Jesus said he is the way the truth and the life never did he say religion nor traditions, wich can never clean the heart of its wickedness. If belives in Jesus he is justified for his faith Romans 5:1. The word of the Lord endures forever, traditions fade as a garment. Therefore if traditions interfere with the light they are not of the light. Jesus said unless people commit adultery they are to remain married, traditions say they can annul you "teaching of man" For this as Jesus said for the sake of traditions they set aside Gods word.

-- AlexJRuiz (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), June 20, 2003

Answers

Dear Alex,

Welcome back. The rules of the forum have not changed, so please respect them in voicing your opinions. This is a place to question and discuss, but not attack, Catholic beliefs.

The Word of God states: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

And also: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the TRADITION which he received of us". (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

So you see, you cannot accept the Word of God without accepting the command to be faithful to TRADITION. Note also that Paul specifically says that both orally transmitted and written TRADITION are of equal weight. He makes no distinction.

Is is true that a couple, once VALIDLY married, must remain married. A VALID sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved by any means other than the death of one of the parties. That's why the Catholic Church does not recognize divorce. That is also why the Catholic Church takes so seriously the question of what constitutes a VALID marriage, and why it is sometimes essential to investigate the VALIDITY of a particular union. What GOD has joined together, man must not divide. The question of whether or not a particular couple are VALIDLY married in the eyes of GOD then, is a very important one.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 20, 2003.

it is also written they wrest the sciptures 2 Peter 3:16 AS also in all his epsitles, speaking of these things; in wich are somethings hard to be understood, wich they that are unlearned and unstabile wrest, as they do also the other scriptures {2 Thess 2:15, 1 Peter 1:8} , unto their own destruction. They wrest them to take from the poor and diprive the widows of justice, for wealth of the mother of abominations is a witness against the tradtions of man. How is that you claim to know God and remove Gods word Is this just? How many scriptures can you point to support thee traditions of the Catholic religion. God is not religion, Jesus is the way the truth and the life the cornerstone, in wich the body of Christ has been eternally founded. The entire word of God points to him who is of ancients times. He prexisted time and space, what can build for the Lord, for all things temporary are fading. Within the ark lays the truth, without are traditions and vain philosophys that shall perish.

-- AlexforJesus (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), June 20, 2003.

Matthew 18:15-18

15 "(1) If your brother sins[1] , go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that (2) BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. "If he refuses to listen to them, [1 Cor 6:1ff] tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, [2 Thess 3:6, 14f] let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

James 2:22-26

22 You see that (1) faith was working with his works, and as a result of the (2) works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "(3) AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called (4) the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not (5) Rahab the harlot also justified by works (6) when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also (7) faith without works is dead.

1 Timothy 3:15

15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

15 So then, brethren, (1) stand firm and (2) hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether (3) by word of mouth or (4) by letter from us.

Matthew 19:9

"And I say to you, [Matt 5:32] whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), June 20, 2003.

People won't like this, but who cares. I rewrote the Footsteps poem for you, Alex:

One night a man had a dream.

He dreamed he was walking along the beach with the LORD. Across the sky flashed scenes from his life. For each scene, he noticed two sets of footprints in the sand: one belonging to him, and the other to the LORD.

When the last scene of his life flashed before him he looked back, at the footprints in the sand. He noticed that many times along the path of his life there was only one set of footprints. He also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times of his life.

This really bothered him and he questioned the LORD about it: "LORD, you said that once I decided to follow you, you'd walk with me all the way. But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life there is only one set of footprints. I don't understand why when I needed you most you would leave me."

The LORD replied:

"My son, My precious child, I love you and I would never leave you; you left me. During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was because you had departed from the Ark of Salvation, my One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; it was because you denied me by denying my Real Presence in the Most Holy Sacrament of the alter; when cut yourself off from healing Sacrament of Confession; and when you marginalized my Mother, Mary Most Holy.

Now of course, I don't presume to speak for the Lord; however, the above version seems to me closer to Hard Reality to me than this cheezy "I carried you".

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 20, 2003.

Emerald,

I absolutely love the original Footsteps. And I was upset at first reading your changed version. But the more I thought about it, your version is also true. Especially when addressed to Alex. If he continues to bash the Church (and leave Jesus), it will only cause him harm.

-- Glenn (Glenn@nospam.com), June 20, 2003.

I understand, Glenn. It really isn't my intention to stir up the hornet's nest for it's own sake. Like anyone else, part of me wants to get along and have an amiable coexistence with others.

