-- Isabel (, May 01, 2003.

2nd Thessalonians 2: 3: Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, (the day of the Lord) except there come a FALLING away first, and that the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (KJV)

The word "falling" in the Greek is "apostasia," which denotes "defection from the truth -- to forsake -- a revolt." It is also used in papyri documents speaking "politically of rebels." Strong's concordance.

It would seem the word denotes a sort of rebellion, really, from the truth. So, Eugene, a case could be made of the Protestant rebellion lead by Luther. As we see now, many of the denominations that stem from that rebellion are now in complete apostacy, even denying the virgin birth! Additionally, there are those within the Church who are denying essentials of the faith as well.

Ed, I really don't think the great apostacy is referring to falling away from age-old traditions, Latin masses, etc. Get a grip! The apostacy is denying who Christ is, denying the Creeds. Can you see the profound difference? I hope so!



-- Gail (, May 01, 2003.

Gail, thanks four level headed ,well thought response.. I Don't say that the Conciliar churxh has entirely lost it, but even some hurts the faith.

Aside from meddling with the Mass, ecumanism is the big culprit. Conversions have stopped dead in the water. If someone wants to find their way into the Church, they talk to friends or read early church fathers.

Have you ever seen the pope exhort anyone to come into the church? He travels all over the world, telling them to get along, love their fellow man, etc. Then he tells them that there is some truth in their religion. Not a word to them that Jesus is the way, the only way.

There are people in this forum that dislike me more and more with each post... Well I must be doing something right. Our Lord said that if they hated Him they would hate his followers.

When JP2 goes anywhere he is greeted with Joy and leaves the same way.... Don't sound kosher.. or maybe it is.

-- Ed Richards (, May 01, 2003.

The proponents of the New Order were devastated to have the Church's highest theological authority at the time and a President of the Vatican II Council publicly question the validity of the so- called "New Mass" and to have had Pope Paul VI admit the validity of Cardinal Ottaviani's charge and recall the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969, just after it was issued.

In an effort to counter the Cardinal's charges of invalidity, which stand true to this day, the New Order cooked up a phony "cover story" that the Cardinal had "retracted" his statement. This story interestingly parallels the deceit that the English bishops had used with St. Joan of Arc, claiming that she had retracted her statements. Of course, both stories are lies.

A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal's signature, was adduced to prove the story. However, by that date it is known that the Cardinal, then 80, was totally blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the purposed letter by his secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni.

Now it has come to light that this Agustoni was a member of the Consilium that fabricated the "New Mass" and that Arch-Architect of the New Order service Hannibal Bugnini led. At the time Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal "Itineraires," publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal's signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal's secretary.

So, it seems that Agustoni insinuated his way into becoming the Cardinal's secretary and in that position created a fraud in an attempt to undermine the Cardinal's public document, which questioned the validity of the New Order service, by a phony "retraction," which Agustoni had himself written with others. In any case, co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never "retracted," in any manner, shape, or form.

The moral of this story is that the New Order will resort even to fraud and lies to relieve itself of the embarrassment of having its New Order service called what it putatively is -- invalid.

-- Ed Richards (, May 01, 2003.


Out of curiosity, Gail, may I ask why you use a Protestant version of the bible? The Douey-Rheims (sp?) is a much superior Catholic version.

-- Isabel (, May 01, 2003.

Hi Isabel, Ed and everyone:

Ed, yes, I think the ecumenical movement is dangerously close to going off the deep end too. That worries me more than anything! But there is a movement within the Church -- it may not be what you want; i.e., a return to the Latin Mass -- but there are people in the church, laypeople and leaders alike who LOVE the Lord Jesus, and LOVE His Church, and who are not afraid to vocalize their concerns!

Vatican II and its dismissal of the Latin Mass stirred you, and concerned you, but it is NOT an essential to the historical Christian faith. The essentials, we must protect with our very lives, if need be. The articles in the Creeds are those essentials!

Isabel, I have an OLD OLD Douey Rheims. I have searched and searched in vain for a leather bound, but to no avail. I have a KJV 1611 Edition, leather bound, WITH the deuterocanicals! I just love the old English and its oratory power. I'll keep looking for that leather bound Douay.



-- Gail (, May 01, 2003.

I like some KJV Psalms better such as the well known Ps 22 which Jesus himself invoked from the cross:

Ps 22:29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

Ps 22:13-15 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

Lines 13-15 were used in a rock song I grew up with. Song was by The Guess Who and called Hang On To Your Life. But they don't sing the portion of the psalm, they just recite it at the end with some sounds in the background.

-- Mike H. (, May 01, 2003.

