One thing I've wondered about for those who've left the church to become sspxers. How do you feel about repeating the same epistle/Gospel readings every year as opposed to the new 3 year cycle?

I'd think if there was ONE thing you'd think was an Improvement to the new mass it was the increased amount of Bible readings Catholics get in mass, but how about it? Is less actually more?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003

Answers

top

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

one thing ive wondered about for those who are schismatics or novus, what in the world does bump, top and topping mean?

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnEmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Paul,

Many people just look at the "new answers" section of the forum to save time and just see what's currently occuring. If you just post a new thread, it doesn't show up in "new answers" unless there's a reply. People post "top, bump, etc." so there's at least one reply, which gets the computer to see that it's there.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

Frank, I'd be happy to answer your question as soon as you can provide any concrete proof that "sspxers" are "out of the Church."

Before you venture into this daunting task, let me leave you with a quote to ponder:

[The Pontifical Council of Christian Unity]..."is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community..." -- Cardinal Cassidy, March 25, 1994

Now, I'm sure you're aware that a real schismatic is one who denies the authority of the Pope. A schismatic is not someone who disagrees with something the Pope says or does if he is not speaking in matters of faith or morals.. Schism is not a matter of mere disobedience, either. Not all disobedience amounts to schism. For a schism to take place, one must deny the Papacy, they must deny the Pope has the right to exercise authority. If you're going to continue to call us who adhere to Tradition and the Perennial teachings of the Catholic Church "schismatics" you'll have to provide evidence that we deny the Papacy. Good luck; none of us deny the Papacy. After coming up empty- handed of this evidence, which you surely will, you'll be able lay your bogus charge of schism to rest. I know you'll be delighted to do so.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 30, 2003.

Regina,

It's actually not a daunting task at all. The Pope excommunicated Lefebvre and the four "bishops" he created, and said that anyone in formal adherence with their schism was excommunicated as well.

IMO, being a member of the sspx MEANS you agree with Lefebvre's schism, otherwise, why JOIN? Therefore, members of the sspx are excommunicated by definition (again in my layman's opinion). And don't bother bringing up the "may attend an sspx mass" canard again, there's a far cry from a traveller going to whatever mass that's convenient and someone signing up with an organization, continuing to denounce the Pope's actions and denying the worth of a mass.

One thing I find extremely Ironic is that sspxers *hate* ecumenism, but it's that SAME ecumenism that keeps the church from overtly condemning them! Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too!

BTW, that's a nice quote by a Cardinal, but in case you've forgotten, his authority does not exceed (or equal) the Pope's.

There's YOUR answer, now how do you feel about the new three year calander covering much more of the Bible?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

...and said that anyone in formal adherence with their schism was excommunicated as well.

I just read it again, and actually, he didn't.

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

Pull up the entire document we can pick through the whole thing tonight if you'd like.

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

Emerald,

What are you talking about? Are we reading the same thing? Ecclesia Dei - Vatican For background:

. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (4

Lefebvre and his cronies are excommunicated by the Pope, by name. Then you said,

...and said that anyone in formal adherence with their schism was excommunicated as well.

I just read it again, and actually, he didn't

Ecclesia Dei says:

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.(8)

Yes he did.

Formal adherence to the schism carries the penalty of excommunication.

What don't you understand about this?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

IMO, being a member of the sspx

IYO, explain how a layperson becomes a "member of the SSPX."

why JOIN?

In your laymans opinion, how does one "JOIN?"

Therefore, members of the sspx are excommunicated by definition (again in my layman's opinion)

Your layman's opinion is not enough to excommunicate anyone.

someone signing up with an organization

You think there's a big book somewhere that we all signed in some secret ceremony, don't you?

continuing to denounce the Pope's actions

See how that's different from denouncing the Pope?

One thing I find extremely Ironic is that sspxers *hate* ecumenism, but it's that SAME ecumenism that keeps the church from overtly condemning them!

...because the Church has not overtly condemned them, right?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 30, 2003.

And Emerald, now that I've answered YOU, how about an answer for me: Is the "old rite"'s more limited readings better than the current more complete readings?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

It's actually not a daunting task at all. The Pope excommunicated Lefebvre and the four "bishops" he created, and said that anyone in formal adherence with their schism was excommunicated as well.

Please define for us what "formal adherence" means.

IMO, being a member of the sspx MEANS you agree with Lefebvre's schism, otherwise, why JOIN? Therefore, members of the sspx are excommunicated by definition (again in my layman's opinion).

Thank you for making it clear that you are posting your personal opinions and not actual facts. I have many opinions on the matter, too, but I also have the Vatican's reasurrence that my attendance at an SSPX chapel does not incurr the penalty of excommunication from Rome or the erroneous label "schismatic" from you or any other armchair theologian in or away from this forum.

Many folks go to SSPX chapels because of their love for the Traditional Mass. They go because they felt their faith was in jeopardy in their diocesan new Masses. I don't know why all "join?" I do know that the priests and bishops of the SSPX do what they do not out of spite, or hatred, or rebellion against the Pope. To accuse them otherwise is wrong and hateful.

And don't bother bringing up the "may attend an sspx mass" canard again,

Why? Why does it irk you? You want me to "obey" the Pope right? Spokesmen for the Pope, Cardinals appointed by the Pope, statements which have been issued - which have not been disputed by the Pope - all say we can attend an SSPX Chapel if we wish. It's hardly a "canard." This same appointees have demonstrated quite sucessfully that the "excommunication" and declaration of "schism" was invalid. I can offer their findings for you if you want to see them.

there's a far cry from a traveller going to whatever mass that's convenient and someone signing up with an organization,

And registering as a parishioner in a SSPX chapel is a far cry from joining another religion.

One thing I find extremely Ironic is that sspxers *hate* ecumenism, but it's that SAME ecumenism that keeps the church from overtly condemning them! Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too!

What "SSPXers" (Which are nothing more than Traditional Roman Catholics) - and preconciliar Popes, and the entire Catholic Church a short 40 years ago - don't like is the very false - and condemned - notion that one religion is as good as any other - that all paths are agreeable and pleasing to God. This amounts to calling God a liar; believing that He Himself didn't establish One True Church, which is necessary for Salvation and that that One True Church is the Catholic Church. This "new ecumenism" which Traditionalists object to doesn't seek conversion of people to the One True Church, but to confirm them in their errors. This new ecumenism was condemned by Pope Pius X. True ecumenism seeks to bring all Home. I'd be interested in any evidence that this "ecumenism" has been fruitful.

BTW, that's a nice quote by a Cardinal, but in case you've forgotten, his authority does not exceed (or equal) the Pope's.

I'm glad you liked it. There are many others similar to it that I can post if you wish - all that have the Pope's approval.

Do you think the Pope is daft? You think he's unaware that men *he* appointed are speaking favorably with regard to the SSPX and the faithful who wish to assist at their Masses? If these men are saying things the Pope doesn't endorse, should I assume you believe them to be "schismatic" or "out of the Church", too?

There's YOUR answer,

You didn't give me any answers at all. You gave me your opinions. You didn't provide one iota of evidence how we deny the Papacy - something necessary for schism to be achieved. You've taken a statement from the Vatican and dismissed it because it doesn't jibe with your opinions. Again, I can easily provide an answer about the Epistle as soon as you can 1. Prove we deny the Papacy 2. Rome currently considers SSPX Mass attendees to be "out of the Church."

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 30, 2003.

Hey Frank, here's what I'm getting at.

Ecclesia Dei says:

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.(8)

Yes he did. Formal adherence to the schism carries the penalty of excommunication. What don't you understand about this?

If the act is the illicit consecration of 4 bishops... then formal adherence to the schismatic act would be what then?

Jake is not adhering to being an illicitly consecrated bishop.

He's attending the Mass of Trent. That's not adherence to the schism. You are reading things into the document that are not there.

I do the same thing as jake, attend the Mass of Trent, except I go to an indult, because it's there, and it's close, and it's really just beautiful over there in so many ways.

Somehow I'm alright and jake's excommunicated.

That makes absolutely no sense.

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

Btw, did you notice something in that document?

I confess, I didn't even notice it until this morning. My question is in there, the one about the proper understanding of assent to the magisterium and the one about the Holy Spirit.

'magine that! It's in there, as plain as day. The question, at least, but not the answer to it.

It's no secret that my Pontiff Pope John Paul II carries forward the post conciliar trend, full swing. It's no secret that all these things derive their weight in authority from the Second Vatican Council.

It's also no secret... that the Second Vatican Council... was a pastoral... and not... a dogmatic council.

This too shall pass, the confusion and deviation and devastation. All without denying that Pope John Paul II is the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

It may or may not come as a surprise, but for me personally, there's been something akin to a harmonic convergence. Yeah, I'm still an arrogant sinful jerk, 'tis so true, so very true. But bear with me here:

Because of that sinfulness, I found that there is no salvation outside the Church. Getting hammered over the head for this, I walk over to the Mass of Trent, and lo and behold, this doctrine is pounded home in this liturgy. It's written all over it; in it, on it, over it, under it, through it. Then Faustina's image, and the White and Red rays of the mercy and love of God, the Baptism that's under attack, the Eucharist that's under attack in those White/Red, Water/Blood, Baptism/Eucharist rays of mercy. A plea that these things not be in vain, for the sake of His Sorrowful Passion, it goes on to say. The rejection of the ways of this world, the rejection of the seeking of the Kingdom here on earth for the sake of the hereafter. The condition of fallen man and man's incapability of saving himself outside Christ... it goes on and on and on and on.

This isn't a lack of understanding, this is reality crashing over somebody's head.

Being called outside of the loop of being in touch with some reality beyond the guilded cage is best left for those seeking the limelight.

I reject the limelight version of Catholicism as non-authentic, but now more than ever wish to hold to what is ever ancient, ever new.

That's not a bad thing. From my perspective, it is absolutely manditory.

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

Some who have gone before us have shielded their eyes from that limelight, too:

"As soon as God sees us convinced of our own nothingness -- He stretches out His hand to us; but if we wish to attempt great things, even under the pretext of zeal, He leaves us alone. It is sufficient therefore to humble oneself and to bear our imperfections meekly: that is true sanctity."

-St. Terese of Lisieux

She got it.

She knew what it was all about, and it's not all about living on a lighted stage.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 30, 2003.

I must confess, Emerald, that your last couple of posts are striking in their gorgeous language. You are on a roll, Geo Bernard; refreshing after those dry posts of Ed Richards and his church.

With some more substance and the same cheer, the thread might really rock.

You said you would take it to me, nights only. This is no mean columnist I'm colliding with here. --Good work!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Jake,

You can't fool God with sophistry, or out bar-room lawyer Judgement. Ecclesia Dei states:

"c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.(8)"

It appears quite simple to me, it doesn't say that you need to sign a lenghty confession to be excommunicated. Formally adhering to Lefebvre's schism causes excommunication. Now since you and Regina aren't going to ask anyone (in a position to judge your case) if your 1. support of Lefebvre's actions and 2. disapproval or rejection of the Pope's and 3. denouncing a valid mass and Vatican II *constitute* formal adherence to Lefebvre's schism, there's no reason to keep discussing it. I've stated my reasons for thinking you really have left the church. It would be up to someone *within* the church (obviously not a lefebvrist) to give an official answer. You don't believe it, but I doubt that you want to find out for sure. The fact that a good argument can be made that you ARE excommunicated should at least worry you, but in the end, that's your problem.

As an aside, are you ever going to address the topic of the thread, or only continue your one-note song?

Regina,

How about answering my question to you first? Wouldn't that be fair?

Emerald,

Seriously now! Do you *really* believe that "Jake is not adhering to being an illicitly consecrated bishop" is what the Pope is talking

Somehow I'm alright and jake's excommunicated

That's why you stay within the church. Bummer for Jake though...

Second Vatican Council... was a pastoral... and not... a dogmatic council

Can dogma be asserted within a pastoral council?

I reject the limelight version of Catholicism as non-authentic, but now more than ever wish to hold to what is ever ancient, ever new

You're missing the point. When mass is said we are EXPERIENCING Christ's sacrifice all over again. There is no "ancient" or "new", it's all NOW. Only people with an axe to grind will tell you differently. Trivial things may change, but the Truth remains immutable and correct. And be careful calling a mass "in the limelight", one could use the exact same argument for a person who insists on going to a Tridentine mass (and both people are unwisely criticising a mass!

And Emerald, I haven't heard from you either, what do you think about reading *less* of the Bible in mass at your indult than is said in the "Novus Ordo" masses. Is that better too?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

Fine contribution, Frank.

Especially since you aren't pitting one temperament of Catholicism against all the others. You are to the point, why would a faithful Catholic disregard plain warnings of possible excommunication? If we at least were informed that folks have discussed it with the pastor, or left this forum uncertain; so they'll investigate--. It would show an attitude of good will.

Instead, Jake cuts & pastes whatever offers him a chance of the bon motte. I thought he was past the games stage.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Formally adhering to Lefebvre's schism

There is no "Lefebvre's schism."

there's no reason to keep discussing it.

Stop bringing it up, then.

you ever going to address the topic of the thread, or only continue your one-note song?

No, I will not address the topic; for these two reasons:

1. You addressed your query to "schismatics." I cannot answer on behalf of anyone who is a shcismatic, even if I wanted to, and

2. You're dangling bait, but I'm not going to bite. My belly is full.

Burp.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 30, 2003.

That's the trouble Jake, you don't answer anything, you just keep trying to play word games. You won't learn anything that way.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

Frank-- (Teacher, Teacher! Holding up a hand with great enthusiasm)--

I'll address the topic of the thread. Or-- I'll attempt a ''traditional'' answer, courtesy of the unwilling ''victim''.

A Tradittore Replies: --Burp. Come on; what is a scriptural reading but Sola Scriptura? Only protestants care about the New Testament. Only Jews care about Isaac and Jacob (Hmmm-- my name!) Oh well.

We hear them at the REAL Church, too Dodo. Only they're recited in rapid-fire Latin; -- If that was good enough for Pope Julius in 1449, it's fine and dandy with Trads. --And look out for 3 year cycles. We traditionals never look three years ahead. We look 50 years back. It's easier to see Our salvation that way. No one can count on a Church for the future, since God can't count on these plebeians to keep the Lord's Day holy anymore.

(This is sooooo disturbing to my peace of mind.)

Now for a quick cut and paste of the next post-- Oh yeah!!! Eugene! This is going to be fun! (Click edit--click cut --It's so easy!)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

I've stated my reasons for thinking you really have left the church.