But sometimes, I just want to scream out the truth. Don't misunderstand me please, I don't figure I hold the truth such that I can dole it out to others. But the Protestants... they need to understand our Heavenly Mother. They've got to come to this. They have to immerse themselves in the profoundness of the union with the Blessed Sacrament; it cannot be put off any longer. These things are priceless and indispensable. They are a must have!

We cannot argue them into these things with words. There is only one answer, just one. Each and every one of us must take part in these things we have in our possession every day, these Sacraments, specifically for their sake. That's our job. No new converts will be united to the Mystical Body of Christ unless each and every one of us begs God for it on their behalf. Only He and His Mother can bring these souls to Him, and He will be the one to set their hearts and minds on fire, not us. It comes from them, not us, but we DO need to participate to bring these things on, by prayer and sacrifice and doing what needs to be done to deny ourselves and serve God.

I fall down on the job all the time, but that shouldn't prevent any one of us from just blurting out the answer of what we all should be doing.

We need to pray and sacrifice everything we have for souls to come to Truth, and I guarantee, guarantee, that if we do this now, today, and everyday from here on out souls will flood into the Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 21, 2003.

No man comes to father unless the Spirit draws him. Outside are dogs and those who LOVE AND PRACTICE LIES. It IS TRUE IN OUR JOURNEYS its as if the Lord in not there. He said though I have hidden my face from thee in the moment of my wrath. When Gods face is tuned away there is no light or life; the face of the Lord has turned from the works of man . Yet his arm is not too short that he cannot save, repent of thy idolatry and He shall restore the. Woe, to you who add unto the word of the Lord to justify thy unholy traditions. You spoke for God as if he was using you, no that thehand of God is against thee.Isaiah 41:21 Behold, you are worse then nothing and your work-traditions-worse then a viper: an abomination is he that chooseth you

-- Alexinthearkofgrace (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), June 21, 2003.

But the Pope doesn't deny that Baptism is an efficacious sign! Neither does he deny that it is also a symbol of cleansing. All he states is that faith is expressed in the sacrament of Baptism.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 21, 2003.

There's more to it than this, Paul, as it seems to go much deeper.

Consider my situation. By all external circumstances and appearances, I'm bulletproof. Not before God as a fallen sinner mind you, but before other Catholic people, and by the very principle that the post conciliar Catholic can't stand the most:

"Externals".

Here's how: First, I attend an indult Mass of Trent, approved and supported by the local bishop. Secondly, I hold that there is no salvation outside the Church, which is quite easily documented.

To nail me, you would have to enter grey territory... but this is dangerous for the post conciliar Catholic, because the risk to self- contradiction is too high. Why? Because the post conciliar Catholic, above all, holds or at least claims to hold that private judgement is anathema, and to judge Emerald in the grey area outside of external appearances, is to violate the private judgement moritarium.

This would seem to indicate that there may be more to these questions, conditions and situations than meets the eye.

I propose that there is. Not that it is more complicated than it appears, but rather, more simple.

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

Here's how it goes deeper. Don't take it from me, but rather, take it from someone of rank within the magisterium to which the modern Catholic, by his own admission and whether or not rightly understood, must pay heed to. To deny this priest his say in the matter is to deny the magisterium it's real and true authority.

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

What's the difference between a Catholic and a post conciliar Catholic?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 22, 2003.

If any man saith that the original Coke is not true and real Coke, let him be anathema.

If any man saith that the New Coke, in virtue of its novelty and divers flavors, and owing to these, saith that the new hath improved upon the old, and calleth the old "classic" and the new "real", let him be anathema.

If any man hindereth the sale of the true and real Coke, or yea, obstruct the distribution of the same, let him be anathema.

There is but one true and real Coke.

Coke. It's the real thing.

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

To back away from being a smart aleck, Catherine =) I would ask the others to tell me what the difference is instead of having me tell them.

They would reply back "Ah, yes, Emerald, you see, there IS no difference, it's all the same as it always has been... that, Emerald, is how you don't 'get it'; that's your problem."

To which I would respond "I wish to hold the Catholic Faith as it has always been held. Why, then, if nothing is new, do you wish me to lend assent to new things?"

If nothing is new, and I hold the Faith of the Ages, then I there would be nothing to which I am denying my assent. Correct?

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

Have you noticed you reject Christ's Holy Church when you cast doubt on the Novus Ordo Missal? We have never cast doubt on the Tridentine Missal here. We only dispute those who withhold their loyalty from the Church after Vatican II. In their own way, they are becoming protestants. Tradition didn't stop in the 60's Church. We are a living, holy traditional, Catholic faith with Masses in the vernacular as well as Latin. We are absolutely guarded against heresy and/or error by the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 22, 2003.