Yes indeed Gail, love is the main thing. I started another thread on eternity...much to contemplate.

Love and God bless all on these threads.


-- Ed Richards (, May 01, 2003.

Hey Mike, you mentioned one of my favorite bands! I love it. No kidding? They really sing that at the end of that song. I'll have to listen for that next time I hear it on the oldies station I listen to sometimes!



-- Gail (, May 02, 2003.


No kidding? They really sing that at the end of that song Sure do. Your oldies stations could modify the original recording and cut that last part out. That part of the song sounds forboding and anything that makes you feel moved like that might be nixed from popular radio. They have a web site with the lyrics here:

-- Mike H. (, May 02, 2003.

To quote Ed Richards:

''Yes indeed Gail, love is the main thing.''

Up a little ways another quote: ''Many of the saints vilified the popes of their time, who corrupted their office: St. Catherine (who called the pope a coward), St. Gertrude (who called the pope a spiritual murderer), St. Augustine (who condemned the pope on oath for heresy in the public square).''

A vulgar display of hubris, Ed now identifying his blather with the actions of saints. You think you follow the footsteps of the holy saints Ed?

Not much, freind. None were ever guilty of ''vilifying'' anybody, much less the Vicars of Christ. You have lost your marbles. There has never been a Pope ex-communicated. Prove the assertion. You are far from a saint, whether Catherine of Siena, Bridget, Augustine or even a beatum.

You are a muckraker at work for the overthrow of our faith. Our Lord prophesied the coming of ''traditionals'' as you call yourself. Wolves in sheep's clothing; and false prophets. You, Ed may be somewhat of a St. Savonarola. But, we won't despair for you. You can still be converted. All here are praying for you; even I.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 02, 2003.

Eugene; from your attitude, I may be steaming uder your collar.I don't want to and never did want to do that.

I never claimed to be a saint... You are the one throwing labels around here, not me. "Argument weak? Raise voice!Got the New Testament right here Mat.26 says 'FOR MANY' HONEST. wITH OR WITHOUT GLASSES.

-- Ed Richards (, May 02, 2003.

Don't pretend to know what you're talking about. Leave the Missal to the experts. Pray for wisdom.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 02, 2003.

Eugene let go of that hardness of heart. I suppose you do not believe your lying eyes when you see "Many" in the bible... there has to be some mistake.. because the ICEL charlatens said so. Even Paul 6th said Many. Look at his 1970 Mass before these saboteurs got hold of it.

-- Ed Richards (, May 03, 2003.

Ed-- Our manners aside, who is your teacher? Mine is Christ. His words, ''[To Peter] I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,'' make the Chair of Peter all the authority I look to. I don't have authority. Don't listen to me. You must face your helplessness if you part with Peter; and the Pope is Peter for today's Church. Otherwise, you are your own Pope. I'll have to dismiss that possibility.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 03, 2003.

Eugene: Those keys do not give Peter the right to change the words of his Lord.. Besides, you are forgetting that it was not Peter who changed those words, it was the the advice of a Protestant translator.. How's them bananas!

-- Ed Richards (, May 03, 2003.

Recently, while discussing the declining numbers at Mass with a Catholic friend, I ventured the opinion that the change from the old Latin rite to the new rite of Mass was partly responsible. He stoutly defended the superiority of the new Mass.

“In that old Mass,” he asserted, “you couldn’t understand what the priest was saying. It was all in Latin. And anyhow, he had his back to us, so we couldn’t see what was happening. We were left out of it. He was just praying away, doing his own thing. There was nothing for us to do.” This set me thinking. What my good Catholic friend had just said was exactly what my good Anglican friends used to say to me fifty years ago. My friend seemed to be thinking now like an Anglican. Was it possible. . . ?

Dom Gueranger started the liturgical revival in the nineteenth century, and, perhaps with an eye on what had happened during the Reformation, said that to change people’s religion you need do no more than change their books of worship. As we know, our books of worship were changed in 1968. The reason Pope Paul VI initiated the change was his hope that a new liturgy would somehow attract Protestants back into the Church. He accordingly invited Protestant observers, and they later claimed that they had been allowed to make positive contributions to the new text. Certainly, in the new Mass there is nothing that could offend Protestants in any way.

This is the whole thing ; Don't offend Protestants!

-- Ed Richards (, May 03, 2003.

''[To Peter] I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,''

This is a reference to the Sacrament of Confession.

It is also a reference to the authority of the Pope, to which you rightly allude. This authority includes the application of right moral principle to practical action and application, to which we are owe him our allegiance and obedience.

Such as in the case of the war in Iraq.