You've stated *opinions.* Opinions based on erroneous information. Your continued expression of these opinions does nothing to help get the *correct* information out there to people who are genuinely interested and deserve to hear the truth.

It would be up to someone *within* the church (obviously not a lefebvrist) to give an official answer.

As a Roman Catholic I'm unaware of what a "Lefebvrist" is...

But I can provide facts from people within *my* Church. Ready? My apologies to all who have read this before...

There is a growing concurrence of the most prominent Roman canonists that: 1) Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, by the terms of the canon law, did not commit a schismatic act under canon law by consecrating fourbishops without explicit papal permission.

2) the declaration of excommunication by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops is null and void (Abp. Lefebvre was technically not "excommunicated"; rather, the Congregation simply declared that he had "excommunicated" himself, as no ecclesiastical trial was ever held; Abp. Lefebvre disputed this contention of the Congregation, citing the provisions of the 1983 Code of Canon Law)

3) priests and faithful associated with the SSPX, let alone any other traditional Catholic priests or laymen, are under no censure at all.

4) the Vatican itself admits (as it must) that traditional Catholics and traditional Catholic priests are not "schismatic", as when the traditional priests and faithful of Campos, Brazil, were received into "full communion" with the Novus Ordo on January 18, 2002, the Vatican did not pretend to absolve them from any censure for "schism," which would have been necessary, had the Vatican legally been able to hold them "schismatic."

The following Roman canonists have publicly declared their finding that any purported "excommunications" in this case are null and void under canon law:

* Castillo Cardinal Lara, J.C.D., President of the Pontifical Commission for Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law * Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity * Alfons Cardinal Stickler, former Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library * Fr. Gerard E. Murray, J.C.D., of the United States * Fr. Patrick Valdini, J.C.D., Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law * Fr. Rudolf Kaschewski of Germany * Count Neri Capponi, D.Cn.L., Ll.D, Professor of Canon Law * Professor Geringer, J.C.D.

THE MODERN VATICAN SPEAKS

The following briefly summarizes the positions of the modern Vatican's chief canonists on the matter of the SSPX.

LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY Under signature of Silvio Cardinal Oddi, President (March 17, 1984)

[In answer to a family attending Mass at an SSPX chapel as to whether such attendance fulfilled her obligation for Sunday Mass,] "According to the New Code of Canon Law, 'The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite....' I hope that settles your doubts."

DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (HOLY OFFICE) Under signature of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect Known as the "Honolulu Decision" (Protocol No. 14428, June 4, 1993)

Background: The Bishop of Honolulu on May 1, 1991, declared six laymen "excommunicated on the grounds that [they] had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the 'latae sententiae' penalty [of automatic excommunication] as provided for in ... the Code of Canon Law.

The "Honolulu Six" had (1) established a traditional chapel independent of diocesan jurisdiction, (2) invited independent priests, predominantly SSPX priests, to celebrate Mass at the chapel, and (3) invited one of the bishops named in the Vatican's excommunication decree to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation at the chapel.

In response to an appeal by one of the Honolulu Six against the decree of the Bishop of Honolulu, the Congregation decreed:

"This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner ... are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism. Since [the Petitioner] did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the 'latae sententiae' penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded. This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu."

ALFONS CARDINAL STICKLER Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library Peritus (Expert) to Four Vatican II Commissions

"Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority, legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine [Traditional Latin] Mass in the present day? The answer given by eight of the cardinals in 1986 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this; I was one of the cardinals.

"There was another question, very interesting. Can any bishop forbid a priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again? The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have not official publication, and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition ... because of the words of [Pope St.] Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever."

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)

"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION "ECCLESIA DEI" Under Signature of Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary May 28, 1996; repeated in Protocol N. 236/98 of March 6, 1998

"It is true that participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute 'formal adherence to the schism.'"

1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X.

2. ...If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.

3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.

ON THE PURPORTED "EXCOMMUNICATION" OF ABP. MARCEL LEFEBVRE

ROSALIO JOSE CARDINAL CASTILLO LARA, J.C.D. (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW) President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law President of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia

"The act of consecrating a bishop [without explicit papal permission] is not in itself a schismatic act."

COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.CN.L. - LATERAN (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW) LL.D. - FLORENCE (DOCTOR OF LAWS) Professor Emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence Accredited as an Advocate of the Holy Roman Rota (the Holy See's highest marriage tribunal) Accredited as an Advocate of the Apostolic Signatura (the Holy See's highest appeals tribunal)

"The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic."

PROFESSOR GERINGER, J.C.D. Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich

"With the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism."

REV. FR. PATRICK VALDINI, J.C.D. Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris

"It is not the consecration of a bishop that creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission [which Abp. Lefebvre never did]."

REV. FR. GERALD E. MURRAY, J.C.D. (PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY) Title of Doctoral Thesis Accepted: "The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?"

"They're not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican has never said they are.... You can ... show that Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was.... I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he's not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic."

As far as answering your question, I said I'd be happy to answer it when you...

provide evidence that we deny the Papacy (necessary for schism to occur), and are "outside the Church."

Define "formal adherence", and..

I realize that much of what I provided above you may not have been aware of til now. Completely understandable! But now that you know, do you still regard me and Jake as schismatics, or do you regard the people quoted above to be schismatics?

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 30, 2003.

Regina,

Big deal. Why repeat your cut & paste? The Pope in Ecclesia Dei declared Lefebvre et. al. excommunicated by name. That is within his authority. It doesn't really matter that there are theologians that disagree with that, does it? They do NOT have the authority to contradict him. Therefore the excommunication stands.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

Frank, I applaud your efforts, but it's a complete waste of time inrespect to who you are dealing with. These people think they can support SSPX and not be in schism, then that's their own fantasy. Nothing you say, or what the Pope says, is going to convince them otherwise. These people are their own Popes!!!

Concerning debates with Jake, that's more than a waste of time, it's down right foolish to continue any sort of discussion with him, as he not interested in any discussion. The guy is the king of nonsensical one liners.

These people have alternatives to SSPX, so let that be their own condemnation before God.

The Priestly Fraternity of St Peter www.fssp.com/

If we all followed Archbishop Lefebvre's example, there would be no Catholic Church today, but their would be thousands of opposing Churches all claiming to be the one true Church. It's simply not logical to support SSPX.

The cornerstone of Tradition is obedience to the Pope, and for Archbishop Lefebvre to say he is saving tradition through disobedience, makes his stance a comical farce. The guy was either mentally ill, or had a plan to try and destroy God's Church, through schism. So far his plan is failing bigtime, as after 20 something years, he still only has a handful of followers!

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

They do NOT have the authority to contradict him. Therefore the excommunication stands.

So, I can now assume that these men I quoted are regarded by you as "schismatics who are outside the church" because they "contradict" the Pope. Thanks for clearing that up.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 30, 2003.

Why would these other men be schismatics? I could contradict the Pope. But I don't disobey him or advocate disobedience, and the ex-communicate archbishop did. So do you, sometimes. You worry too much about rebutting the charge of schism; because you associate it with ex- communication. And you SHOULD. Well; the archbishop WAS ex- communicated. You favor his teaching; just be aware.

The charge of elitism in our Church and pharisaism on this forum won't get you ex-communicated. Nevertheless, they're true.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

To my fllow traditionalists: I think sometime that we spend far too much time, debating with the Neo's.

In forty short years they have managed to do more harm to the Church, than it's enemies could do in 2000 years. The blame goes right from the top to the bottom.

We have had 4 popes who have "dialogued" and "Dialogued" but never has one word ever come out of their mouths about conversion.

It's like a salesman who dialogues with potential customers, but never tries to close the sale. The pitch never comes. When he leaves they say "Great guy", but they didn't buy anything.

He said that our old car was ok, our frig still works, th roof looks great just the way it is. Yeah great guy alright, but no sales.

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

Apparently they know how to throw people out...but not how to bring them in.

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

Peace was also the topic of the Prayers of the Faithful, which were read after the Pope's homily.

One of the prayers, recited in Arabic, implored: "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."

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

Regina,

It's like Eugene said, there's a big difference between *disagreement* and *disobedience to a direct papal command*. Hopefully you'll come to understand that.

Gordon,

I know, but I was really interested to hear the take from one of the schismatics on the 3 year cycle of readings as they are the only ones who have permanently turned their backs on them. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't have expected an answer in the first place.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

First dibs on the guy on the left.

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

About your question, Frank, the first thing I think of is that everyone has access to Scripture; just pick it up and fire away. So in that sense, it doesn't strike me as something of great note.

I'm not being sarcastic or rude, I'm just being honest; we all have it at our fingertips.

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

I always liked the one in the middle.

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

But I would say Ed would be the middle guy and jake the one on the right. Exactly as I picture them. :) j/k

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

You just like Larry's doo that's all. It's the hair, isn't it Isabel? I'm on to you.

I thought me and jake would be duking it out for Moe job, right jake? I just like Moe's name for some strange reason.

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

The hair is all that. Wait.....maybe jake should be Larry. Aaaahhhh! Really, jake, I just couldn't resist. Hope you can take it. No, but by personality, I say Curley is more like.......wait........better stop while I'm ahead. I will call down eternal hellfire on myself from you three.

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

Yes, Emerald-- Ed is old enough, I calculate, to remember what happens when --TILT! you talk too much. You begin to believe your own howlers.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Anyone ever seen an old movie with Tyrone Power?......Well he won't be mistaken for me.

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

The cornerstone of Tradition is obedience to the Pope...

Obedience to the Pope flows out of Tradition.

Look in the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Question number 104, Article number 5 where you see the this matter addressed: "Are subjects bound to obey their superiors in all things?"

It talks about various types of obedience. Some are right, and some can be wrong.

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

I always thought the three stooges were mental. Never got into them. They sort of scare me. Perfect evidence that the good old days were just as messed up as today. Would you want your little children to watch grown men crunch each others noses? And they only laughed at each other not with each other. I wouldn't want any of them to be me or to me near me!

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 01, 2003.

"Can dogma be asserted within a pastoral council?"

What exactly do you mean by asserted? If you mean re-stated, well yeah of course. That's basically saying again what has always been said, and if so then you have to accept it. But you had to accept it anyways, council or no council, if it's a doctrine. That goes without saying.

Do you mean defined? That would be different; that would be dogmatic.

Using the word asserted, there's ambiguity in the question. I could see someone applying either way, as a re-statement or as a defining; but as much as they deal in with the same subjects, they differ.

Exactness in distinction is not sophistry, but in fact, it's sophistry's opposite. Sophistry can only exist by virtue of blurred distinctions; it cannot exist without it.

Vatican II defined no doctrines.

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

"There is no "ancient" or "new", it's all NOW."

Van Halen? No no no I'm just kidding. Just kidding!

Seriously, where that comes from is St. Augustine:

"Late have I loved you, O Beauty so ancient and so new; late have I loved you! For behold, you were within me, and I outside; and I sought you outside and in my ugliness fell upon those lovely things that you have made. You were with me and I was not with you. I was kept from you by those things, yet had they not been in you, they would not have been at all. You called and cried to me and broke open my deafness: and you sent forth your beams and shone upon me and chased away my blindness: you breathed fragrance upon me and I drew in my breath and do now pant for you: I tasted you, and now hunger and thirst for you: you touched me, and I have burned for your peace."

That's a piece of art, huh? Man.

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

I thought me and jake would be duking it out for Moe job, right jake?

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

maybe jake should be Larry. Aaaahhhh! Really, jake, I just couldn't resist. Hope you can take it.

Oh.

Wiseguys.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 01, 2003.

Why would these other men be schismatics? I could contradict the Pope. But I don't disobey him or advocate disobedience, and the ex- communicate archbishop did.

These men I quoted are telling the faithful that it is permissable for a person to assist at SSPX Masses if they wish and are not "schismatic" for doing so. I'm saying the same thing. How is it that only they escape your dishonest smear campaign?

You say you don't "advocate disobedience" implying that I do because I say that folks who go to SSPX Masses aren't schismatic. These men have done the same thing. You can't have it both ways, Gene. Either SSPX Mass-goers and all of these Cardinals, Roman Canonists, respected theologians, etc., quoted above are *all* schismatics or none of us are.

You worry too much about rebutting the charge of schism; because you associate it with ex- communication. And you SHOULD.

The Vatican says otherwise. No worries here whatsoever.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 01, 2003.

My dear friends,

I have rightful claim on Moe!

Don't you remember? That John Gekick (or however you spell it) guy often referred to me as Moe a while back. Ah, memories....

I'm Moe! Viva Moe!

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 01, 2003.

> "Obedience to the Pope flows out of Tradition."

This is why it is a waste of time talking to these schismatics on this forum. Emerald is saying this in response to me saying "The cornerstone of Tradition is obedience to the Pope." as if he has problem with it.

If my faith rested in what these guys had to say, I would stop being a Catholic, cause they turn the Catholic faith into a joke. It rather meaningless, as you can simply define everything as you wish to define it. I mean, everyone can be their own Pope!

Ecclesia Dei from our Pope clearly shows that anyone who supports SSPX is in schism and excommunicated from the faith. The document cannot be anymore clear on that issue, and if people cannot see what it written there, then nothing we say can help them. They are beyond saving by our words, and only prayers can do it.

Better to start threads asking others to pray for them, then argue with them.

Holy Mother of God, please pray for all the schismatics in the World, who oppose the one True faith as given by your Holy Son our Lord. Thank you Lord, for the Catholic faith, and for sustaining it over the centuries.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do you, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.

Holy Mother of God, please pray for all the schismatics in the World, who oppose the one True faith as given by your Holy Son our Lord. Thank you Lord, for the Catholic faith, and for sustaining it over the centuries.

Amen.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 01, 2003.

"Emerald is saying this in response to me saying "The cornerstone of Tradition is obedience to the Pope." as if he has problem with it."

Well, yeah... sort of, because it isn't exactly accurate. But I think that what you are doing here is making a jump from this:

"Emerald is implying that the statement is not completely accurate or has some ambiguity in it, or is unclear, or can lead to false assumptions..."

...to this:

"Emerald is implying that we don't need to listen to the Pope."

I can assure you the latter statement is not my position. I'm saying that often people seem to have an incomplete or altered understanding of true loyalty to the Holy Father and true assent to the magisterium of the Church.