"Have you noticed you reject Christ's Holy Church when you cast doubt on the Novus Ordo Missal?"

Honestly, no.

"We have never cast doubt on the Tridentine Missal here."

Honestly, I think it has happened.

"We only dispute those who withhold their loyalty from the Church after Vatican II."

Not from the Church, no! Rearrange to read keeping themselves whole and undefiled under extreme duress.

"In their own way, they are becoming protestants."

I don't see it that way. I see it as an unrelenting drive to attain truth and salvation in the midst of crises.

"Tradition didn't stop in the 60's Church."

Of course not. Go back further, all the way to Pentecost. The Deposit of the Faith was complete at the time of Pentecost. In other words, tradition never went anywhere. It has stayed the same throughout all ages. The error is that it can change.

"We are a living, holy traditional, Catholic faith with Masses in the vernacular as well as Latin."

Yes... but:

"We are absolutely guarded against heresy and/or error by the Holy Spirit."

Now see, where does this come from? This, Eugene, is a morphing of doctrine.

Am I saying that the Holy Ghost does not guide His Church? Of course not. Am I saying that the demon can claim ultimate victory over Christ's Church? Of course not.

Am I saying that the demon can do untold damage, and make severe and significant inroads into the bossom of the Ark? Yes. Am I saying that the demon has in fact, and is now in fact, doing as much? Yes.

Is either claim against the Holy doctrines of our Faith? No. Am I a fallen away Catholic as John suggests? Absolutely not.

Is the current popularly held view of what allegiance to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church consist of... wrong? Inaccurate? Abused? Deviant?

Absolutely.

Is prayer and sacrifice being ignored? Abandoned?

YES.

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

Alex:

Blessed be the great mother of God, Mary most holy.

Blessed be her holy and immaculate conception.

Blessed be her glorious assumption.

Blessed be the named of Mary, virgin and mother.

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

Jmj

Dear Moderator,

As you know, this beautiful forum was oppressed by a satan-inspired troop of five so-called [though mislabeled] "traditionalists" for about a year. They were schismatics at best, but more likely dissenters or heretics, including one who did not align himself with the SSPX, but chose to damage the Church from within, like a hellish termite. A couple of months ago, these five allies of the devil were on the verge of being expelled by you from the forum, when they suddenly seemed to uproot themselves on their own.

What a glorious day it was when that happened, with truth overcoming falsehood! How blessed it was to be able to come here each day and not have to read the raw sewage that these five friends of Beelzebub used to pour out here! But, hark! Unexpectedly, shockingly, and dismayingly, one of these minions of satan -- the termitelike heretic, "Emerald" -- has come back here to plague the forum again. I ask you to mount up, Moderator, like St. George, and purge this ugly dragon -- once and for all -- from our "home away from home," this orthodox Catholic forum.

To paraphrase a cliche from the old Western flicks, "This forum ain't big enough for the both of us." This varmint, Mr. Greenglass [not worthy to be called something as nice as "Emerald"] must be run out of town, Moderator. I trust that you will be the "sheriff" who keeps his word and accepts the task of doing this without any further delay.

God bless you.
John

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

Catherine Ann; About 1932 years.

-- Mr.Gold (Diamond@jeweler.com), June 22, 2003.

I'm still wiping up the beverage I sprayed all over my keyboard here... now that was funny. I thought I was a decent mimic, but I could never duplicate the real thing. lol! Good work, John.

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

In the word of the Lord is the light that guides the feet of his saints in the midst of doctrinal perversion as the wrest the Fathers truths. John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth. John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, wich proceeded from the Father-not magistarium-he shall tesify of me. 1 John 2:27 But the annointing-Holy Spirit- wich you received of him abideth in you, and you need not that any man teach you.

NEED NOT ANY MAN,TRADITION,pope, preist teach us. So the following statement is of man and a lie There are two quick roads to heresy. One is the formation of personal doctrine by personal interpretation of scripture. God said His Spirit who is granted to His children shall teach them. They who resist tradition are they resist temptation in falling out of grace into works of man. As they persacuted and mocked Jesus so shall they mock and cast his children out becuase of Gods word.

-- Alexsavedbygrace (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), June 23, 2003.

Alex... why is it that when the Protestants have a really, really serious case of demonic possession on their hands, they throw their hands up in the air and say "this is a case for them Catholics"?

Seriously, that's what really happens. You get one of those wall- climbing, foaming at the mouth hardcore situations, and it's "get them Catholics on the horn, Pastor Bill. This foe is beyond any of us".