Even if he were wrong, in relation to the truth, in the determination of the proper application of moral principle, we still owe him our obedience in this case, such as one in a religious order is obliged to obey his or her superiors regardless if it is based upon truth, so long as it does not ask him or her to commit an intrinsically evil act or deny the truth. The suffering that may result from this hardship is effective for the the benefit of the body of Christ; it isn't a matter over infallibility but a matter of simple obedience.

Obedience does not derive its impetus from infallibility; otherwise, I would not have to honor my mother and father.

This authority the Pope has also includes the defining of doctrines when he takes it upon himself to act in this manner.

What the authority does not includes is promotion of anything or everything that may go into conflict with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the ages. He may in fact espouse something in the order of this, and it can happen and does happen from time to time, but the faithful or not obliged to deny any article of faith under a supposed obligation to obedience within this pretext.

The Holy Ghost guides his Church chiefly by making sure that nothing deviant from the faith of the ages becomes a defined "doctrine" through the authority of the Pope.

The Holy Ghost does not navigate new waters, but navigates His people to the Ark of Salvation upon those waters.

The things that are in the documents of Vatican II that are existing doctrines of the Catholic Church throughout all the ages require our assent.

The things that are in the documents of Vatican II that may be in conflict with the faith of the ages are not proposed in those same documents as being dogmatically defined.

Certain newer understandings of things Catholic flowing from Vatican II do not fall under the category of things dogmatically defined by the Supreme Pontiff(s) of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Some people would like to believe that they are, though.

-- Emerald (, May 03, 2003.

The past infallibly teachings of the Church cannot be contradicted by a future pope. If a pope publicly teaches heresies that have been condemned by past popes then that pope would be automatically excommunicated and fall from his office (he would be automatically deposed from the papacy) by the operation of the Church Law. It is the Church, not a man, who automatically deposes a pope who publicly teaches heresy. This protects the Catholic Church from defecting. If the Vatican II Church is the Catholic Church then the Church has defected and gates of hell have prevailed over the Church because the Vatican II Church contradicts past infallible papal decrees (dogmas). Papal infallibility would be meaningless if a pope can publicly deny/contradict past infallible papal decrees (dogmas).

It has been infallibly taught in the bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 that if a candidate for the papacy was a heretic before his election, even if he was elected by the unanimous consent of the Cardinals, the election would be null and void. John Paul II cannot be the pope because he publicly teaches and practices heresy. The bishops, since Vatican II, are known not to be Catholic bishops because they signed the heretical Vatican II documents.

-- Gotananswer (, May 03, 2003.


You said, "Papal infallibility would be meaningless if a pope can publicly deny/contradict past infallible papal decrees (dogmas)." It's meaningless anyway because any individual can deny any teaching of the Church if he or she would like to, including the dogma of infallibility. So what good is any one teaching if no one listens to that infallible teaching? Being infallible is nice but it is of no use. However, using whatever the Lord gives the Church member to lead others into Christ because their own personal conversion has touched another's heart is proper use.

You said, "John Paul II cannot be the pope" He is the current acting pope. That's good enough. I don't think we need to worry that we are being tricked. Like we are going to get to heaven's gate and God will say "surpise, you followed the wrong pope!" That kind of paranoia is bred by a Church over run with documentation, writings, excessive arguing, legalistic thinking etc. By their fruits you will know them. By what they do to the least. JPII is not an evil man. I don't think that being a Roman Catholic endangers my soul.

-- Mike H. (, May 03, 2003.

Dear Mike H,

So, lets say I think abortion is a great thing and I consider myself a good Catholic and I meet this poor pregnant woman and I encourage her, loving Catholic that I am and doing the thing "God" laid on my soul, to abort her baby because "she really can't devote the time a real mother needs to raise her so it would be best if she were not born".

It is absurd. It is evil. It is your philosophy, sir.

Good heavens think about what you say, Mike H. I did not say this to insult you but, please, you can not be a serious Catholic if you do you own thing. It does not work. It causes harm.

We all are weak. We all sin. But man you are lost if that is how you practice your faith. Give it some thought.

Who decides what "God" wants?

Without authority, there is nothing but disorder? Why do you think the Church is so fractionated? Luther was right? Zwingley was right? Knox was right? Henry XII was right? Calvin was right?....

-- Karl (, May 03, 2003.


I do follow the pope and the Church to the best of my ability. But that doesn't mean the doctrine of papal infallibility is useful. What if I am not capable of doing everything that the Church expects of me? If I can't live up to the the moral code laid out in the Catechism than the teaching must be flawed in its relation to myself, in certain areas of the teaching and in my current condition. It may lay down the ideal goals for me, which is useful. But it goes on to say some things like...."If you do this thing that you can't stop doing you are going to burn in hell, or you have to be humiliated by not going to communion."