Here's a good prayer for schismatics and heretics; you'll love this one from Saint Faustina, Fifth Day of the Divine Mercy Novena:

Today bring to Me the souls of heretics and schismatics, and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. During my bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart; that is, My Church. As they return to unity with the Church, My wounds heal, and in this way they alleviate My Passion.

Most Merciful Jesus, Goodness Itself, You do not refuse light to those who seek it of You. Receive into the abode of Your Most Compassionate Heart the souls of heretics and schismatics. Draw them by Your light into the unity of the Church, and do not let them escape from the abode of Your Most Compassionate Heart; but bring it about that they, too, come to adore the generosity of Your mercy.

Even for those who have torn the garment of Your unity, a fount of mercy flows from Your Heart. The omnipotence of Your mercy, 0 God, can lead these souls also out of error.

Eternal Father, turn Your merciful gaze upon the souls of heretics and schismatics, who have squandered Your blessings and misused Your graces by obstinately persisting in their errors. Do not look upon their errors, but upon the love of Your own Son and upon His bitter Passion, which He underwent for their sake, since they, too, are enclosed in the Most Compassionate Heart of Jesus. Bring it about that they also may glorify Your great mercy for endless ages. Amen.

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

maybe jake should be Larry

Happily, there are now more of us than there are Stooges, so they're just going to have to come up with some new material. Don't worry. They won't disappoint.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 01, 2003.

Longer version of the St. Michael Prayer composed by Pope Leo XIII:

O Glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil. Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil. Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist Thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven. That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men, of his depraved mind, corrupt heart, spirit of lying, impiety, blasphemy, his pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity. These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered. Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate Thee as their protector and patron; in Thee Holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to Thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, do Thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen

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

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 01, 2003.

According to Gordon:

anyone who supports SSPX is in schism and excommunicated from the faith.

Please remember in your prayers the following Vatican officials who, according to the experts of this forum, are "in schism and excommunicated from the faith" for telling the faithful it is permissable to assist at SSPX Masses or who support the work of the SSPX, going against what the Pope said:

*Castillo Cardinal Lara* *Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy* *Alfons Cardinal Stickler* *Fr. Gerard E. Murray* *Fr. Patrick Valdini* *Fr. Rudolph Kaschewski* *Count Neri Capponi* Silvio Cardinal Oddi (May he rest in peace)* *Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger* *Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl*

And His Holiness, Pope John Paul II who, at a meeting with Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, said he was "pleased" with the work of the Society.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 01, 2003.

Regina, Dear :
There are no experts in this forum. Unless you think you're one.

There certainly ARE faithful adherents to the catholic faith; and supporters of the Pope and his Curia.

There are a few dissidents driven to extremes by fanaticism and elitism. They are catholics too. Bad catholics.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 01, 2003.

Gene, are you a good Catholic, or a bad Catholic?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 01, 2003.

I'm probably as good a Catholic as you shall ever meet. But a sinner as well. I rely completely on God's grace through thick & thin; and in our discussions here in this forum particularly. He arms me or disarms me. You can discover which, for yourself.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 01, 2003.

“The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.”

- Pope Paul VI, October 13, 1977

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

PRAY for ED; and ED-- Pray for wisdom.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 01, 2003.

I'm probably as good a Catholic as you shall ever meet.

And Eugene, pray for humility, because pride is the root of all sin and stubborness.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), May 01, 2003.

I'm surprised that Eugene didn't say "Who the @#$%^%$# is Paul 6th?...

Pray for Eugene's enlightenment.

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

There are no experts in this forum.

Then by *what right* do you (or anyone else in this forum) have to call my husband, Isabel, Emerald, Ed, myself or SSPX Mass- goers excommunicated schismatics, when *real, bona fide* experts, Cardinals and Roman Canonists as I quoted above have said otherwise?!

Answer my question: Are the men I quoted above "schismatics who are excommunicated" because they are telling the faithful its ok to assist at SSPX Masses? Remember, *none* of these men have been rebuked by the Pope for the statements they've made.

Unless you think you're one.

Hardly.

I'm probably as good a Catholic as you shall ever meet.

If only we could all be as *humble* as you...

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 01, 2003.

What right? I don't speak for the Church here. I never said you had fallen into schism. I said the archbishop had been ex-communicated, and you seem to think otherwise. You have no right to say otherwise.

Now, as rights go, if you think I'm arrogant possibly you know it. It's your opinion. You have a right to that much.

I have a right based on my contact here with you all, to call you elite, holier-than-thou- Pharisaical Catholics and fanatics --Who don't know what they're talking about. I use my own judgment; and so I know it. You might object, but that is what I've called you, not schismatics.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 01, 2003.

Tom's situation regarding his relationship with his Novus Ordo family is probably typical of most traditional Catholics that I have encountered here in New Zealand, and myself in particular. They simply do not want you to criticise the pope. It doesn't matter how bad he is or how badly he conducts himself, or what scandal he causes; he is beyond reproach with these people. Of course, we know that this is not the case, as history has shown.

The pope and the bishops have been out to destroy the Church here in New Zealand, as elsewhere. And they are doing a pretty good job of it too, as the statistics prove all too well! 16.7% of "Catholics" in this town of 31,000 attend the Novus Ordo service each Sunday. That's a figure probably lower than the United States. The figure for 2002 is exactly the same in the United States. -- And the bishop and his presbyters have the gall to describe their parish community as being "vitally alive and thriving."

We have to drive 600 km round trip to attend a Sunday Mass because there is no true Catholic church in this town. We consider ourselves fortunate if we manage to get to four or five Masses each year. We envy those who have weekly Masses on their doorstep.

Any comments Kiwi?

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

Dear Isabel:

I was asked a direct question and answered honestly: I'm probably as good a Catholic as you shall ever meet. You don't meet them every day of my kind, Dear, and it's not brag when it's fact.

I stated as the qualifier, I am also a sinner. I confess I have sinned and that doesn't make a difference about my Catholicism. You have to be honest about your life. Catholics can and do sin. They can remain good catholics by repentence, penance, and love for God.

I don't think you're good Catholics; but it's because of your elitist and subversive ways inside the Holy Catholic Church. You are 50% Pharisees 50% Catholic, and PROUD of it. You see the New Rite as an evil instead of Holy. Just as Pharisees couldn't stand Jesus; exactly like you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 01, 2003.

This is one more blatant hallucination from the unbalanced mind of Ed Richards. '' The pope and the bishops have been out to destroy the Church here in New Zealand, as elsewhere.'' If I didn't suspect Ed went Bonkers long ago, I would claim he's an anti-Catholic bigot. He can't be held responsible for his capricious mind. He's deranged to the point of driving 600 klmtrs on Sundays spying on Novus Ordo parishes, and gloating happily all alone in the wilderness.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 01, 2003.

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.

I don't take the credit for this piece, but it sure fits Eugene, John and one or two others, better than that glass slipper fit Cinderella. I'll bet that if John Paul turned to look at them, they'd go into an ecstacy and levitate.

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

The CNOC: The Canadian Network for Observational Cosmology. Link: http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~cnoc/

The Schismatics: A punk-blues band with famous tracts such as Stray Cat Strut and We're Off To See The Wizard.

papist: One who gives pelvic exams

Novus (Ordo) services: Novus International, Inc., a global leader in the animal agriculture industry, is a privately held corporation headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Formed as a joint venture in 1991, the Novus corporate mission is to help feed the world affordable, wholesome food by supplying goods and services to the leading commercial food producers worldwide. Link: http://www.novusint.com/Public/

Thought you might need some comedy relief... :-)

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 01, 2003.

papist: One who gives pelvic exams

Tell me about it... sheesh!

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

The Schismatics: A punk-blues band with famous tracts such as Stray Cat Strut and We're Off To See The Wizard

Strange... I was just over to a friend's house just not even an hour ago, and was looking at his first-edition of the Wizard of Oz and a couple other of Baum's works.

In one book, the phrase "Waters of Oblivion" jumps right out at you... too interesting.

I hate Baum's stories. But they make for a good rear-view mirror where truth is concerned.

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

Gene declared:

You don't meet them every day of my kind,

Deo gratias.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 02, 2003.

I don't think you're good Catholics; but it's because of your elitist and subversive ways inside the Holy Catholic Church. You are 50% Pharisees 50% Catholic, and PROUD of it. You see the New Rite as an evil instead of Holy. Just as Pharisees couldn't stand Jesus; exactly like you.

Let me be quite honest about myself then, (without bragging of course.)

I believe the *way* I practice my Catholicism is quite superior to yours. I believe the Tridentine Mass to be much superior to the Novus Ordo. I believe that I hold a better sense of the Supreme and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and the protection of the Holy Ghost than you. I believe I hold true doctrine, unlike some of your 'understandings'. And I don't think any of this makes me an 'elitist', because I know this is the way God prefers. It doesn't mean I look down on others for not having this knowledge, but it does mean that I will not relinquensh one facet of my faith, for the sake of progressivism, ecumensism, etc. I will hold true to all doctrine of the faith, till my dying day, providing God finds me of good will sees fit to keep me endowed with the gift of faith. It does mean that I will try and do my part to spread the faith a little, whether it be by example or standing up for truth in this forum. And most importantly, it does mean that I will pray and make sacrifices for the salvation of souls. Because I want all to save their souls. But to do that, they must enter the Catholic Church.

Now does all this mean I think I am a great Catholic, or even a better Catholic than you, Gene? Absolutely not. I fall short more times than I succeed with God's grace. I am not as good a Catholic as you will ever meet, because I am far from the state of sanctity and holiness I need to be compared with the saints in Heaven. I try to do what I know I need to do to save my soul, and hopefully God will have mercy on me. I will grovel for His mercy that I will so desperately need, when I meet my Maker.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), May 02, 2003.

Wow; a come-uppance. The mere fact we're both pilgrims in this world escaped you. You will make false starts and so will all good Catholics. You will become arid, then fervent, then rebel, then conform. All of us do, and I have too. We carry our crosses the best possible way we can. I HAVE. And my faith is second to none.

I love God all that my heart can bear. That's why I said you do not meet my kind every day. It's a plain fact. You met my statement with absolutely no charity. It's a defensive reaction, I realise; giving you the temptation, to treat a fellow Catholic with disdain. I think it shows in your post, but I readily forgive you. Truly, there's no hard feelings.

Jesus was given more or less the same brush- off by many scribes & Pharisees. He said, I come to do my Father's Will, and they disliked that. It made them feel unwanted.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

It wasn't so much a defensive reaction, Gene, as much as a post to make you see how arrogant and prideful your statement was.

I know I am following my faith in the correct way (otherwise I would search for another), but at the same time, that I do not always *live* it as I should. And to say "I am as good a Catholic as you'll ever meet" is truly saying that I will meet no better. I not only beg to differ, but one cannot say that and have true humility. I know I lack true humility. The saints knew their nothingness before God, and admitted to their nothingness, and constantly strove to be even better. Many saints can be quoted as saying they were far from being the 'cream of the crop.' It is something to aspire to. It is something I have never been able to reach. I hope to one day. We must never compare ourselves to others on this earth, but we should compare ourselves to Christ, His Blessed Mother, and the glorious saints of the Church. In this way, will we begin to see that we are nothing, and that we don't even come close to being 'good Catholics.'

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), May 02, 2003.

Isabel, those posts are beautiful. I am active in this forum, as you to bring people closer to God ,with the pure worship that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of all time gives us. To stress also that there is no salvation outside Holy Mother Church...To say otherwise, by anyone, be he pope or peasant, is to make a liar out of Our Divine and Blessed Lord.

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

Isabel,
Pray for me, if you see me as arrogant. My words to you aren't necessarily my words to Our Lord and Savior. --I address Him with lOve and humility. Whereas, this forum is not a holy of holies; I've often reminded everyone.

I still pray much the way I did before, when we had no Vatican II Rite.

You could check my posts. It is never Paul, but Saint Paul unabbreviated. Never baptism, but Holy Baptism. Never Jesus, But Our Holy Redeemer. My words for the Catholic faith: The Holy Catholic Church. For the Father, Our Almighty Father, For Mary, The Most Blessed Virgin Mary. For us-- the good souls, the poor souls, the faithful, our blessed ancestors, & the Holy Bible (not just Bible.)

You see, I can remain a faithful child of John Paul II; never renege and yet be Catholic to the core.

My reprimands are never spiteful. I want others to be like I am; and I aspire to be like Our Blessed Mother; always faithful. That's the definition of a true Catholic. Not of arrogance, Isabel.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

My words to you aren't necessarily my words to Our Lord and Savior. I address Him with lOve and humility. Whereas, this forum is not a holy of holies; I've often reminded everyone.

But perhaps it's better to speak as though Our Lord was on the receiving end of our messages...? Perhaps if we are Catholics we should behave like Catholics not only in but out of church...? If we wouldn't speak ill of someone in His presence, why should we do so just because there's no tabernacle near by? Is He not everywhere? I'm not sure if my words in this forum are going to matter much to Him when I'm judged, but I'd rather play it safe and assume it would matter a great deal. As a result, as much as I'd like to spout off sometimes like Mussolini from the balcony, I have to assume He's watching, but that's just me. I'm not asking any one to agree.

I still pray much the way I did before, when we had no Vatican II Rite. You could check my posts. It is never Paul, but Saint Paul unabbreviated. Never baptism, but Holy Baptism. Never Jesus, But Our Holy Redeemer. My words for the Catholic faith: The Holy Catholic Church. For the Father, Our Almighty Father, For Mary, The Most Blessed Virgin Mary. For us-- the good souls, the poor souls, the faithful, our blessed ancestors, & the Holy Bible (not just Bible.)

Our Lord knows this already. Why do you need to call attention to it?

You see, I can remain a faithful child of John Paul II; never renege and yet be Catholic to the core.

Again, for whose benefit are you saying these things? I'm struggling with this myself but when a person seeks credit for things from others, he ceases to seek credit from God...from there everything begins to crumble. I say these things not because I think myself better, but because it's something I struggle with terribly.

I want others to be like I am;

Oh. My. Gosh.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 02, 2003.

How well you cling to your sensitivity, Isabel.

''. . . for whose benefit are you saying these things? I'm struggling with this myself but when a person seeks credit for things from others, he ceases to seek credit from God.''

My concern was with answering your gratuitous charges of arrogance, not to bring credit on myself. You maintained I was calling myself ''Catholic like few you ever meet;'' unreasonably, or out of false pride. I wanted to uphold my real dispositions, which are born of simple love for God. If you choose to say I'm losing credit from Him because I corrected your foolish remarks, go ahead. You can't hurt my feelings. It can't separate you from Him as much as acting the Pharisee here daily. Examine your own conscience.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

How well you cling to your sensitivity, Isabel.