Catholics get the job done, or at least they have in the past, if you believe the article I posted above.

That's because Catholic stuff is real stuff. The priest walks in carrying the Blessed Sacraments, and the demons know it. They hate it. If he misreads the prayers of the rites of exorcism, the demons bang on him over it. They are slaves to real and immutable laws that govern the universe... God's laws. They are compelled to admit the truth; there are no grey areas with these entities. All is black and white reality for them. That because that's reality, that's what life really is despite anything we might delude ourselves with on this greyscale side of our existence.

Holy water is a real thing, and the demons hate it. They hate relics. In short, they hate everything Catholic. They hate you. They want to rip your body and soul to shreds into all eternity because they hate God, because they hate themselves for not choosing God.

Take a clue from the demons. Don't be like them.

Start by reading this, straight off the NeoCatholic flagship, the EWTN Website.

Hey, I'm trying to be ecumenical; I'm trying, man... really.

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

Tradition (what is given) preceeded scripture in the New Testament. Both Tradition and Scripture were promulgated by men who had been sent (apostles)to the world by Jesus Himself with teaching and interpretive authority.

There is nothing in either tradition or scripture that states that their mission and authority was to last for one generation only.

In the Gospel of Matthew Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ says to his apostles "go make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that I have commanded YOU. And behold, I am WITH YOU, until the end of the world".

He gave his authority to MEN...and not just any or every man, but specifically to the 12 Apostles.

Those men had authority to make disciples of ALL NATIONS. They were to teach ALL NATIONS, ALL OF JESUS' COMMANDMENTS. They were promised by Our Lord, that He would be with them ALL DAYS until the end of time.

In ACTS of the Apostles we see the clear difference between Apostles and disciples: only Apostles could give the gift of the Holy Spirit. There was a hierarchy: Paul got permission from the Church to go on missions. There was one universal body of Christ even though it was composed of groups of Christians spread out across the Empire.

Paul deputised Titus and Timothy - he "laid hands on them" to lead the local communities... they had teaching authority. So we see how from the first generation this commandment of Christ and the teaching authority that came from it was handed on to new generations - but again, not to everyone, but only to those selected men.

Thus we see the Catholic Church: founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles who have teaching authority to make disciples of all peoples (catholic), for all time.

Our Lord never wrote anything down - this teaching - as all his teachings were ORAL.

It was these apostles who wrote his commands down thus forming the New Testament. The Bible therefore is not something extrinsic to the Church but is something produced by the Church as part of its evangelizing mission.

NOWHERE does Jesus command the apostles and disciples to "write it down and publish it, then step back and let people guide themselves".

The only way you could read the New Testament and NOT SEE THIS is if you were following an extra-biblical tradition of men in your scriptural exegesis!

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

Well,
On one hand we still have the ultra-fundie copy- paster of biblical graffitti, Alex Boring. The other hand, yea! All the elite of our faith. Holy inquisitors and/or defrockers of the evil Church.

Jake pledged not to return here after his final definitive blast of invective. He spilled his guts here about 6 months back, tearing his garments in a rude, damning, & uninhibited show of hatred for this forum.

Now he slinks back, like a chicken thief. Oh, Lord. Emerald fell under that one's spell. We take this to be self-evident judging by the new anthology he just started here. (Not very new, just breathless.)

Nothing has changed. --Still the Holier-than thou Elite. Ho-hum . . .

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

"Well, I see Jake popped in to announce his superiority to everyone else here."

That would seem about right, seeing as how 90% of his post was quoting Gecik.

Remember, you'll have to answer on judgement day for turning me into a traditionalist Catholic.

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

Of course I don't mean jake, but you, Gecik, and Eugene and all the rest here on Gilligan's Island. Your inability to address difficult issues with reasonable, doctrinal responses has turn my traditionalist intuitions into Catholic knowledge.

I've spent the whole year and some changes reading Church documents all night long to find out what the truth was; read the lives of the Saints, anything I can get my hands on.

Basically, what I've found out is that you all's jist a bunch of yackers. You guys really don't know your stuff.

The lack of coherence really begins to show when ya'll crank up the ad hominem machine and begin your virtual self-immolation gig. Sparks and buttons flying everywhere.

Not one challenge has ever been met successfully against traditional Catholicism by you people. Not one.

I like that Gilligan theme... that has a lot of potential. As far a jake, he's just doing what he does quite well. Observe reality. He saw something funny, and I couldn't agree more; that post was, in fact, the funniest thing I have ever witnessed on this forum.