And saying the pope is infallible makes you paranoid that you won't exactly follow every word, every dot, every comma. The dogma of infallibility a foolish way to express the faith to the faithful.

-- Mike H. (, May 03, 2003.

Without authority, there is nothing but disorder? Why do you think the Church is so fractionated? Luther was right? Zwingley was right? Knox was right? Henry XII was right? Calvin was right?....

I wouldn't join another religion, that is nuts. I left the Church for 20 years and never joined another one. I was a secular I suppose. Came back though. I'm just expressing that there are imperfect aspects to the Catholic Church even though it is the mother and core of all Christian faiths.

-- Mike H. (, May 03, 2003.

/////////////////////// Emerald \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\''. . . keys of the kingdom of heaven a reference to the Sacrament of Confession. (Says you,) It is also a reference to the authority of the Pope, to which you rightly allude. This authority includes the application of right moral principle to practical action and application, to which we are owe him our allegiance and obedience.

Wow! Emerald-- You may assume whatever you wish. The answers above are un-theological; as to confession, not from this biblical source. Peter was more than the apostle of confession. Moral principle? In three aspects I can think of immediately: 1.) Only as corresponds to Christ's teachings and the commandments of God.

2.) The religious aspect exclusively as it applies from ex cathedra i.e., speaking together with the Holy Spirit.

Not particularly on issues in society at large, though he has a bully pulpit, to put it profanely. Also, very frequently his insights as the Vicar of Christ will prove wonderfully inspirational. Without all his binding authority, they will still command respect and consideration. Not always strict obedience. (This is my opinion, it might be opposed in Catholic circles as inadequate.)

The KEYS make Peter Shepherd and Pope over the entire Catholic Church. There is no other man holding them.

My reference to them here is for purposes of rebuking dissent; and calling Ed Richard's ridiculous bluff. He is presuming to speak for the successor of Peter, or rather opposed to him. If Ed had the keys, he would deserve attention. He has nothing. He is bluffing, with his amateurish pretense of ''unlocking'' the scriptural words of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper for us.

Nobody is LESS qualified than him to rebuke or correct error. His own errors are countless, and his ''keys'' couldn't bind or loose on earth or in heaven if he owned fifty thousand keys. Poor soul, he suffers delusions of grandeur. Pray for him. --DON'T follow his example, Emerald.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 03, 2003.

The answers above are un-theological...

No they aren't.

Also, it seems to be the universal assumption that everyone is looking for someone to follow; it may be the case that some are just looking for answers, for the truth.

There is a difference, you know.

-- Emerald (, May 03, 2003.

To Mike H--
Before you make strange case against a catholic dogma like that of the infallibility of the Popes, make sure you understand the concept and pracice in the Church.

I see sure signs in these posts of yours that characterise a complete misunderstanding of this dogma. It isn't what you apparently were led to believe.

Infallibility of Vicars of Christ in matters of faith and morals is a perfectly plausible and inconrovertible concept. You owe yourself the opportunity of researching all the Church teaches about it. After you have learned the elementary definitions, it will no longer present you with any problems. Just go to the Catholic Encyclopaedia and see for yourself. --God bless you.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 03, 2003.

Eugene I admit that John Paul has the keys of the Kingdom, but they opened the lock at V2 and the pope still hasn't locked the gates.

Our Lord said that thieves break and enter, but in this case it wasn't necessary. They stole our Mass, traditions, and replaced with ecumanism and a watered down Mass at best.

-- Ed Richards (, May 03, 2003.

Return to Mr. Emerald:''The answers above are un-theological... (my words.)

From Emerald: ''No they aren't.''

Sorry-- they aren't even pseudo-theology. Forgive me, but they don't even mean anything, as far as religion is concerned. I'm not your professor, but I just can't find any suitable context in your words to relate to this ''keys'' passage in Matthew, nor significant definition of a Pope's official authority. But, please don't take offense. You always get another chance in these threads.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 03, 2003.


It's o.k. Eugene, I'm not offended at all. They are accurate though.

-- Emerald (, May 03, 2003.

Your attempt at wit is *so-so* --Only, it makes no difference to faithful Catholics; except to show us your dim bulb again. You have no grant from the Vatican to pursue new applications of the Scripture with which to belittle the Newest Rite of the Mass. You don't speak with authority.

I picked the term ''Newest'' as it pertains to the Novus Ordo Missal. It might not even be the last, or final reform. The Popes may someday decide to reform the reformed Mass. Catholics will once more concede the Pope complete authority to make that decision; if and when we are asked to. You will once more, then-- have no say in the matter. Why should you?