Psst.

Gene.

Who are you talking to?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 02, 2003.

You maintained I was calling myself ''Catholic like few you ever meet;'' unreasonably, or out of false pride.

Well, your exact words were:

"I am as good a Catholic as you will ever meet,"

which is quite different from saying:

"Catholic like few you ever meet."

There's a lot of difference between those two statements. I just wanted to be sure we / you were reading and understanding what you really said.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 02, 2003.

How cruel of my Guardian Angel! Lol!
Forgive me Isabel. Thanks, Jake, for the wake-up call. --It's motty decent of you, and it helps Regina take a powder momentarully. (sp?)

As for: ''Well, [Gene] your exact words were:
"I am as good a Catholic as you will ever meet,"
which is quite different from saying:

"Catholic like few you ever meet." --

I never went back to my post. (You are a cut-paste artist, sure to think, ''Dummy, don't let typing get in the way.'' Would you explain to all the forum just why you think these are ''weasel words'' --? I took it for mere semantics, but show me why I'm devious.

The claim is still good. I'm some kinda Catholic. You & other Trenties who beat up on Christ's Newer Rite are bad Catholics. But we'll still roll out the red carpet for you over at Saint Basil the Great's. --Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

Doh.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Question for Schismatics on Epistle/Gospel", and all the forum schismatics come in here to debate their position.

Ed is clearly schismatic as he says: "We have to drive 600 km round trip to attend a Sunday Mass because there is no true Catholic church in this town."

And when we say you guys are schismatic, you deny it. Well right from his very mouth, he said "true Catholic church". What proof more do we need!

And an incredible absurd statement by him: "The pope and the bishops have been out to destroy the Church here in New Zealand, as elsewhere."

Absolute nonsense!

And says:

> "We consider ourselves fortunate if we manage to get to four or five Masses each year."

I thought you guys were the holier than thou Catholics, and don't even bother with attending to Sunday obligation! Ed, the very same guy, who told me at one time that he considers the Novus Ordo Mass valid, but not valid enough to meet your Sunday obligation! I don't get it!

> "I believe the Tridentine Mass to be much superior to the Novus Ordo."

Pure opinion Isabel!!! It's no different then if I said, that I believe the Novus Ordo Mass is superior to the Tridentine Mass. It would just be my opinion.

Eugene's charge against you of elitism is accurate, as neither Mass is superior to the other. Both are valid Masses.

You are promoting elitism in God's Holy Church over and above the magisterium of God's Church. You are claiming to be better than the Pope and the Cardinals. You're not! The sooner your realize that, the better off you will be.

You people are clearly under demonic influence of pride in your own opinion, so I direct this prayer at you:

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do you, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

I suggest you say that prayer a lot for yourselves. Hopefully this will lift the shroud that is covering your eyes. Ed, you really need it.

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

Gordon, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question:

Are the Vatican Prelates I quoted above "schismatics who are excommunicated from the faith" since they tell the faithful it is permissable for them to assist at an SSPX Masses? Before you answer please bear in mind that the Holy Father has not rebuked any one of these men, nor their statements I quoted...

Now, if you say they are (excommunicated schismatics), then you've taken Papal authority on yourself. If you say they aren't then if you wish to continue flinging the epithet "schismatics" at us, you're going to have to justify it. You'll have to explain how these men escape your declaration of schism and excommunication for saying it's ok to go to SSPX Masses, but it's schismatic and excommunicable for us to say the same thing.

If you don't care enough to sort this out, but wish to use that word "schismatic" anyway then it'll be on your conscience as engaging in gross calumny.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 02, 2003.

Gordon, you forgot this from Reg-- er, pardon, ISABEL:

''I hold true doctrine, unlike some of your 'understandings'. And I don't think any of this makes me an 'elitist', because I know this is the way God prefers.''

Reminds me of a poster I had once. A beautiful, chunky lioness stretched out on the African turf - - and her caption: ''It's my opinion and it's very true.''

Once a Catholic says he/she knows what God prefers, he/she is corrupting the faith. Isabel clearly doesn't intend it that arbitrarily. She bases it on what she considers sound Catholic doctrine.

But, our Holy Father is the person best qualified to state where God's Will lies; what ''God prefers''. He is the arbiter of doctrine and Church discipline. We can have our own feelings, but feelings are subordinate to the Catholic Church. A Church Council subjected to the sensibility of laymen is subject to corrupted Catholicism; because feelings are only human, emotions out of the heart.

These may be good themes for the writing of books on the faith; as Saint Therese wrote; her ''Little Way''. But not in the role of judging what is better divine service, or better rubrics or the valid Holy Mass.

Laymen must concede that role to prelates and pontiffs of the Church. That vocation is theirs alone.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

How is this:

I use my own judgment; and so I know it.

any different from this:

Reminds me of a poster I had once. A beautiful, chunky lioness stretched out on the African turf - - and her caption: ''It's my opinion and it's very true.''

Just wondering...

-- (Regina712@lycos.com), May 02, 2003.

I'm probably as good a Catholic as you shall ever meet. You don't meet them every day of my kind, Dear, and it's not brag when it's fact

The self promotion business is very good these days... Especially for a guy that still doesn't know the difference between many and all.

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

Ed,
I answered a direct question candidly. I don't have to promote myself. Just mind your own Catholicism.

''pecially for a guy that still doesn't know the difference between many and all.''-???

What's that overriding difference? Christ shed His blood, but NOT for the other guy, just you? Pretty nifty, Richards. Not promoting yourself, Hmm?

The Popes & Cardinals read Latin, Greek, Hebrew and English as well. Did they ignore the only proper translation? YOURS? I at least dont ''know'' that difference. You can top all the Popes and the Council all by yourself. I told everybody: Ed's a Doctor of the Church!!!

Bring him the chair of Peter; he'll be crowned or die trying - -

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

DoC

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

> "Gordon, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question:"

Sorry missed your question! Ahh Regina, it always nice to have a woman like you waiting for me. :)

> "Are the Vatican Prelates I quoted above "schismatics who are excommunicated from the faith" since they tell the faithful it is permissable for them to assist at an SSPX Masses? Before you answer please bear in mind that the Holy Father has not rebuked any one of these men, nor their statements I quoted..."

That's a very good contridiction in God's Church there Regina. Does that make sense to you. I mean the Pope has made it quite clear we cannot support SSPX.

I like to know, do those prelates just concern themselves with SSPX? I also like to know are you exclusive in going to SSPX Masses, or do you attend others?

> "Now, if you say they are (excommunicated schismatics), then you've taken Papal authority on yourself."

You even once said to me, that you are only repeating what the Church has said, so am I not doing the same here in respect to Ecclesia Dei?

> "If you say they aren't then if you wish to continue flinging the epithet "schismatics" at us, you're going to have to justify it."

Ok, I will justify it:

Link to Ecclesia Dei, which says:

---- In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support IN ANY WAY for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law. ----

Not my words, but the Pope's!

> "You'll have to explain how these men escape your declaration of schism and excommunication for saying it's ok to go to SSPX Masses, but it's schismatic and excommunicable for us to say the same thing."

Actually it's schismatic to "support" SSPX "in any way".

You may have a point, in that the excommunication is not automatic, and has to be declared, but don't you think you should play it safe in this regard? Why support people who claim to be the "True Catholic Church", as a SSPX priest once told me, and what Ed on this forum says also. The very same guy, that you don't correct on this matter. You don't oppose Ed at all.

> "If you don't care enough to sort this out, but wish to use that word "schismatic" anyway then it'll be on your conscience as engaging in gross calumny."

Prove to me, that you are not schismatic. Denounce Archbishop Lefebvre's action of consecrating four Bishops against the Pope's authority! I have asked this before, and all you schismatics refused!!! Not a single one of you would do that. Let that be your own condemnation.

Regina say the prayer to St. Michael.

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

Oh shush.

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

You people are clearly under demonic influence of pride...

lol.

Hey, this might be a good opportunity to get hold of a St. Benedict medal. Make sure you get the full excorcism blessing that's supposed to go along with it.

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

Always nice to see you, Gordon :-)

Now then -

That's a very good contridiction in God's Church there Regina. Does that make sense to you. I mean the Pope has made it quite clear we cannot support SSPX.

Actually, that's not what he said at all, and it's certainly not what Vatican Prelates said either.

When the Pope issued the decree, he named Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops by name. He did not excommunicate any of the SSPX priests or the faithful who support them.

I like to know, do those prelates just concern themselves with SSPX?

I'm quite sure that their responcibilites are many. And I'm sure many of them have nothing to do with the SSPX. However, in the case of the Roman Canonists, it is their responcibility to sort these sort of things out. They've done so, and have concluded that the Archbishop's act of consecrating the 4 Bishops without Papal approval did not amount to a schismatic act. Why? Because the Archbishop made it clear he was not giving these Bishops jurisdiction - he was not creating a parallel church. His only concern was that the proper formation of priests could continue after his death. Consecration of bishops without papal mandate for the purpose of an Apostolic mission - as is the case of the CPA in China - is excommunicable, yet oddly Rome has remained silent with regard to them - but that's a whole other discussion in itself...

I also like to know are you exclusive in going to SSPX Masses, or do you attend others?

I assisted at an SSPX Chapel once. My parish is a Traditional Roman Catholic Chapel which is not connected to the SSPX.

You even once said to me, that you are only repeating what the Church has said, so am I not doing the same here in respect to Ecclesia Dei?

Valid point. But you need to see what the Prelates have said above. The Pope, just like all of us, are subject to Canon Law. And he, just like all of us, are capable of error.

Ok, I will justify it: [use of the word schismatic]

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.

But what is "formal adherence", exactly?

Not my words, but the Pope's!

And the Prelates I quoted above are not the Pope's, but they are men who work closely with him. How do you suppose they were permitted to say such things to the faithful without A.) the Pope not knowing or B.) The Pope not intervening and admonishing them for giving out information which maybe harmful to many of the faithful?

I said: "You'll have to explain how these men escape your declaration of schism and excommunication for saying it's ok to go to SSPX Masses, but it's schismatic and excommunicable for us to say the same thing."

And Gordon replied: Actually it's schismatic to "support" SSPX "in any way".

Then how do these prelates escape censure from the Pope, Gordon? According to you, these men would be terribly guilty of giving permission for the faithful to fall into schism and excommunicate themselves. Are you saying that's what they are doing?

You may have a point, in that the excommunication is not automatic, and has to be declared, but don't you think you should play it safe in this regard?

I need to think of my soul. If the SSPX is providing the faithful with sound doctrine, valid sacraments, and the utmost love, devotion and reverence to Our Lord, I'll go. So, I *am* playing it safe. But it's also vital for me to know that I have Rome's permission. And I do. Even better is that I have the *perennial* teachings of Holy Mother Church which say I'm fine. I've got all my bases covered, thanks!

Why support people who claim to be the "True Catholic Church", as a SSPX priest once told me,

I wasn't there so I can't explain what he said or what he meant.

and what Ed on this forum says also. The very same guy, that you don't correct on this matter. You don't oppose Ed at all.

In all honesty, I've never read any posts from Ed which state this at all. Ed's a good guy who is (justifiably so) scandalized by the current novelties coming out of the Vatican, and I know he isn't shy when it comes to expressing his views - in that regard he's very similar to *all* of us here at the forum. But seriously, I've never read any post by him where he states that the Catholic Church can only be found in the SSPX.

Prove to me, that you are not schismatic. Denounce Archbishop Lefebvre's action of consecrating four Bishops against the Pope's authority!

But this keeps going around in circles, Gordon. The Pope's prelates have spoken favorably with regard to the late Archbishop's situation. I've provided evidence of that for you to read. I've provided evidence that the Archbishop's actions could not be considered excommunicable. Have you read all of it? Any of it?

I have asked this before, and all you schismatics refused!!! Not a single one of you would do that. Let that be your own condemnation.

Again you use that word, but have remained silent with regard to the prelates I quoted. Again, Gordon, my original question: are the Prelates I quoted "schismatics who are excommunicated from the faith" because they've told the faithful it's ok to assist at SSPX Masses? A simple yes or no with a brief explanation of your findings is all I'm asking for.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 02, 2003.

Ahh Regina, it always nice to have a woman like you waiting for me. :)

That's right, Vink. You're a ladies' man, aren't you?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 02, 2003.

Hey, this might be a good opportunity to get hold of a St. Benedict medal. Make sure you get the full excorcism blessing that's supposed to go along with it.

Not a bad idea.

*cough*

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 02, 2003.

How did it ever happen that the Church lost so much in so short a time??? We fight for tradition.. .not against the Church, but rather we fight to preserve the Church from Her own destruction. We are denied the right to attend Mass according to the missal of 1962....a Mass that has been virtually unchanged since apostolic times. We must now attend a Mass that is filled with problems for the faithful…and yet we are not supposed to be upset.

Catholics who favor the "changes" made by the Second Vatican Council may attend mass without concern. They will not be forced to attend a Latin Mass if they don't want to. Just about every Catholic parish in the world today has the Novus Ordo Mass. They will never HAVE to attend the Latin Liturgy if they don't want to. Liberals do NOT have to accept the Latin Mass; but rather they claim it is outdated and it is not now Catholic without being reprimanded by any member of the clergy.

We are forced to ask permission to attend Mass according to the 1962 missal...for without the permission of the bishop, we can be seen as troublemakers and schematics in the eyes of the Church. Liberals do NOT have to ask permission if they want to offer mass with unapproved texts...nor do they have to ask permission for Liturgical dancers parading around the altar. But traditionalists are slandered by the hierarchy for having the priests face Christ in the Tabernacle instead of the people.

Why MUST we ask permission for everything we do...if everything we do is VALID according to the Church's ever ancient, and ever applicable rules while others may do what is NOT even remotely catholic without having to worry????

God help us!! When will it be the other way around???

-- Gotananswer (puzzled@bellsouth.com), May 03, 2003.

Because the innocent must suffer for the sake of the salvation of souls.

In order for a soul to come to truth, another must willingly suffer.

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

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 03, 2003.

Behold your King

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

Catholics who favor the "changes" made by the Second Vatican Council may attend mass without concern. They will not be forced to attend a Latin Mass if they don't want to. Just about every Catholic parish in the world today has the Novus Ordo Mass. They will never HAVE to attend the Latin Liturgy if they don't want to. Liberals do NOT have to accept the Latin Mass; but rather they claim it is outdated and it is not now Catholic without being reprimanded by any member of the clergy

Great post!!