Encore! lol. I love good comedy.

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

Did we fail your litmus test, Emmy? I'll give you the rebutt-butt to whatever you feel makes you untouchable now. Try me. You are suggesting our inability to address difficult issues with reasonable, doctrinal responses. Give me your difficult issues. Don't merely bash the Novus Ordo Missal, Kid. That's the cheap shot. Challenge us. Trad Dude.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

Chipped Greenglass: "Basically, what I've found out is that you all's jist a bunch of yackers. You guys really don't know your stuff."

Don't like the product of "yackers"? Then get out again, and this time stay the hell out. Fact is, we "know [our] stuff" all too well for a drop-out like you to cope with.

Greenie: "Not one challenge has ever been met successfully against traditional Catholicism by you people. Not one."

Au contraire, mon ex-frere. The shallow drivel of heretics like you does not even constitute a "challenge" to us. We brush it aside as the dog's vomit that it represents. [And to correct your faulty terminology, WE represent "traditional Catholicism." You represent "untraditional protestantism."]

May God forgive you, lest you fry forever.
John

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

Emerald,

A more accurate response would have been that YOU didn't believe any of their "challenges" were met. Heck, Regina went so far as to say that LeFebvre WASN'T excommunicated, do you believe that (considering you've read the Ecclesia Dei yourself)?

Jake called the church an "abomination", do you believe that?

Which of these "challenges" do you feel a Catholic has to refute?

WHY do you feel a Catholic should have to "refute" someone who has contempt for legitimate Papal authority?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 23, 2003.

Keep it coming... I love delegation. Why not simply let you make my case for me?

You people are foul. I would never choose your way, your place.

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

Could you perhaps get around laying out my exact heresy, instead of merely claiming that I hold heresy?

What's my heresy? The three of you meek and humble souls should together be able to put together a good case.

So far we have an accusation, but no case has been put forth.

Please; I'm all ears. Fire away.

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

This is too easy. Watch:

"Au contraire, mon ex-frere. The shallow drivel of heretics like you does not even constitute a "challenge" to us. We brush it aside as the dog's vomit that it represents. [And to correct your faulty terminology, WE represent "traditional Catholicism." You represent "untraditional protestantism."]"

If I represent "untraditional protestantism", and you brush me aside like dog vomit, then you brush "untraditional protestants" aside like dog vomit.

Hear that, all you protestants out there? John thinks you're dog vomit.

Where IS your ecumenism, my friend? Where is it?

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

Gene says:

"Don't merely bash the Novus Ordo Missal, Kid. That's the cheap shot. Challenge us. Trad Dude."

I didn't merely bash the Novus Ordo Missal. I took out after all of modernist Catholicism. Every last ounce of it. Because it's Anti- Catholic.

So, there's no cheap shot; I've already done what you said.

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

"WHY do you feel a Catholic should have to "refute" someone who has contempt for legitimate Papal authority?"

Because you don't understand the office of the Papacy; the claims that you make about what is and what is not owing in obedience and submission are in error. They aren't authentic Catholic doctrine regarding the Papacy.

Besides that, you assume the premise here, that jake has contempt for papal authority.

He doesn't.

Establish the premise.

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

Emmy, Me Boy:

When ya gonna challenge somebody? All you have done so far is grit your teeth. What about the challenge? It ought to be fun. You have the gift.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

John claims that I'm going to Hell, or, at least at grave risk of it:

"May God forgive you, lest you fry forever."

John, support your grave accusation.

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

In the name of Jesus the spirit of deciet shall flee, the Lord rebuke thee. The ecunemical movement is an abomination before the Lord. For what men highly honour amongst one and other is an abomination. The darkness of tradition has nothing to do with the light of Gods word. Therefore seperate yourselves from the perveted ecunemical movement and be a child of the light.

-- AlexsavedbyJesus (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), June 24, 2003.

Emerald

As ever Ill speak plainly, I ask you do the same. You need to accept your own limitations and show some modesty before you attack those of the those on this forum. No one is at liberty to speak ill of another without a justifiable reason, even though he knows he is speaking the truth. Im on the fringe of our faith according to some here as well, (and I think thats accurate as I dont even attend Mass every week) I accept I aint a good Catholic, but Ill defend the Church all day and night and I could neer imagine being anything but a Catholic.