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 03, 2003.

...except to show us your dim bulb again...

How many Eds does it take to screw in a doctrine?

Geez... lol!

-- Emerald (, May 03, 2003.


I retract my rantings against the dogma of papal infallibility. I see they are rooted in my inability to overcome a habitual sin. I stand by all the teachings of the Catholic Church which were perfectly lived out in Jesus and Mary and I pale in comparison. Anyway I am frustrated in one particular defect of character and am looking for a way out, to make faster progress. Doubting the moral law would be faster. I am the doubting Thomas as in last Sunday's Gospel reading. I talked with my priest today. Pray for me.

-- Mike H. (, May 03, 2003.

let's see the fruits of the Vatican II Catastrophe:

Holiness? We have Novus Ordo bishops fornicating with minors and paying then hush money from the poor box, with the pope by his silence suborning the scandal. Collegiality? The Novus Ordo bishops feel so collegial with the pope that they now act as if the papacy doesn't exist. Ecumenism? We now are taught by the New Vatican the heresy that Our Lord Jesus Christ was not the Messias, just to make the Jews happy. The Permanent Diaconate? We now have laypeople taking over priestly functions and suppressing the number of seminarians so that the Novus Ordo presbyterate will die. A Richer Theology of Marriage? We now have hundreds of thousands of "Catholic" marriages being "annulled" each year as never having existed. Yes indeed. Vatican II has a record to be proud of. Surely Vatican II is the best thing that ever happened to the Catholic Church -- for those who wish to destroy it!

Eugene please don't read this; I don't want to upset you, especially when you have bolstered my ego in the past few days... I am really embarrased by all those compiments Please Emerald , don't help him.. Eugene is doing wonderfully on his own.

Please, please, Eugene, just kidding.. God bless..

-- Ed Richards (, May 03, 2003.

Ed is dumping on the Holy Ghost again. He blames the Council under God for the personal sins of a relative handful of unfaithful priests; not even pronounced guilty as a group yet; and for the listless faith of a hedonistic society on a narcissistic adventure. But it's nice to have a whipping boy to lash when you yourself would like to stay cozy clutching your Rosary and never venturing a moment's glance at the plebieans outdoors. The rabble, as the Pharisees called them. They're dogs.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 03, 2003.

Ed, I really believe you are being quite impatient in terms of the "fruit of Vatican II." The Church has just been, and continues to be under a tremendous scourging -- a very well deserved scourging I might add. That is not a bad thing, but a very very good thing!

Have you ever seen a forest in the springtime AFTER a raging forest fire? The fire rages uncontrollably searing everything in its path. The smoke is impenetrable, the heat like the firest of hell. How can anything survive that kind of apocalypse? But then the mold has been burned up. The overgrowth of prickly bushes, gone. Insects, mosquitoes, flies have come to naught. Nothing remains but the charred, spent earth . . . until just one little blade of grass, one little petal of a flower, tiny tender tree branches poking back up out of the soot! Then it begins . . . the glorious smells of springtime. The colors are magnificant. The beauty is EXQUISITE! The fragrances intoxicating! Ah, yes, fire can be good, very good!

Our Church is on the brink of a revival the likes of which have never been seen! I can feel it in the air. I can hear the sound of hoove beats plummeting the floor of heaven. He is RIDING IN, my friend! Don't be a doubting Thomas. Lift your head, for your redemption draweth nigh! His Holy Spirit is going to pour forth from the heavens like giant raindrops on dry, parched land! Are you ready, Ed? Get ready! You need to loose these bonds of hypercritcism, throw off this straightjacket of legalism that will choke the life out of you, like the very cords of death! Throw off those grave clothes! Break forth like Lazarus, and SHOUT FOR JOY, for the LORD REIGNETH!! BLESSED BE THE ROCK! LET THE GOD OF OUR SALVATION BE EXALTED! HE REIGNS!



P.S. I had a grand and glorius time at Mass this morning!!! Can you tell?

-- Gail (, May 04, 2003.

Dear Mike H,

I try to do the best I can in the same confusing world you live in. That is why I am "estranged" from the Catholic Church and see no end in sight for that separation. Pray for me as well. Thank you.


-- Karl (, May 04, 2003.

Ah, Gail!!!
Your post is true Christian charity-- and if you permit me to say, P.S. you add speaks volumes about the holiness of our Mass. (If it were a Mass in Latin would you be less thrilled???)

Hardly; a true Catholic looks upward of the holy altar as his/her own love; in union with our Beloved Saviour is taken with Him up to heaven. This (all about a Novus Ordo celebration? How come?) is why we assist there on the Lord's day.