How is it when Traditionalists express concern or object to novelties of the postconciliar church, we are regarded as schismatics or as "going against the church"? Yet neo-Catholics are perfectly happy and willing to strongly criticise the Church as She was *before* Vatican 2 and incur no sort of condemnation for doing so...

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

thank you for the images (word and visual)

A schismatic is not someone who disagrees with something the Pope says or does if he is not speaking in matters of faith or morals. Schism is not a matter of mere disobedience, either. Not all disobedience amounts to schism. For a schism to take place, one must deny the Papacy, they must deny the Pope has the right to exercise authority. Regina

A person could disagree with one item the pope says on faith or morals because he feels he simply is incapable of living up to it and not at the same time "deny the Pope has the right to exercise authority"

That a Catholic is to be obedient to the pope does not automatically mean the pope will always be right on the way he presents the issues of faith and morals to the faithful.

"Infallible teaching", should also refer to the one being taught as much as it refers to the teacher, who is the pope. Or what good is perfect teaching if the one being taught is not included in that idea? For faith and morals to be taught infallibly by the Church the teacher must present them perfectly and the lay person must learn it perfectly and then the learner must be capable of applying it to himself perfectly after learning it. So how can infallible teaching exist?

A child can be obedient to their paternal father and not be able to do everything the father asks of him regarding morals. Also the father may explain a way of acting and thinking in a manner that the child cannot relate to very well.

Things like infallibly taught dogma, written doctrine compiled in databanks, fat volumes of Catechisms with papal stamps, imply that the human is some kind of machine with a digital or black and white inner nature. It implies that I can now mathematically calculate my salvation with the use of papal data. And when this fails, or rather if I fail to compute my salvation by these quantified moral standards in Catholic databanks, we have a sure temptation for the failing person to choose schism or Protestantism. The Catholic Church, in her attempt to safeguard the faith with the human methods of voluminous legalistic documentation, has driven people out of her bosom.

It makes little sense to add papal infallibility to the databanks of Catholic dogmas but then it never made sense to have databanks of any dogma. Jesus never wrote down a single word that we know of.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 03, 2003.

To get a picture of these “behind the scenes” activities, at Vatican 2 we need to know a piece of information. During this time, the Fatima visions were heavy on the mind of the prelature. It had been known for quite some time that Sister Lucy was told by Our Lady to have the Third Secret of Fatima revealed in 1960. Two years prior to that, however, Pope John XXIII had already been planning for Vatican II. He was planning to bring a “breath of fresh air” to the Church, and his message was very optimistic. He had grand visions of bringing the Church and the world closer together. But upon reading the Fatima Secret, he was obviously struck by the very ominous message it contained. According to Fatima scholars, as well as the testimony of Cardinal Oddi, the Secret speaks of a catastrophic loss of Faith, which did not square well with John XXIII’s dreams of a “New Pentecost”.2

In essence, the Church had a crucial choice to make. Would she reveal the Third Secret and warn the world of its imminent plunge into apostasy because of man’s sins, or would she ignore Fatima and seek to make gestures to the world, and especially Russia? (Despite that Our Lady of Fatima warned “Russia would spread its errors throughout the world”.)

This was probably the most important decision of the 20th Century. Unfortunately the wrong one was made. The Churchmen decided to make political ties with Russia rather than reveal the Message of Fatima. In place of telling Communist Russia it was evil, the Vatican chose to make a political pact with them in 1962, known as the “Pact of Metz,” after the place it was signed in France. In this pact, the Vatican agreed, to the absolute contradiction of the Fatima Message, not to condemn either Russia or communism, and not to place any negative statements about them in all sixteen documents of Vatican II. (Iota Unum, p. 76, n. 6) The agreement is signed by Cardinal Tisserant (and attested to by his personal secretary, Monsignor Roche) and Metropolitan Nikodim, head of the KGB-controlled Russian Orthodox Church. In return, Russia agreed to send two Orthodox prelates to the Council, a gesture most welcomed by the Vatican. The rest is history.

So we see that there was a lot of “behind-the- scenes” activity taking place during Vatican II. Politics, ecumenism and liberal theology seemed to rule the day. Why is this important to know? Because it is obvious that these political ideologies had an overwhelming effect on what Vatican II finally produced, at least in that 10% area where it seemed that Vatican II departed from traditional Church teaching.

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

--

Et tu, Regina ?

Very easy to see Ed is off the medication; but are you slipping too?

''Yet neo- Catholics are perfectly happy and willing to strongly criticise the Church as She was *before* Vatican 2 and incur no sort of condemnation for doing so...''

That's crazy. No one in our forum has said anything bad about pre-Vatican II times, nor the clergy, nor our Mass. I for one still love the Latin Missal; and I've never disdained it. But Vatican II reforms go a long way in reaching out to non- Catholics and schismatics who for ages needed communication with the Church. A new Holy Mass in the vernacular --alone-- is a huge spiritual work of mercy offered up to God--NOT MAN-- in order to help our separated brethren. It isn't any secret, for all its glory and traditional a Mass in Latin had overtones of exclusion. It meant an INSIDER'S Rite, with the lesser communities of Christian believers out in the wilderness. Vatican II addressed it directly. Mass in vernacular.

Yes; our churches don't tower over all other congregations as much today. The flamboyant altarpieces & graceful music are distinctly appealing to you and me.

But from the outside these features were misconceived as the shadow of ancient Rome. It wasn't, but we sacrifice it because of the illusion it served --Somehow.

This shows the world our Church's Christian humility, and our sincere desires to serve only God, not our own status. (BTW-- I am not a ''neo''; never was.) I'm a Catholic to the core. You aren't a ''trad''. If not, why? Because a Catholic can be conservative without assuming the mantel of Tradition; we all love our ancient Sacred Tradition. And by no means has it ended, and become ''Neo''. That's a simpleton's understanding of tradition. Where the Pontiff is, there is the Catholic Church. There is her LIVING Tradition. It has a long way to travel; to develop, glorifying God. Until the second coming of Our King.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

I will go unto the altar of God:
To God Who giveth joy to my youth.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 03, 2003.

Eugene, you are indeed a Neo and a loose cannon to boot.. I have asked you a direct question and you answer by ranting and raving and uttering a lot of senseless nonsense. Again WHERE CAN YOU SHOW ME OR ANYONE ELSE THAT OUR LORD SAID FOR ALL..You can't and it drives you nuts.

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

The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains why “for many,” i.e., the exclusive group, must be used:

“Looking to the efficacy of the Passion, we believe that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all men; but looking to the advantages which mankind derive from its efficacy, we find, at once, that they are not extended to the whole, but to a large proportion of the human race... With great propriety, therefore, were the words, ‘for all,’ not used, because here (in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist) the fruit of the Passion is alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.” Thus, the “many” are those words used.

Eugene. HERE's my cards. now let's see your's.. This is right from a dogmatic council. Can you top this with your ICEL?

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

It isn't any secret, for all its glory and traditional a Mass in Latin had overtones of exclusion.

If so, then rightly so... because it would be doctrinal. That's what I meant before (this thread? A different thread? I forget) when I said that after coming to the awareness of an existing and widespread doctrinal compromise of the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus, that to my wonderment, the awareness of this doctrine permeates the Mass of Trent. There's your doctrinal expression done well in the liturgy.

Not a nasty kind of exclusion but a truthful exclusion which, if not recognized and let go of would give inertia to the deception of a false sense of security with the status quo of our existence.

If I read your use of the phrase overtones of exclusion as you mean them, it would be a justified exclusion if it is one that seeks to bring the individual in conformity with Truth and salvation in contrast to the condition of the body of the fallen mankind at large.

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

Emerald,
Possibly I forgot to clarify, it was not our holy faith which was this exclusion (you seem to think exclusion is wonderful). I meant the language, Latin represented to non-Catholics something (hate to use this word) unhealthy, feudal, out-of-touch. Now, to me, it wasn't. Not ever.

Nor to Anglicans, perhaps. But to a wide range of ''Bible Christians'' it maybe it was, and these are all potential converts, Provided our Church opened her doors, and came into the modern world. That was in part the ecumenical movement; an invitation to the world of the believer in Christ. the lost sheep without a Pastor. Giving up an exclusive language, our faith was more accessible; and certainly not compromised. It will not change. The Creeds are intact and still command our faith. The Mass is less romantic but still Catholic & Holy. We still revere and love the saints. The Liturgy is a re arrangement actually for the better, although it appeals less to the mystical taste.

We are more appealing to the world at large. It is not change for change's sake, but change for mankind's sake; for full communion with God through his Church.

At the same time, the Old Rite is far from abolished. For the spiritual consolation it offers many mystical souls, it remains our heritage and a living link to tradition. It stands quite equal and splendid alongside the New Rite; not in competition. Scruples over this are counter-productive. God is being served by our FAITH, and not by reactions against universal good will. Good will between all believers.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

In order to be an indultarian, you must accept the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, which even leading Roman theologians at the time denied was Catholic! Since then the documents questioning the validity of the New Order, which started essentially in 1967 with Patrick Omlor's Questioning the Validity of the New, All-English Canon, have grown in number and persuasion. Yet, the indultarians must play games with their conscience and with the truth so that they can get the crumb of an "indult" Mass.

This whole effort is a train-wreck. There are even rumors (like the false one a couple of weeks ago about the SSPX succumbing to the Novus Ordo) that within a month the Vatican will "loosen" the indult. If such a thing should happen (and I have serious doubts about it), it will simply lead to open warfare between the Novus Ordo bishops against the New Vatican, between local presbyters and their bishops, and so forth. Moreover, nothing will have been "fixed," because an "indult," or even "pseudo-indult," Mass will not fix the error and even apostasy of the Novus Ordo Church, which ranges far beyond the Mass alone to all of the Sacraments and all of Catholic doctrine.

The Pope was distressed that Swiss Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre rejected the "reforms" of the 1960s as "Marxist" and "neo- Protestant," and yet history proves the archbishop right and the pope wrong. Recently, the SSPX Chief Bishop put the real issue on the line (we only pray that he has the courage not to deviate from full traditional Catholicism):

The real problem is

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

Possibly I forgot to clarify, it was not our holy faith which was this exclusion (you seem to think exclusion is wonderful). I meant the language...

Oooooh I see why you said that. Sorry.

First round should always be #7, slugs last. My apologies.

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

To Jake, if my old memory serves:

Introibo ad altare Dei
Qui laetificat juventutem meam; --I was an altar boy in 1949.

To Ed: Ya Fadder's mustache! In Latin, Saltatem tu in lagunae, Jump in the Lake, Ed. DO IT NOW.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

Case closed Eugene! No refutations, just destroy reputations. It's been your game all along. Like I said Eugene, I don't enjoy this, as charity is the loser on both sides. However what has to be said, had to be said. I will pray for you, please pray for me. Moustache and "Many". oops all.

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

Maybe this will help you understand exactly what it is that I won't have any part of... and remember, I am under absolutely no doctrinal obligation to do so.

Btw, forget the Latin for a minute; this is what people seem to think lies at the heart of the issues, but by no means. There is something to it, but it doesn't pertain right offhand to the core of what we are witnessing in the Church today.

At any rate:

"But to a wide range of ''Bible Christians'' it maybe it was, and these are all potential converts, Provided our Church opened her doors, and came into the modern world."

Coming into the modern world has no definition. There is no way to obtain a real tone and feel to this phrase; it is designed to exist in the realm of the nebulous. Nebulous is what it is, and if pressed it cannot be pinned in any way to a solid reality; as such, it is useful for many people to mean many things by it.

This phrase, then, isn't of a tremendous benefit to a Church that holds to universal and objective Truth. What it does provide benefit to are the enemies who would wish to attempt its doctrinal demise.

The church has no need of coming into the modern world. The world, as in every age, needs to come into the Church. Is the truth subserviant to the world, or the world to the truth?

"That was in part the ecumenical movement; an invitation to the world of the believer in Christ."

That phrase coming into the modern world was no doubt part of the ecumenical movement; therein lies the problem. The truth remains the truth whether the standards of adhering to it are lost or diminished. We cannot widen the inclusion beyond what the doctrines of the Faith allow. The world laughs and mocks us. "Build it as strong as you may", they say. "We will pull it to the ground". And that they will attempt to do, not destroying but inflicting widespread damage.

When reality is ignored, it is a mercy that reality returns to us all in the form of suffering, and that suffering then is the true source of renewal. According to our theology as Catholics, it can't really be any other way.

Giving up an exclusive language, our faith was more accessible.

The lost sheep without a pastor, as you put it, were not lost for want of a pastor but for the rejection of one... and it was not Latin that kept them away.

It was doctrinal error; heresy. These things are not matters ignorance; they are matters of free will and morality.

The Creeds are intact and still command our faith.

The Creeds are intact, by all means, and will be into eternity, wholly independent of any man or even all men's violation of them. That's not my principle frustration... it's that people don't hold them in totality but claim that they do.

We are more appealing to the world at large. It is not change for change's sake, but change for mankind's sake; for full communion with God through his Church.

This cannot, will not work. It has not, and will not. It should not work.

What can, and will, and should, is raw sacrifice of the faithful in the mystical body; the raw suffering and prayer of the faithful in the mystical body. Raw immovability and sameness. One cannot sell something apologetically.

These are provably the ways of God, so much so that it hurts. The other ways... the ways of men. Without a doubt.

It stands quite equal and splendid alongside the New Rite

One liturgy eclipses the other; the Body and Blood of Christ remain the same, as always.

The table is set, the invitations have been set to the world. But until they are starving, the world won't even know it's dinnertime.

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

Emerald:
Because you sound powerful and think you're powerful and pose as powerful doesn't make you such a powerful Catholic. It makes you just a demagogue, a fascist. Go back and ask yourself; ''Can I ever claim I was on the side of Christ? At work for the Catholic faith, if I take it on myself to trivialize a valid Council of Catholic bishops convened by their Pope?

You made a big spiel today about it just being a pastoral, not dogmatic Council. Therefore, you presume, no one is bound to keep to the spirit of it, or pay it any heed. It's ''not a sin''.

But it's pulling apart the fabric of our Church's communion. Making it less than what our Holy Father aimed for, by contumacy and pride in your ''holiness''. It is Pharisaical and presumptuous. Particularly to presume you have pastoral vs. dogmatical loopholes by which you will circumvent our Church's authority. Is this what heretics worked out once? Might be. Think about it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

Emerald, as usual you've made several good points.