Your attraction to "traditionalism" comes not through intellectual superiority but lack of it. Youre a mystic, a dreamer, a poet, a romantic lover of nostalgia and the past but no intellectual giant. Maybe you have a few surprises left up your sleeve in which case I will have underestimated you. "We spurn the things closest to us" is a phrase I think of when we turn on each other as Catholics and it brings no pleasure to me, Id just had a nother run in with Eugene on another thread :-(. For all your misguided sincerity in wishing us to realise the true value of our faith, its not through the glories of the past as wonderful that they are.

Read a bit of Newman he would do you good bud. Take care and BTW here is the full translation of your quote. Id be interested in the web address of your version, on second thoughts maybe id rather not know whose company youve been keeping ;-). Take care and God Bless oh and remember; The greater the truth the greater the libel :-)

"Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized."

I havent got time to post a decent reply to your "challenge" on the ecumenist movement. I think youll struggle on this issue as do all traditionalists. Over and over again I see a bunch of hysterical alarmism which presupposes certain fears and suspicions from the outset and then interprets the proceedings accordingly. That is singularly unimpressive and unpersuasive.

Id also be interested in what current,(last 100 years) scholars and theologians you look to to help interpret ancient Papal/Council declarations. Very interested indeed.

ANyway hit me with all the "reason", "scripture" and "tradition" youve got on the evils of the Vatican II-type ecumenism. I cant wait to see this....

God Bless Emerald

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 24, 2003.

Your post has a lot of truth in it Kiwi.

But hold on. I want to see if these virtual duplicates of the Keys of the Kingdom can answer my question instead of dodging it or resorting to lesser tactics.

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

Hi Eugene and others. It gets kind of dull without your ravings.

You still have not refuted a darn thing. The best you can come up with is Kiwi. He says can you quoteanyone in the past 100 years, therefore admitting that they do not accept anything prior to 100 years. You can quote but the stone hearts will not accept. "Leave me alone to bask in my ignorance, I like it here". Throwing pearls before swine is a hopeless job. {don't mean that you literaly are swine] it's just the bible expression.

Start Quoting Eugene, and stop emoting. We'll wait, and wait, and wait, and wait.and on and on. Know what? You can't and you know you can't

Now I will sit back and wait for the insults. Facts? No. Insults? Plenty.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), June 24, 2003.

On the eve of the Bishops’ general meeting in Washington to deal with pedophile priests and related subjects, the magazine America printed an editorial (November 11, 2002) asking for the ordination of gay priests. Let me transcribe some excerpts that speak for themselves:

Priests march in a gay parade under the Dignity banner in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral. • “Healthy and dedicated gay men serving in the priesthood make an important contribution to the life of the Church.”

• “The main argument in favor of the ordination of gay men is far more convincing than the arguments against it – namely, the real-life example of thousands of healthy and hard-working gay priests and Bishops. These men lead lives centered on Christ and in the service to the Church – celebrating the sacraments, running parishes, schools and Dioceses and carrying out every type of Christian ministry. They do this in the face of withering criticism, frequent scapegoating and widespread prejudice, sometimes at the hands of those they serve. Their witness overcomes any argument against their ordination.”

This is some of the garbage that you are defending, or minimizing. For shame.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), June 24, 2003.

He's baaack! The Good Catholic returns, to lay low the bad Catholics.

He sticks out his baited hook. Another damning ''article'', nothing but ''true''.

ED; just believe anything you please! Do the research, do the hunting, do the muck-raking. Just take it where others are interested in your suggestions. Argue somewhere else. Don't BORE this group another year like you did last time. You'll never get any respect here. We give love and help to one another here. Not dirt.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Jake; Ed is not just good. He teaches others what they must do and think, in order to become almost as good as he is. He'll bring us a new accustion in due time. That's how he stays good. Bashing other Catholics. You two could've had great success in Rome. In the Devil's Advocates profession. But, Hey. You're already very successful. That's why you have successful comebacks. Back by popular demand.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

"Bashing other Catholics."

I never heard Ed falsely accuse anyone of heresy or schism.

"You two could've had great success in Rome. In the Devil's Advocates profession."

No, actually we couldn't have... they no longer have that position. It's gone. It no longer exists. They removed it from the canonization process.

So we couldn't have; but our sons, they will.

But that's neither here nor there; it's all distraction, as usually. Let's stay on focus:

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

Please reconcile this statement with the ecumenist movement.

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

Emmy,
Ed is always accusing all from the Pope down of being heretical. Give me a break. You've been here long enough to know. WELL-- Let him. I consider the source.

I also see where you're coming from. The question you pose is shallow. I thought you sometimes had depth. Ho, hum.