Not to spy on what somebody else did; ~~Did he genuflect? ~~Was she devout? ~~Did they go to confession this week? ~~Are they EVEN CATHOLICS? ~~

Pharisee, Stand silently at the back of the Church; strike your own breast; ''God be merciful to me, a sinner.'' Desist from crying and be a Christian!

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 04, 2003.


Nice to know I am not terminally unique. I will pray for you too.

-- Mike H. (, May 04, 2003.

Gail; thank you for another beautiful post. I appreciate it. You are a voice of reason in what is a heated debate. I will take your optimism to heart. I certainly want the Church to recover, dark as it looks right now.

God bless you.......... Ed

-- Ed Richards (, May 04, 2003.


What he ^ said. (nice post)

-- Mike H. (, May 04, 2003.

Where Peter is, There is the Church or, rather as it works in these strange times: Where the Church is, There is Peter

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

-- fisherman (deepbluesea@atlantic.Com), May 06, 2003.

A great analogy. Both Bush ( a high ranking Freemason), and Paul VI bringing the Masonic doctrines of VaticanII into the Church demonstrate the unity of thought of the doctrine of "Man as God" After he was threatened by Suenens, and other liberals, H.V. was the last encyclical and document which he wrote without the "college of Bishops".

-- fisherman (, May 06, 2003.

Poor sap.

/ / /

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 07, 2003.

In 1917 Our Lady appeared at Fatima to warn us of future events. She entrusted to Lucy who is now Sr. Lucia a letter which was to be given to the Pope and to be opened in 1960. This is the famous Third Secret of Fatima. I recommend that all of you do read a short book entitled AA-1025 which will give deep insight into what has occurred during the 20th Century. Infiltration of the Church by communists began in the 1930's. How? Recruits to the priesthood. That's how. Some of these have been and continue to hijack the Vatican. Infiltration of the Church by Freemasons. This secret society's sole purpose is to destroy the Roman Catholic Church. John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI, JPII all freemasons. In addition Roncalli,i.e. XXIII was a Rosicrucean, a sub-group of the Illuminati, the elusive group at the very heart of the one world government plot and the move to one world religion as well. If the RCC has remained intact as it was in 1958, this great apostasy might have had a hard time evolving, not that it would never have happened but it might have been stalled for quite some time. Another book that is required reading is THe Final Hour by Michael H. Brown. THis lays the foundation of the 18th century and how Satan seeded humanity with humanism, socialism, communism, modernism, ecumenism, feminism, liberalism and every other ism too. Remember ideas are seeded and gradually corrupt man. So the only was to take down the Church was to dismantle and systematically destroy it from within. And that has been done when Roncalli proclaimed before VII open the doors wide and let the spirit in. I hardly believe he invited the HOLY SPIRIT because he would have said HOLY SPIRIT and not just "spirit" From VII more than 202 heresies have corrupted the Church. VII was illegally called in the first place. Paul VI illegally destroyed the Latin Mass by inviting protestant ministers to come in and change it. Pius V in "QUO PRIMUM" clearly stated that the Latin Mass COULD NEVER BE CHANGED IN ANY WAY IN PERPETUITY. The bull of infallibility was declared. So what did the heretic Paul VI do? He completely ignored this and went forward with his plans.... JPI was murdered in 33 days. (not a coincidence that the highest rank of a freemason is 33 degree). Now we are left with the worst HERETIC OF ALL K.W. AKA JPII who himself is guilty of more than 101 heresies..... two of them: kissing the koran( a satanic book which denies THE DIVINITY OF JESUS AND BLASPHEMES THE BLESSED TRINITY ) and placing the statue of buddha on the tabernacle at Assisi, Italy not once but twice! ! ! ! Roman Catholics are obligated under pain of mortal sin NOT to obey a sitting pope who is a heretic and leads them astray. THE NOVUS ORDO ( new Order i.e. NEW WORLD ORDER ) is a cunning way to introduce sleeping Catholics not on their toes into the one world religion that this current hijacker JPII is planning. I STRONGLY URGE ALL OF YOU TO GO ONLY TO THE LATIN MASS, I.E. TRIDENTINE MASS BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY TRUE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS AND THE ONLY VALID MASS A TRUE ROMAN CATHOLIC SHOULD ATTEND. I have tried to oversimplify the current situation here but there is much much more to it. Thus, all this and more is why the GREAT APOSTASY IS NOW IN FULL SWING..... To be sanctified at this point I recommend the following: ONLY ATTEND LATIN MASS, MAKE A GOOD CONFESSION, RECITE THE HOLY ROSARY DAILY (ALL 15 DECADES),AND WEAR THE BROWN SCAPULAR OUR LADY GAVE TO ST. SIMON STOCK IN THE 13TH CENTURY. One final thought, The latest assault on heaven comes from k.w., aka jpII when he attempts to corrupt the Holy Rosary with 5 more mysteries. THere are 150 Hail Marys in a complete rosary ....this is called Our Lady's Psalter because it corresponds to the 150 Psalms of David. THese so-called new mysteries is a come on so that the protestants will accept this part of the pseudo Church. THe true remnant of the RCC can be found at the Latin Mass. At are lists of the Churches that offer the Latin Mass. Finally, The REAL third secret includes the following messages: 1. Satan would enter the Church...and indeed he did 2. pope would be assassinated. ( jpI was poisoned after 33 days) 3. WWIII 4,5,6 deal with Book of Revelation Chapter 8-13. Sr. Lucia told us that part.