All this talk about opening our Church's doors to the modern world. It begs reflection on Church history. Let's look at all the epochs and ages where the Church has pursued Her Divine mission for the past 2000 years - Everything from the Roman Empire to the Arian heresy. We have the Gregorian epoch to the rise of Islam and the Age of Charlemagne and the Greek Schism to the Age of Hildebrandt and the emerging Christian commonwealth of Europe, the Crusades and the rise of the the medieval heresies, the wonderful 13th century of St. Thomas Aquinas and Dante to the Babylonian captivity of the Popes and the Western Schism - The Renaissance to the Protestant Revolt, the French Revolution to the First Vatican Council ---

Looking at all of this in all it's....vastness, we have to ask why it wasn't until the 1960's that the Church encountered any special difficulty in dealing with "modern man" and "modern times" and the "modern world?"

Folks seem to think there's something so "exclusive" about wanting Holy Mother Church to be seen as a fortress in the "modern world." But that's what She was meant to be by her Divine Founder. I fail to see what the Church needs of the "modern world" and it's ever- changing ideas and ideals, since She *alone* is the repository of everything that has already been revealed to us by God for our Salvation.

Has the opening of the doors to the "modern world" resulted in droves of "modern" people coming in? Not really. Infact with the inception of Vatican II and the new Mass, scores of people *exited* Her doors.

As far as the languege of Latin keeping people from entering our doors - It would appear that it is indeed the vernacular and the new Rite which have caused much diversity within the Church. Polish Masses at the expense of non-Polish people. Spanish Masses at the expense of non-Spanish people, "liberalism" at the expense of "conservative orthodoxy" - it goes on and on. One Mass, one Catholic people, one languege - I just don't understand how that could possibly be viewed as too "exclusive"...

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

Emerald:
I saw your post and pretexts:

''. . .into the modern world has no definition. There is no way to obtain a real tone and feel to this phrase; it is designed to exist in the realm of the nebulous.''DESIGNED?

What's with this ''design'' & how does it ''exist in a realm?'' Not practical enough for you, Emerald, too ''nebulous,'' What a crock! The ''tone and feel'' I get out of this nonsense is you think you're a novelist.

You disagree with why our Church sent out feelers to the protestant world, and to schismatics who descend from Catholics of the middle ages? Just say so.

As for sticking to our doctrines; of course. I told you-- the Creeds, the doctrines the devotion has NOT been taken away from Catholics. It's merely a new era in the Church, and an ambitious renewal calling for faith, not division. Is that nebulous? Shall we join in a battle of words? Let your guard down, I'm not your enemy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

But it's pulling apart the fabric of our Church's communion.

What, me or the council? It wasn't clear you're statements; only the context pulls out the real answer, as usual.

If it's me, am I that big, that powerful that I on a little server on the corner of the internet can pull the Church apart at the seams? Me?

I doubt it.

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

Why would I argue with THAT--? It's just that am under attack for my expressions, not my message. Soon I will die of despair because you ''took me down''; as you charmingly put it the other day, tossing down the gauntlet. The EGO gauntlet, Emerald. You think you're crossing swords don't you? Just as Ed thinks he's a new Thomas More for the 21st century. More a new Martin Luther, and your sword is an al dente linguini, Give me a break! I'm over-run by small birds here, all chirping me to my grave.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

If ego is a part of it, then that's a sin on my part; I do not deny it.

As with anybody... no, make that everybody, it is probably the case that ego comes into play from time to time.

But look, if someone steps back from a conversation about the way things are, or the way they ought to be, in the name of wanting to avoid committing a sin or in the name of fear of being arrogant, or any number of possible ways of sinning, that sounds a little like the guy who buried what the master gave him and saying "master, I knew you were a tough man..."

I am a miserable failure. Should that absent me from the forum? If that's the case, then there would be no forum if this rule were to apply across the board. Much better for me to be defeated because of my own sins and failures than to keep them hidden and healthy.

In a lot of ways, I've come across this way of thinking recently... "Don't attempt to seek or speak the truth, or promote a proper course of action, or attempt to promote right thinking, right actions... because, by golly, you might run the risk of being a hypocrite! Or arrogant!"

By and large, I have come to accept that as not so much a right way of thinking, but as a temptation. Sort of a temptation not to accomplish things that need to be said and done. Failures always happen in the course of trying to succeed in virtually anything.

So, expect me to fall down in sin, I guess. Let everyone witness it. That's what's going to happen to me, to everyone, in the course of pursuing the right stuff.

Doing nothing, saying nothing, and displaying no arrogance, no hypocracy, no sin... does not mean that one is free of arrogance, hypocracy and sin.

It just means it isn't out front and visible, that's all.

All have fallen short of the glory of God. I am no better than you or Ed or John or anyone else. Forget thinking I think this; I don't.

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

What's with this ''design'' & how does it ''exist in a realm?''

Right, I said designed. I think it is a tool of the enemy of the Church. I said realm because I don't think it exists in reality and I have no clue where else to put it. Call it an idea limbo... whatever.

Not practical enough for you, Emerald, too ''nebulous,'' What a crock!

No it's not a crock.

The ''tone and feel'' I get out of this nonsense is you think you're a novelist.

Quit trying to make out my intentions to be something they are not, please.

Why do you do that?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 04, 2003.

"Soon I will die of despair"

"I'm over-run by small birds here, all chirping me to my grave."

Emerald & Ed are literally, physically, killing you? Will your blood be on my hands as well? Two items for your consideration:

1. If you feel that being here on this forum presents a clear & present danger to your life, perhaps you should take your leave so that you can better look after your health, particularly now that you're in your twilight years. Bizzare comments from you such as:

your sword is an al dente linguini

Have been increasing in frequency. I haven't known you long enough to know if you have a long history of this, but if other people are noticing, it may be something worth getting checked out.

2. Despair is a mortal sin. If you die in a state of despair, you will go to hell for all eternity.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 04, 2003.

Jake My Friend,
Thank you for your concern. Never mind my ''despair''. Mind your own chirping; my despair passes. I'll be a riot again in the morning. But you, Jake, and Ed shall remain little birds tomorrow, and for as long as you force yourselves on the forum. Tweet and flutter, God made you harmless; I'll remain faithful. Small birds only catch our attention for an instant. Then, goodby.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 04, 2003.

Emerald,
Why do you figure I was backing down? I saw this: '' if someone steps back from a conversation about the way things are, or the way they ought to be in the name of wanting to avoid committing a sin,''

I just wish you'd tell us what was your point, for instance in a brilliant composition like this:

''Do you mean defined? That would be different; that would be dogmatic.

Using the word asserted, there's ambiguity in the question. I could see someone applying either way, as a re-statement or as a defining; but as much as they deal in with the same subjects, they differ.

Exactness in distinction is not sophistry, but in fact, it's sophistry's opposite. Sophistry can only exist by virtue of blurred distinctions; it cannot exist without it.

Vatican II defined no doctrines.

I saw this, and I read it again. It made no sense, and I tried again. It's a very serious statement, as anyone can see. Really.

Now it seems to mean this. --And now, it might mean--THIS. It's rendered with such passion. It must mean something! It's -----WHAT??? It is the fifty cent word, married to the nickel argument. Balderdash. (I guess you liked it; forgive my honest apraisal.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 04, 2003.

You're right, Gene. It's all a bunch of nonsense.

You win. I'm granting your wish and I'm leaving you in peace; no need to worry any more.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 04, 2003.

Emerald to Gene:

Quit trying to make out my intentions to be something they are not, please.

Why do you do that?

Because he can think of no logical argument for your very sound opposing views. See, it's the same thing as calling someone a racist, or a liar or questioning someones mental capabilities. It changes the subject, saving him from actually having to *comment* on the subject. It's his attempt to take the attention off the fact that he really hasn't offered any substantial argument whatsoever, nor can his p.o.v stand up to much. Therefore he tries to pin the attention on someone else. It takes next to nothing to send him into a tailspin - not that that's funny or anything, it's actually sad. He shouldn't partake in such debates if they are going to cause him to become so irrational.

But please Emerald, don't let him (or anyone else) stop you from posting. Don't let him make you think *you're* the one so puffed up with pride. He's the one whose immense pride has taken a beating due to the fact he's incapable of offering anything to contribute to a reasonable, charitable, *rational* debate.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 04, 2003.

Emerald; look twice;

I haven't even understood your las couple of posts. I have no comment then, whether you made some point or missed the mark.

Regina ignores what is easily apparent, just to take a cheap shot. She thinks I can't offer a sunstantive argument, and then resort to ''changing the subject''.

Except, your exposition is so obtuse, owing to your infatuation with stylish language, that no one knows what to address. It's a guessing game.

That's why I propose; why do you feel the Church had no outreach to the Christian sectarians; or do you think this is not her problem? If this turns you away, SAY IT PLAIN, without the double-talk.

Regina isn't much for double-talk, I'll give her that. She just declares her open dislike for me.

My answer to that, is, God bless you, Regina. If I compromised my convictions, I would very likely gain your admiration & respect. But I shouldn't give in to that pressure. I'm a Catholic of extremely serious convictions. We are not called to judge our brothers' eligibility before God. We are not allowed to pay respect to the world. Every Chrisitan is called into full Communion with god's saints and Our Lord. Into the Mystical body.

To meet that challenge, our Church became humble and started an ambitious ecumenical movement. The very effort in the Holy Spirit now attacked by the ultra conservative wing of our community. I invite you to discuss THAT-- and not ''Vatican II defined no doctrines.'' Because that isn't even the point.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 04, 2003.

Jmj
Dear Eugene and Gordon,

As long as the ne'er-do-wells and buffoons are still here (not banned), I commend you for exposing their countless errors on this and other threads. I wish that I could join you, but the doctor warned me to stop pounding my head against the wall (in other words, to stop casting my pearls before swine [Matthew 7:6]).

By the way, it was perhaps a year ago that I referred to the original trio as The Three Schismatic Stooges (whence came the Regina = Moe mentioned above). Jake-MSN/1 and Isabel were Larry and Curly. Now Ed Richards is definitely Shemp, and Emerald (a later convert to the schismatic/heretical scene) plays the part of whining Joe Besser [who was also "Stinky the brat" for Abbott and Costello]).

Just as the real Stooges had their time in the limelight and left, today's Five Schismatic Stooges have had far more than their fair share of time and now need to leave. This is a forum for serious orthodox Catholic conversation, not for their slapstick and burlesque.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

Wait a second, I want it to be a forum for "Christian" Catholic conversion.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 05, 2003.

Really John, do even know what Jesus was about??? I mean, really.

"Many folks go to SSPX chapels because of their love for the Traditional Mass. They go because they felt their faith was in jeopardy in their diocesan new Masses."

So, Regina, this is an hoest question, because this little tidbit stuck out to me. If the priests who celebrate these masses are excommunicated, that would make the masses invalid, no? If so, how could this "traditional mass" mean anything, if it is invalid?

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 05, 2003.

Regina ignores what is easily apparent, just to take a cheap shot. She thinks I can't offer a sunstantive argument

Can you? We have yet to see one. I'm not saying you're incabable, just that I haven't seen any evidence of this alleged ability.

That's why I propose; why do you feel the Church had no outreach to the Christian sectarians; or do you think this is not her problem? If this turns you away, SAY IT PLAIN, without the double-talk.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'll chip in my $0.02 anyhow. What des outreach mean? Can you please define that for us?

Does "outreach" mean "Better convert and come into the fold, folks?" or is it more like "We want to understand you better?"

Regina isn't much for double-talk, I'll give her that.

Amen, brother.

She just declares her open dislike for me.

...and you can prove this, right?

I'm a Catholic of extremely serious convictions.

Geez, we KNOW, we know.

We are not called to judge our brothers' eligibility before God.

Tell that to JFG and your other lackeys.

Every Chrisitan is called into full Communion with god's saints and Our Lord. Into the Mystical body.

To meet that challenge, our Church became humble and started an ambitious ecumenical movement.

Not only all Christians, but all men are called by God into the Roman Catholic Church. Has the maddening pace of false ecumenism done anything to bring them in / back? What are the fruits? What has been the benefit?

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

By the way, it was perhaps a year ago that I referred to the original trio as The Three Schismatic Stooges (whence came the Regina = Moe mentioned above). Jake-MSN/1 and Isabel were Larry and Curly. Now Ed Richards is definitely Shemp, and Emerald (a later convert to the schismatic/heretical scene) plays the part of whining Joe Besser [who was also "Stinky the brat" for Abbott and Costello]).

At least that has been set straight, as long as Isabel doesn't mind being Crurly.

This is a forum for serious orthodox Catholic conversation

Is that in the rules somewhere? If not, I think it may be time to edit the JFG List of Apostates Deserving Hellfire, Banishment, etc.

On the other hand, you may want to heed your doctor's advice. It's not as if your "recommendations" are taken seriously, anyhow; and if being on this forum is sending you to the doctor, it may also be time to re-evaluate the place it occupies in your life.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 05, 2003.

Hello, OperaDiva.

If the priests who celebrate these masses are excommunicated

They aren't.

that would make the masses invalid, no?

Even if a priest is excommunicated, it would not invalidate his Masses.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 05, 2003.

I haven't even understood your las couple of posts. I have no comment then, whether you made some point or missed the mark.

Why not just say that, then? Why take the unkind jabs at Emerald's style of writing and describing things?

Regina ignores what is easily apparent, just to take a cheap shot.

No. I pointed out what was easily apparent, and I called you on it.

She thinks I can't offer a sunstantive argument, and then resort to ''changing the subject''.

You can't. My husband expresses his convictions about Tradition and you *change the subject* and accuse him of being the sort of guy who wouldn't let his daughter date a black man. Emerald offers a thought provoking observation about the "modern world" in relation to the Church, and you *change the subject* with a lousy attempt to mock and belittle his style of writing. You ask me to tell you what went on in my local parishes which made me turn to Tradition and you *change the subject* by accusing me of lying. Ed quotes something from Pope Paul the 6th and you *change the subject* and accuse him of mental illness.

Except, your exposition is so obtuse, owing to your infatuation with stylish language, that no one knows what to address. It's a guessing game.

There you go again. Now you're accusing him of being "infactuated with stylish languege". Changing the subject, and offering an unfounded accusation of his personal intentions.

All you had to say was, "Emerald would you please try to make your points a little clearer? Some of the things you said went over my head." Would that have been so much to ask?