Do you agree with what this letter says, Emmy? ''to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion.''--? PRAYER? is a prayer a sin? -- These words made sense when ''prayer'' meant Communion; fellowship. But it goes over your head, Son. You are admitting a temptation into your heart, accusing our Pope & bishops of communion in other faiths. The letter kills, Em. The spirit gives life. Here we have a Catholic employing Sola Scriptura for Church encyclical interpretation! And throwing in accusations of heresy at the last four pontiffs in the bargain! (Or, your cohorts did. Can't remember if Em did.)

I guess this post has the aim of enhancing your elitist stature in the Latin Missal camp. You done good, Kid. I still feel sorry for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

"You'll never get any respect here. We give love and help to one another here. Not dirt."

Matthew Chapter 5, 46 and 47:

"If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"

Let's continue to stay on focus.

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

Please reconcile this statement with the ecumenist movement.

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

Of course it's a mess, Enrique; in fact, it was the same spirit of the age that caused the Reformation that is working in what we are seeing now. A race towards complete apostacy, and from all practical appearances, we have arrived.

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

Please look up the term "apostacy". Using it in such a context is totally ludicrous. Even sects on the outermost fringes of Protestantism are not apostate.

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

Apostate- One who has forsaken the faith, principles, or party to which he before adhered.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

Well, your definition as it stands would include all Protestants, and would therefore be inaccurate, or at least insufficient, on that basis. However, insert "completely" before "forsaken", and you've got it. Apostacy consists of total rejection of the Christian faith, and therefore obviously cannot be applied to any Protestant or Catholic person.

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

''Please reconcile this statement with the ecumenist movement,'' --argues the Emerald.

It's easy, Em: His Holiness Pope John Paul is not even the first pontiff to reconcile it for Catholics. We've had others who reconciled it,

--By meeting cordially and even praying with titular leaders from different faiths.

This makes it a final, resolved, reconciled practice. If the Pope makes the precedent, we are reconciled. Where Peter is, is the Catholic Church. It doesn't contradict any previous teaching. If it did, the Pope would surely know it. He does NOT interpret encyclicals by Sola Scriptata.

I'm saying the Pope is our primary teacher. Because I know you and the other quasi-traditional dissidents would not agree with me about the 2nd Vatican Council. You ought to, but highbrows don't mingle with the lumpen proletariat.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2003.

Emerald,

If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

Please reconcile this statement with the ecumenist movement

I know what you mean! Remember Pope Eugene said the same things about schismatics, so I'm still quite puzzled that you'd keep supporting the schismatics' agenda... BTW, has it occured to you that the reason the Catholic church is reaching out to the schismatic factions out there comes from the same spirit of ecumenism that it reaches out to other faiths with? Or would you rather have JPII get up and condemn everyone to Hell?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 25, 2003.

"I know what you mean! Remember Pope Eugene said the same things about schismatics, so I'm still quite puzzled that you'd keep supporting the schismatics' agenda..."

Whatsoever is part of their "agenda" consists of keep the Faith whole and undefiled is what I lend my support and agreement to, so therefore it should not be so puzzling.

"BTW, has it occured to you that the reason the Catholic church is reaching out to the schismatic factions out there comes from the same spirit of ecumenism that it reaches out to other faiths with?"

What I've noticed is that the above mentioned people known as schismatics have been virtually the only group of people targeted for termination, while the rest of the forces within the Church which aim at her destruction are allowed free reign to trample upon the Church's most precious possessions at will and without reprisals.

Has this occurred to you?

Think about this fact, and then listen to read these words of St. Louis De Monfort:

"But the power of Mary over all the devils will especially shine forth in the latter times, when Satan wil lay his snares against her heal: that is to say, her humble slaves and her poor children, whom she sill raise up to make war against him. They shall be little and poor in the world's esteem, and abased before all like the heel, trodden underfoot and persecuted as the heel is by the other members of the body. But in return for this they shall be rich in the grace of God."

I can't think of anything more descriptive of the plight of the traditionalists in our day. Try it sometime and see for yourself; you may find out that the traditionalist is anything but the arrogant elitist that there are presumed to be, but exactly the opposite. You may also find out that those who levy the allegations may have much to the red in the face about when the truth finally hits them.

Traditionalism bears it's truthfulness out in reality; those who perceive an accurate snapshot of the true condition of mankind at this time realize instantly the need for immediate penance and supplication. They bear it out in their daily lives; they don't talk it, they live it out in silence. This is what I have observed of these people.

"Or would you rather have JPII get up and condemn everyone to Hell?"

The rules that govern salvation and damnation have not changed.

...despite our perceptions of reality.