-- marie suraci (, May 15, 2003.

Another fanatic on the loose. If only they had a just cause. Then one could admire the courage of their convictions.

No-- obsessed with conspiracy and Masonic threats. How now is our Church beset by Gonzo whimsies bouncing off the walls? Yes, the devil is pulling their strings.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 15, 2003.

Dear Ari,

The Pope doesn't have to try to gain control of the Latin Mass. It is only by his gracious consent that it is allowed at all. He has full control over it, and could withdraw the indult tomorrow if he so chose, ending it once and for all.

-- Paul (, May 15, 2003.

Hi Marie, while some of what you say may be true, you are overlooking some very important things.

Every single mass, in every single parish across the enter globe confesses the Creed. That Creed is vitally important. It the encapulation of our faith. Every baptism "denounces the kingdom of Satan." Now, you say that JPII is a Mason . . . but where is your proof? The Church still proclaims that Jesus is Lord. That He died, was buried, descended to hell and on the third day rose again! Creeds and baptismal rites, etc., are the ALL IMPORTANT stones in the foundation of our faith. The songs we sing, the prayers we offer are to our Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST.

Yes, there are some apostates in the Church; there are apostate bishops and I'm sure priests too! And I believe we have had some apostate popes in the past. And yet, She still stands like a rock! The changes from the Old Rite, while troublesome to many, do not warrant the fear, paranoia and lack of faith that some show. You are elevating nonessentials to the same level as the essentials.

Jesus Christ is still Lord of the Catholic Church, no matter what Satanic forces try to overcome Her!

God Bless,


-- Gail (, May 16, 2003.

Well-- Gail,
No apostate Popes or bishops are to be found in Church history. I'm sure you meant some other sin. Apostacy is a final reneging against the faith. Even the worst bishops were capable of repenting their SINS in the end. There have been heretics & schismatic prelates, but no apostates. Least of all these last Popes of our church.

Because this is true, even a Pope who worked against the Catholic faith (hypothetically) can't be simply denounced as an anti-Pope. Here we have a visitor who complains that our Pope is a Mason and an enemy of the Catholic Church. I regret to have to say she's a lunatic.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 16, 2003.

Thanks, Eugene, for the clarification. Yes, you are right, an apostate would be one that clearly denies Christ as Lord, and none of our popes have done that. (Sorry about that.) I meant some of the popes have not been quite as "holy" as they could have been (to say the least), but they did each contribute something valuable to the Church in their time.

The fact that there have been less-than-holy popes who still did not apostate the dogma of the Church is extraordinary (better word would be supernatural) and attests to the Church's authenticity, i.e., the House that Christ Built!

That's why I say the loss of the traditionalist mass IS NOT an apostacy from the truth!



-- Gail (, May 16, 2003.

You have a good point once more. There's always joy in your posts; and god is sure to bless you. You know, only yeterday I watched something on EWTN; and saw Pope John Paul II /

I had to feel very saddened realising how unjustly many self-styled traditionalists belittle and denigrate this wonderful man. In the future he'll have his vindication; as God is just. We have nothing to regret about the reign of this holy Pope. On the contrary; we have to thank Our Lord for giving him to us in difficult times. And we must pray for the Holy Father, that God keeps him and gives him strength.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 16, 2003.

You have a good point once more. There's always joy in your posts; and God is sure to bless you. You know, only yeterday I watched something on EWTN; and saw Pope John Paul II /

I had to feel very saddened realising how unjustly many self-styled traditionalists belittle and denigrate this wonderful man. In future he'll receive his vindication; as God is just. We have nothing to regret about the reign of this holy Pope. On the contrary; we have to thank Our Lord for giving him to us in difficult times. And we must pray for the Holy Father, that God keeps him and gives him strength.