Regina isn't much for double-talk, I'll give her that. She just declares her open dislike for me.

Please point out where I said I disliked you? I don't even know you. I only dislike the methods you use to argue such as changing the subject, trying to discredit your opponent with terrible personal accusations, etc.

We are not called to judge our brothers' eligibility before God.

Why does that apply to everyone but you?

To meet that challenge, our Church became humble and started an ambitious ecumenical movement.

And has it been fruitful?

I invite you to discuss THAT--

We've all attempted to discuss things with you, Gene. Unfortunately it seems when you are challenged more than you're comfortable with, you come out with unkind personal stabs against people which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, let's see what our friend John had to say:

I commend you for exposing their countless errors on this and other threads.

Kindly point out where that's happened. I'm still waiting for Gordon to answer my question with regard to the Vatican prelates who have said that assistance at SSPX Masses was permissable and have said Archbishop Lefebvre's act of consecration was not a schismatic act.

Hey! Maybe *you'd* like to take a stab at it? How 'bout it, John? Why don't *you* tell us what you believe to be the status of the Vatican Prelates I quoted above who tell us we may assist at SSPX Masses if we wish.

As for Gene, the only thing he's "exposed" is his ability to be very unkind and uncharitable. Much like you. No wonder you're patting him on the back. Sorry, but there's something sinister about commending someone for bad behavior.

I wish that I could join you, but the doctor warned me to stop pounding my head against the wall.

If you require the advice of a doctor because of the discussions on this forum, you're really in a sad state of affairs. I'll pray for you.

Emerald (a later convert to the schismatic/heretical scene)

You never published your encyclical determining how Emerald's love for and assistance at the Traditional Mass (the indult, mind you) makes him a heretic or a schismatic. Perhaps if you can't (or won't) offer an explanation it would be better to keep your *opinions* to yourself. Perhaps if you wish to engage in epithets you refuse to justify, a reflection on the Eighth Commandment would be an even better idea.

Love and prayers,

-- Moe (Regina712@lycos.com), May 05, 2003.

A STUDY IN PARANOIA;

Three men approach: “You Mr. Gecik”?... How do you know that”?.... Your jacket sir, it says “Gecik, #7 1972 state softball champs”.....”How do you know that it”s my jacket”?........”Well anyway, your house is on fire”...............How do you know that, where’s your proof, how do you know that it is my house”...........on and on for half an hour......”And another thing, get out of here with those helmets, boots. And get back on that funny looking red truck, and please leave, and I will see that you are banned from this neighborhood”...........truck leaves

Ten minutes later, ambulance arrives........two men in white coats, carrying net , get out............”You ‘re name Gecik”?....... Curtain down.....

-- Shemp (loztra@yahoo.com), May 05, 2003.

Thanks Jake, I apprech. I know I've been to one of these masses; it was very interesting and I did like it. I'm not a fan of the Roman Catholic Mass...

However, I do not know much about this area, so thank you :D

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 05, 2003.

Stooges On Rampage

I'm touched, Regina, over your loving defense of Emerald; he needed you to run to his rescue, didn't he?. If altogether I judge your charitable work deficient, maybe it's because you devoted the remainder of this lengthy post to sarcasm. No problem; for utility in distress, it has its virtues. One thing admirable about Emerald, he refrains from that.

I note a series of newer challenges; OK, not new, just tossed at me anew. If I answer, you'll go into Stooge mode, sputter at us again, and I will be tempted to give you the same answers all over again. No thanks. Everything so far you've seen is what I believe. No need to offer it to you ad nauseum. So you reject it; great.

Jake caught the Stooge measles too. A comical infection with symptoms which include asides from the stage, hysterical laughing (up his sleeve,) and boasting.

Atleast his messages aren't hard to decypher. What is outreach? Is quite a direct request. Means reaching OUT, Jake. Like you've never risked from the safety of your Elitist Church. Invitations to non-Catholics, expressed by showing understanding. Don't ask me to list all the ways, --?

''Not only all Christians, but all men are called by God into the Roman Catholic Church.'' (Jake and his non sequitur), ''Has the maddening pace of false ecumenism done anything to bring them in / back? What are the fruits? What has been the benefit?''

If it were ''false'' ecumenism, Sir; why should it proceed at a maddening pace? It proceeds. God will give the harvest, Catholics are laborers. I recall something similar in the scriptures.

Laborers, not stooges, Jake. We're laboring at True Ecumenism, never false. What is far from genuine today is the ''tradition'' you've touted from your corner. Why a stooge should fancy himself traditional, I keep wondering. Was Saint Peter, or Saint Paul a stooge? (Please, don't give me your answer. It will come from the footlights for sure. A quick ''zinger''. Spare me.)

But thank you for your courteous message. I could enjoy your friendship, I believe. You haven't sunk to the level of comedy the other stooges play. Pratfalls (Ed) and mallets on my head, like Regina conks us with. It's a mad world indeed on the way backwards in relative safety fom the world. Who could blame all of you fro retreating when it tickles you so? Ciao 4 Nao, Ragazzo.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 05, 2003.

Gene, thanks for underscoring all the points I made in my "lengthy" post.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 05, 2003.

You made a couple of good points, Regina. They weren't lost on me. Emerald's folderol was lost on us; because he lacks your single-mindedness. He is only halfway to fanaticism thus far. He can be trusted up to a point. Your looseness with the truth makes you the rare bird in this forum. I much prefer talking to him; and even Jake. Ed and you cook up some doozies. Not my cup of tea. Sorry.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 05, 2003.

...and you cook up some doozies.

How about being so kind as to point out some of those 'doozies.' I have, personally, never heard Regina say anything that she hasn't or couldn't back up by Church statements, teachings, and/or doctrine.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), May 05, 2003.

The Tridentine or Roman rite seminaries and orthodox Novus Ordo seminaries are expanding because of increased vocations. Traditional Catholic young men are not born eunuchs, so celibacy cannot possibly be the key issue. Could not it be that the lack of orthodoxy itself is a large part of the problem why young men are not responding to the call, if they can even hear it in the first place? With a few notable exceptions, the problem is compounded by our two bishops themselves, almost as if it was deliberately manufactured, for two reasons:

[1] They have relegated much of their duties to professional staff, often possessing and unafraid to assert their modernist agenda onto a bewildered laity. At the same time they court liturgical abuse and sacrilege because they seem unwilling to do much about this scandal. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is now just a meal and some Masses, if they are still that, are so banal and even contemptuous of Christ, that many Catholics, such as myself, flee in horror. I have lost count on how many "Masses" I have bolted from, sometimes not reaching the car before I vomited on the sidewalk. Now I only attend the Roman Mass. No shortage of altar boys there. It is odd that Channel 13, supposedly so well known for its investigative reporting has no idea about any of this. When I recall what they have "done to the Mass," I weep, sometimes uncontrollably. It is a crime even worse than abortion and other forms of mass-murder, it is a crime against the humanity of Christ Himself, not even to say His Divinity!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 05, 2003.

OK, as for Ed Richards, here above is the example. But one recent doozie is his flat assertion that Pope John Paul II & the bishops had attempted to ''destroy the Catholic Church in New Zealand & other places.'' Not even worth the refuting; but, that's what he spouts regularly.

The kind matron Regina has accused me of referring to Jake her husband as a racist. Enough said. She claims her old parish was one where the priests gave 10 minutes of their time per month to the sacrament of Reconciliation-(Penance). Yeah--Sure! It needs investigating. Not.

This is only my reply to your post, Isabel. I'm not inviting these people to return here to wiggle their way out of it. I'm satisfied with the versions they gave. It tells the whole story.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 06, 2003.

If altogether I judge your charitable work deficient, maybe it's because you devoted the remainder of this lengthy post to sarcasm. No problem; for utility in distress, it has its virtues. One thing admirable about Emerald, he refrains from that.

And for that, Eugene, you should be so very thankful...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 06, 2003.

If that's a cause for my celebration, Em; Let me say YIPPEE!

Lord, but you took offense over the last time I riled you, didn't you? Are you going now to carry a chip on your shoulder constantly? Or, are you adult enough to serve God in these threads? Don't get all demoralized. I told you; you always get another chance here. Try to learn something every day. You'll teach better later on if you learn today. God bless and love you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 06, 2003.

Lord, but you took offense over the last time I riled you, didn't you?

Perhaps, perhaps not. However, the way you say so, it seems as though you take pride in it. Is that a good or a bad thing in your estimation?

Or, are you adult enough to serve God in these threads?

That's a bit puzzling, at least in my perception. Somewhere, somehow I got the understanding that we needed to become like little children to enter the Kingdom of God.

I've noticed this tone with both yourself and also with John, and Joe from time to time. A habitual style of belittling that makes use of the glories of common worldly strength as opposed to meekness.

Perhaps it's time someone pointed out that this is in opposition to the Gospel.

Gene, you poke and prod people without bending your efforts back around to a substantive, supportable effort to obtain the truth. It's fun, isn't it? I can see poking and prodding people in a rational debate aimed at obtaining a certain level of understanding the truth, but you never really seem to have a objective goal in your efforts. It's unclear to me to what end you seek to resolve your efforts.

We're laboring at True Ecumenism, never false.

If that's really the case, what you really need to do is go jump all over John, because he is really getting out of control here, and it looks really, really bad.

What's your clever take on John?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 06, 2003.

Dear Emerald:
Let your love for God take precedence over everything, and meet us all as God's children here. Not as opponents or rivals. Even if one or two of us appear not to respect you (which I do--) your main concern shouldn't lower itself to pride of place. Every post here should serve God. Catholics place their faith in God, not the respect of other men. Go into all our discussions to bring men to the faith, Emerald. Not for dividing us into factions.

If what you receive from me is unflattering, I ask pardon. It was meant to strengthen your soul, not put it down. I did it carefully; in order to shake your confidence. You have lately been over-confident in some wayward ideas. Try to discern what I mean. Look at all that you've been saying. Go and see a spiritual advisor.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 06, 2003.

Even if one or two of us appear not to respect you (which I do--) your main concern shouldn't lower itself to pride of place.

I don't want to be respected; believe me, I really, really don't. It's too much trouble, and to be honest, it has nothing at all to do with holiness.

Pride of place has come to mean damnation in my mind; just another biggy in a long list of things that come between my and my eternal salvation. It's to the point where I don't want to be anywhere near where prede of place can touch me. It's not of God.

My God was been good to me in that he has struck me down, painfully, and I do believe that for that I just might be eternally grateful.

I hope, in the name of God, that He strikes everyone in this forum down to where they can begin to be rebuilt by Him in His image. Just give me the truth at any price, and I'll pay it.

I really, really do need to leave this forum. NOW.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 06, 2003.

Emerald makes a lot of sense. I too am not going to enter into senseless debate with anyone... all heat, nolight. Time will be better spent in praying for each others soul. Hopefully, if I contribute anything to this forum, it will be somethng that will help lift the spirit.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 06, 2003.

Emerald goes counter to all I say in that post. I appealed to his soul; not his pride. I ask him not to become demoralized, but he is leaving on account of precisely THAT. He is demoralized

Natually, We see nothing comforting in Ed's entry. He basically says to Emerald: RIGHT! I agree, you ought to leave NOW-- Demoralized! HA! No faith at all /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 06, 2003.

Only the meek and humble of heart will inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Do you posses these traits Gene? You sound almost ecstatic in your post. As if you think Emerald is leaving because he is demoralized and you have bested him, (neither of which is even close to the truth) is something to be so proud of. Remember one thing, to be reviled and hated in the name of the Lord, are things to 'aspire' to. Are you hated and reviled, as Emerald is here by some? This puts a big fat approval stamp on the documents submitted for his application to truth, virtue and holiness. God has/will give him all this, because he bore his suffering in silence and because he has prayed and searched for the truth. God does expect us to do some of our own work sometimes.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), May 06, 2003.

Isabel,

None of the schismatics are being criticised for their *faith in God* which, I agree, can be something to aspire to. Rather Emerald, like the rest of you are being criticised for turning your back on Christ's church, and respect for legitimate authority and teachings. This is NOT something to aspire to.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 06, 2003.

Hi, Isabel--
You seem very sure I'm being proud, and even after my attempt to encourage Emerald. What do you want me to say? From this:''. . . one thing, to be reviled and hated in the name of the Lord, are things to 'aspire' to.'' I'd be inclined to think Yes; I'm disliked, because I can't let others make unjust accusations.

Am I reviled? No, it's not mistreatment I receive; it's mean-spirtied arguments. Sadly for some individuals here, I stand by my convictions, and I'm not very timid. However, i haven't ''reviled'' or ''hated'' anybody. I like emerals, and he KNOWS it!

Is my effort here an offering to God? ''In the name of the Lord''--? You're darn tootin'. I only speak for Him; for our holy mother Church. Not for my pleasure, as you are presuming to say. It's push me, I push back; only with good will. But, I will only return love for LOVE. Try me & see.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 06, 2003.

> "None of the schismatics are being criticised for their *faith in God* which, I agree, can be something to aspire to. Rather Emerald, like the rest of you are being criticised for turning your back on Christ's church, and respect for legitimate authority and teachings. This is NOT something to aspire to."

Very well said Frank, but try to get these guys to listen is impossible.

Been gone for a few days, and this thread is growing by leaps and bounds. I see Ed Richards, is still up to repeating is nonsensical consipiracy theories that he has no proof for, and is still obsessed with "for many" over the "for all", as if Christ's very intention of dying on the cross does not matter at all. Only the end result counts! Who cares that the reason why Christ was on the cross was because of intention! Christ saving act was never intended for the exclusion of anyone, and that is why saying in the Mass "for all" is perfectly acceptable. The Bible lists four references to this! Two that say "for many" and two that say "for you", and "for you" does not imply exclusion of any kind.

I agree with John, that the schismatics have overstayed their welcome on this forum and should move on.

The great lost of faith in our society and Church is not a result of Vatican II, but a result of the widespread use of birth control in the 60's and the sexual revolution that accompanied it. When people become liberal in the their sexual views, it destroys faith. Nothing destroys faith more so than this!!! There a lots of statistics that prove this!

Sexual morality is at the core of the human person, and without dignity in this regard, we become no better than the animals.

Vatican II never authorized the use of artificial birth control, and it never watered down God's law when it came to sexual morality. The Church today still speaks out against artificial birth control and the dangers it poses to society, and each individual person. What a great Church we have, and the strongest advocate of all this is John Paul II.