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 16, 2003.

They want to be traditionalists but they can't. Find out why.

"Conservative Novus Ordo" Catholics, whom I am just going to call "CNOCs" in this article for brevity's sake, are those members of the Roman Catholic Church who consider that they must accept the Second Vatican Council in its entirety and accept the Novus Ordo Missae or "New Mass" as a fully legitimate exercise of Church authority which, in and of itself, cannot possibly be deficient in any way. I consider myself qualified to write about them with authority and knowledge because I was one of them for several years.

They differ from others in the Novus Ordo in that they attempt to reconcile Vatican II and the Novus Ordo with the traditional Catholic Faith, and the fact that they even care about the traditional Catholic Faith enough to do this, is in itself praiseworthy. (Those in the Novus Ordo who are not CNOCs tend to believe that "truth has changed"; I'm not convinced that they care so much about what was once believed as they are with the "bare minimum" they have to do and believe to remain Catholic in the here-and-now. Some do not even do that much; they just continue to do some of the "Catholic things" while living and believing pretty much as they see fit, i.e, "cafeteria Catholics". CNOCs are the farthest thing in the world from "cafeteria Catholics".)

While CNOCs constitute a distinct minority of practicing Catholics, their singleness of purpose and rock-solid conviction that they are right give them an influence way out of proportion to their actual numbers. (They have a penchant for banding together in ad hoc organizations, such as Marian apostolates and "defense of the Faith"- type groups.)

The hallmarks of a CNOC are:

Absolute obedience to the Pope in anything that even remotely touches on his sphere of authority (regardless of whether this makes salvation easier or harder). "Loyalty to the Magisterium" (i.e., what the Magisterium teaches and prescribes in the present day) is a familiar "buzzword" among CNOCs. An unshakeable conviction that the Pope cannot possibly do anything that would harm the Church in any great way for any considerable period of time (this would mean that "the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church" and is impossible if you accept the words of Scripture). For these people, the mere suggestion that the Pope could lose the Faith is anathema. An exaggerated tendency to "think with the Pope"; for instance, if the Pope thinks Vatican II is to be emphasized over all over councils of the Church, so does the CNOC. What the Pope sees as important, they see as important. What the Pope de-emphasizes or ignores, they de-emphasize or ignore. An exaggeration of the person of the Pope, such that it becomes a "cult of personality". Many CNOCs wear the title of "papist", once an anti-Catholic epithet, as a badge of honour. While most of the time acknowledging the beauty and holiness of the traditional Latin Mass, they insist that the Novus Ordo Mass was the positive work of the Holy Spirit (they rarely say "Holy Ghost") and is always to be embraced fully when it is untainted by "liturgical abuses". An endless cycle of chronicling and reporting these same "liturgical abuses", reading post-Vatican II decrees in great detail and scrupulously applying them, and constant letter-writing to one's bishop and Vatican authorities. Not all CNOCs engage in this but many of them do. Turning the documents of Vatican II inside out to find re-affirmation of traditional Catholic doctrine in them. In their hearts, these people want to be traditional Catholics, but they are convinced beyond any doubt that they have to square Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass with the traditional Catholic Faith.

-- Ari (, May 17, 2003.

Thanks for the frank opinion. Using that, with a buck fifty I can buy a plain coffee at the mall.

I speak for me, not a Novus Ordo community, or the latest John Paul II fan club. My eyes tell me what is wholesome and thriving in our Church. They also tell me how the Eucharist is greeted at Holy Mass, and the energy being generated in our faithful while in His Divine Presence.

I have no quarrel with the anti-Vatican II camp. I greet them into our Holy Catholic Communion. It is they who reject me, and insist on retracing steps to a Nostalgic Communion out of the mainstream and exclusive.

No, we don't idolize the Pope, nor are we quitting with Tradition. There is no impetus in the Church to any ''cult of personality''; our hearts are devoted to Christ and His Gospel. Our holy Father's heart is, also.

You have just your impressions. You say you can judge because you ''were once this type'' of Catholic. You can also misjudge. --I'm sorry for you, living so smugly on an exalted level; not in grateful communion with Him. For Jesus Christ is the One who desires Unity. Not severity and phariseeism. Once He told us how we would always be distinguished in the world: ''See how they love one another.''

Not, ''See how they drive one another away;'' or-- ''See how my Vicar offends the traditionalists and is loved by all the others.''

As for your impression that we are smaller in numbers than the ''tradition-loving, correct Catholics'' like yourself, --I would like to see how you portioned out the pie. Did you take a world-wide survey? Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (, May 17, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