John Paul II is a wonderful great Pope, that God has given to us. Praise God for this wonderful man, and may he live for many years more, as we are certainly are blessed to have him!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), May 06, 2003.

Gordon;
You've hit it very accurately; this is a crisis of the faith owing to a hedonist society all around us. Not only this, it's a bread & circuses mentality in most of western civilization. The games and government welfare; up against the Church and self-denial. The Church gets hardly a standoff, with bimbos and sports channels and new cars on easy credit competing against the Holy Hospel. It is scary to think about the ways God corrected His people in the days before our Gospel came to us.

He allowed them to fall in the hands of their enemies. They were sold into bondage. They remained there to repent in sorrow. What's going to happen? One day the Church may have to go underground once more. Only then will her faithful come to appreciate her holiness and strength. --In adversity.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 06, 2003.

I agree with John

Imagine that....

Actually, I think this is as good and as positive a juncture as the Traditional Roman Catholics will ever have to leave this forum, and to continue among those of like mind; recalling to mind the words of Our Lord: "Let the dead bury their own dead." (St. Matthew 8:22)

We've done as much good as will be tolerated in these types of circles. That it has been by our persistence that, praise God, a soul or two has been won to Tradition is far more good than I could have ever imagined would come from wading through this cespool almost daily. Souls have been rescued from the pseudo-theology of the pseudo- religion and its pseudo-worship. It's an unimaginable level of good, for which we take absolutely no credit for ourselves, but gladly and gratefully ascribe it to the Holy Ghost and the Great Mother of God. It's a joy and a great blessing. I'm happy.

CONSUMMATUM EST!

It is accomplished. At least in the measure of this forum and all its filth, all its hatred and vile poison, poured out here almost daily and slurped up noisily by God only knows who and for God only knows how long. Enough. You call virtue sin, and sin virtue. Evil is applauded and good cast out. Calumny is congratulated and charity scorned. It's reversal. It's perversion. It's INversion - and that's the Devil's footprint.

Go bury your own dead. "This is your hour, and the power of darkness." (St. Luke 22:53)

Vade Retro, Satana! Nunqum Suade Mihi Vana. Sunt Mala Quae Libas; Ipse Venena Bibas!

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 06, 2003.

Jake, if you care to, stay in touch. Shake the dust from here and go on to where people do not want to continue living in darkmess.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 06, 2003.

Deo gratias! Alleluia, alleluia.

The following is addressed to the young lady who wrote these words:
"Really John, do even know what Jesus was about??? I mean, really."

Madame (or mademoiselle),
I have been coming to this forum almost daily for almost 3.5 years, trying to help people to know Jesus and understand what his Church teaches. I have left almost 6,000 messages here. I'm not perfect. I make factual mistakes and give people too much of a hard time. But I am trying to do what is right.

You have barely gotten acquainted with a gang of five thugs -- people who are ex-Catholics know as "schismatics" (though I actually believe that they are heretics). They have been wreaking havoc at this forum for almost a year now. At long last, they are doing the right thing by departing.

You, by great contrast, have been here for maybe a week.

I hope that you can see, having read the three paragraphs above, that you are in no position to lecture me as you just had the boldness to do. Stick around, please. See what I do. Read what I have written in the archives. Prove, over a nice stretch of time, that you are an orthodox and virtuous Catholic. Then you can start giving me a hard time when I deserve it. OK? OK.

By the way, could you please consider using a "Christian name" -- either your real one or a pseudonym? I don't think that I could ever refer to you as "OperaDiva." It seems too impersonal -- not to mention conceited. I hope that you don't have a self-esteem problem.

God bless you.
John

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

diva: a female operatic star

Ha, te-hee. I don't have a "self-esteem" problem. I'm far from conceited. I'm not a diva, however, I'm female, I sing opera and I do aspire to be somewhat sucessful. I won't go by a "christian" name because the names were something other than "christian" before Jesus came anyway, so I don't see the point. Call me OD, or Soprano, or young pain in the neck, most people do.

The reason that I said that wasn't *what* you said, you are right in what you say, you present it well-thought out and consise, it was more along the lines of *how* you say it. If you want to bring people to Jesus, it won't do well to come off with a "self-righteous" attitude.

Hm. Guilty until proven innocent is the theme of this forum, I can tell. Well, I can't say that I am perfect, far short of it I must say. But I'm aware that I am a sinner, that is not something that is ever out of my sight, thank you. :D

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.

Yes; Our Lord does hear our prayer:

Actually, I think this is as good and as positive a juncture as the Traditional Roman Catholics will ever have to leave this forum, and to continue among those of like mind--''

Well, now!!! We might get to bid Jake & Regina a fond farewell if we are really so fortunate. Frankly, We feared the moment would never come; Sursum Corda ! Yes; you ARE part of Tradition, and a valuable part.

May God accompany you on the road you've chosen. We really regret not giving you any comfort. We will never forget you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 07, 2003.

You know, Gene, you actually can be a good guy. I give you such a hard time, because you don't back up your statements well. But your heart is on fire, I pray that the Holy Ghost may touch it with the truth. Until we meet again........

Statements like this....

people who are ex-Catholics know as "schismatics"

never seem to amaze me, because they always come from the same people over and over and over and over again. And these same people have never been able to prove that in the least little bit. They have never been able to show where we contradict doctrine (while at the same time calling us heretics). We, on the other hand, have always backed up our statements and beliefs by Church teachings, doctrine and statements. May the injustice, slanderous, calumnous statements stop. I apologize for being such an occasion of sin to those guilty of all those statements.

Well, all the honor and glory belongs to God for two souls who have found truth. May He be praised and thanked! Anyone can have the truth, if they truly want it and are of good will. God hands it out freely to those deserving. (And to many of us who aren't.) I hope and pray that not too many souls here are not too deep in the neo-Catholic way, and that they may find truth to gain their eternal salvation.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), May 07, 2003.

Dear Isabel:
Schism and heresy are not my terms. Not my own, Isabel. I'm not theologically armed for such ideas; and anyway, words in that tone entail contempt. Far from condemning you or Jake or Ed; I only tried to alert you to some significant errors. I can't judge your faith. My best argument has been in the form of truth, not hatred.

I railed against elitism, fanaticism and pride. These are quite the same things Jesus Christ denounced in the Pharisees and Scribes. He was secure. He wasn't silent. Jesus knew beforehand how this would bring Him to Calvary; that those confrontations alienated powerful men. Yet, Jesus compelled their attention, he spoke deliberately and forcefully.

My intent has been to reach the consciences of our ''traditionists'' --so-called.

I'm a real Traditional Catholic, not they. Test me and you'll understand; I obey God's commandments, not my own prejudices. Trust in the Holy Spirit, instead of a bourgeoisie, or the purists.

Our God is a God of all the living, not just of the Connoisseur. Let Him point the way forward, in the unity His Church. You aren't being chased away from here. You only have to trust Our Lord, and treat other Catholics with Christian charity. Even the ones who level extremist charges against you. Prove them wrong; not by producing documents of a historical Church, which anyway, can't supercede the actual Popes. Prove it with your love and understanding.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 07, 2003.

Jmj
Hello again to our new college student.

You wrote: "I won't go by a 'christian' name because the names were something other than 'christian' before Jesus came anyway, so I don't see the point. Call me OD, or Soprano, or young pain in the neck, most people do."

On the first point ... The term "Christian name" was not meant literally. I meant your "given name" or a substitute for it.
On the second point ... I'm sorry, but I cannot call you any of those things, because you are a person with a personal name -- not a career or musical category. Please reconsider. I mean no harm by this, and I think that I have a good reason for it.

You wrote: "The reason that I said that wasn't *what* you said, you are right in what you say, you present it well-thought out and consise, it was more along the lines of *how* you say it. If you want to bring people to Jesus, it won't do well to come off with a 'self-righteous' attitude."

And I ask you not to rashly judge me as having a "self-righteous" attitude. Give it time.

On your point of "how" I say something ...
I would definitely agree with you if the post you objected to had been intended as something "to bring people to Jesus." When I am trying to do that, I adopt the appropriate manner of speaking. But my message to which you objected was a factual (and partly humorous) comment about the gang that has been plaguing the forum for almost a year. I was not, in that case, trying "to bring people to Jesus." I was being critical -- in "tough love" -- where criticism was warranted (a la my namesake, John the Baptist).

Young friend, if you would like to be a regular at the forum -- and I hope you will, if you are an obedient and orthodox Catholic -- please prepare yourself mentally to see each person here using different ways of speaking, with different amounts of emotion, etc., at various times. We are not robots.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

Yes, Diva-- Listen carefully to Mr. Gecik. There's nothing saintly about any of us. We overdo the ''megillah'' once in a while; but we are all followers of Christ. I hope you'll hang with us; and learn all about the true Church. It's an interesting forum, and your own strong contributions are welcome. BTW, I am one crazy opera lover!

If yu sing soprano, you hit dead center in the area where my old heart lies. I have heard them ALL-- they are ALL wonderful.

Where do you live/work? Don't be shy about relating it here. A while back we had a pretty long and interesting thread on the Ave maria; and the text of Scubert's song. It would've been nice to have your place in it.

I'm positively wacky about opera. I collect many CD's and love the interpreters, even the ones who have gone out of fashion. Last Friday I listened to a Sacramento PBS broadcast. Was once more bowled over listening to --are you ready?

Mario Lanza! That goes way back. What a voice! I loved as well De Los Angeles, Callas, Sills, Leontyne, Kiri Te Kanawa, Kathleen Battle. Endless array of heavenly music.

God bless you!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 07, 2003.

The term "Christian name" was not meant literally. I meant your "given name" or a substitute for it. On the second point ... I'm sorry, but I cannot call you any of those things, because you are a person with a personal name -- not a career or musical category. Please reconsider. I mean no harm by this, and I think that I have a good reason for it.
I know "Christian" name and "given" name are the same ;) I was just going with what you said. I am quite sure you mean no harm. Actually Soprano is my net name, it's what I go by everywhere on the computer. It's quite familiar to me and it is (like a given/Christian name) a part of me, one that I chose.

"I ask you not to rashly judge me as having a "self-righteous" attitude."
I didn't say that you were self-righteous, only that your post came off with a self-righteous edge. I don't know you from Adam, there would be no way I could say that you were self-righteous, because I don't know. The theory would hold no water, therefore it would be pointless.

I sing soprano. (maybe coloratura stuff, we are working technique first) Joanie is my fav. Her range/flexibility/tone quality yadayada is like nothing anyone else has ever accomplished. (Not that is on record anywho) Sumi Jo is another fabulous coloratura soprano.

Nice to know there are other opera fans :D

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.

I liked Sutherland. Her voice is still glorious. She passed over consonants with grace; it never bothered me. Battle is the same kind of skill. Do you like German lieder? It's a passion for me. Crista Ludwig; and believe it or not, Caballe. You go, Girl! You haven't told us where you are based. Who's your teacher? What is your repertoire? God bless you & allow you to perform with the inner grace that illuminates the immortal artists.

I'm a November 22nd son of Saint Cecilia. It's a dark star (on the cusp) but anyway music is my earthly joy. Pray to Saint Cecilia, Diva. She's the patroness of all that's musical. She is very special to Our Lord in heaven; a Virgin Martyr. Ask your teacher; she'll tell you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 07, 2003.

Not so much a fan of Battle. Her dound is too light. Sutherland is a perfect balance of strenght and light. Caballe is amazing as well. As for lieder, I like Schubert, but that is about it.

I live in the South. I'm in school, working towards a BA in Vocal Performance. After that it will be a MA in Opera Performance. Then hopefully the stage. My teacher is a fabbo woman, whom I adore and respect.

As for saints, of course Saint Cecilia, and St Jude (patron saint of lost causes) HA HA. I'm not much of an optimist. :D

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.

God bless you, Dear--
You strike me as an adorable woman. There's no limit to what God will grant you if you believe in Him.

I've reflected often on gifts He gave me. Every time, I am humbled. All of us get a charge out of our best attributes. But, it's imperative we all face the truth. It's His grace which plays the important part. Our part is to just love him; do his Will with the powers He gives us. Everything in this life is just a loan; given us out of love; and we have to part with it all one day.

Give Him thanks every morning when you awaken. When you retire for the night, give Him thanks again. He's been very good to you; and He expects us all to offer Him thanks through His Son Jesus Christ. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 07, 2003.

"Everything in this life is just a loan; given us out of love; and we have to part with it all one day."
Yes and yes :)

"You strike me as an adorable woman."
Why thank you. That isn't one I normally get ;) I'm a bit feisty, and while I respect elders and authority, I do not kowtow to them. I do speak my mind, even if I'm wrong. Then it is pointed out to me and at somepoint I will know better ;) The best way to learn is to push and to ask, and I shall. Poor John, I don't know that he will have patience for me :D

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.

OK, now you're embarrassing me. Adorable means just ''charming'' in the old style. You certainly have charm. Don't worry about that. Many women are charming. Not all are good; and some charming women can be very bad women.

Music makes me happy. I hope someday God tells me, '''I always loved music. Hey, your ''Opera Diva'' soprano made me happy. She was a fine soprano, you know?'' God willing, this will come to pass. I might answer, ''She knew me when I was nobody, Lord. Nice girl!'' Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 08, 2003.

Mentally notes to himself for the future... "Compliment the ladies more and learn to appreciate opera"

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.

OD

Ummmm i just thought that comment might sound a bit "stalker" like it wasnt meant that way, sorry. I hope you stick around its a cool forum, especially now the "traditionals" have decided to go. It will a true blessing when every last anti Catholic schismatics negative thread is off the recent answers. All I can say is well done moderator how you managed to do it I dont know but THANKYOU!

Forgot to put a plug in for our little far away land.... for those who dont know Opera Kiri Te Kanawa is a Kiwi also!

Anyway its good morning to you all and good night from me, the last working day of the week is only few hours away.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.

Collegian,
We'll probably get used to each other.
JFG

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

"Adorable means just 'charming' in the old style"
I know. What I meant by most people don't even call me charming. I'm loud and obnoxious, as befits a female soprano (who eventually wants to work ;)) So most people just say that I'm loud :D

"Compliment the ladies more and learn to appreciate opera"
I thought it was funny, not stalkerish.

"We'll probably get used to each other."
Most likely, I'm sure.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 08, 2003.

Opera D:
Loud? I expected ''boistrous''. If you're loud, you can't be a lyric soprano; likelier ''spinto'' a Verdi or Wagnerian powerhouse. That would be nice! Lol! Anyway, welcome aboard & good luck!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 08, 2003.