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

If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

Please reconcile this statement with the ecumenist movement

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

Emerald,

Would you give it a rest already? Look, if the Pope ever goes into a Jewish temple, rejects Jesus and prays like a Jew, I'll agree with you that he is in the wrong. In that case the Pope would be praying *with* them in the sense of believing what they do. OTOH if the Pope goes in a Jewish temple and prays *along side* them to Christ for their conversion, what is wrong with that? Can you understand the difference between someone praying *With* someone as opposed to *alongside* them? I'm sure that as a pseudo-schismatic your latin is excellent, please post the original quote in latin and explain how the meaning is that the Pope can't go into a Jewish temple to pray to Christ, or admit that it is just your interpretation of this quote that seems to damn ecumenism. Really emerald, that's why the Church is so important, and why there are so many protestant sects out there, every one of these guys reads the Bible or some text and comes up with their own interpretation, and later their own religion. The church's opinion on what is *Correct and True* means something emerald, yours doesn't. Don't start "Emeraldism", return to the church.

You know Em, Christ went into temples to teach, remember? Peter healed a cripple in Acts going into the temple during prayer time, why would he go there *at that time* if not to pray? Should the Pope not follow their footsteps? If he thinks he can get converts to the church that way, then that's acceptable. HE has the keys for binding and loosing, not you. So give it up emerald, unless you can prove that in the context of the quote for the audience it was written for at the time it means the same to our society now as it did then, your opinion on it is just that -- your opinion. Don't leave Christ's church over an error on your part!

"I know what you mean! Remember Pope Eugene said the same things about schismatics, so I'm still quite puzzled that you'd keep supporting the schismatics' agenda..." Whatsoever is part of their "agenda" consists of keep the Faith whole and undefiled

Please explain how someone who incurs an *excommunication by name* is "keeping the faith" LOL! Martin Luther left a church in trouble, he was wrong. Modern schismatics did the same, they are wrong. If you want to work for change within the church, great. When people separate themselves from her they are wrong. Simple.

What I've noticed is that the above mentioned people known as schismatics have been virtually the only group of people targeted for termination

No, they were targeted for deliberately disobeying a *personal* order from the pope. This is not the same as some liberal priest committing errors. Big difference Em, the Pope was trying to *personally* correct Lefebvre, who refused. These liberals haven't had the same opportunity, so don't have to face the same punishment. Sort of a watered-down "invincible ignorance" defense.

I can't think of anything more descriptive of the plight of the traditionalists in our day.

I hope you're not serious! No one is persecuting them, THEY are persecuting US! Are we on THEIR website saying "practice the Novus Ordo"? No, they come here and say their way (following an excommunicated bishop) is better than obeying the legitimate successor of St. Peter, the Pope. How on Earth have they convinced you that THEY are persecuted when they are the ones coming here to spread discord (sadness). BTW Emerald, how is a schismatic coming here calling the Catholic church an "abomination" an example of US persecuting them? (please reply) I think Satan's gotten you a bit turned around...

They bear it out in their daily lives; they don't talk it, they live it out in silence.

Read the above. If what you say is true, they wouldn't be here all the time spewing their venom. Why not go to a Lefebvrist web site and see how many times I've posted there? No, Emerald, there's no big ogre chasing these silent martyrs around, they come here of their own volition, as you do, to try and lure people from Christ's church, just like the Protestants do.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 26, 2003.

"Would you give it a rest already? Look, if the Pope ever goes into a Jewish temple, rejects Jesus and prays like a Jew, I'll agree with you that he is in the wrong. In that case the Pope would be praying *with* them in the sense of believing what they do. OTOH if the Pope goes in a Jewish temple and prays *along side* them to Christ for their conversion, what is wrong with that?"

Because Pope John Paul II believes in universal salvation. It's in his own writings.

"I'm sure that as a pseudo-schismatic your latin is excellent, please post the original quote in latin and explain how the meaning is that the Pope can't go into a Jewish temple to pray to Christ, or admit that it is just your interpretation of this quote that seems to damn ecumenism."

Well, here's a faster and easier way to show the same thing and provide you with exactly what you are looking for... less than a hundred years old for Pope Pius XI:

"So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non- Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it."

As far as your other considerations:

Traditional Catholics pester NeoCatholics because they are disgruntled by their undermining of Catholic Truth.

NeoCatholics pester Traditional Catholics because they don't want to hear the truth.

Again, to stay focused, I would ask that someone reconcile the above statements with the ecumenical movement.

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

I'll only stay at this long enough to make it clear that nobody can provide a decent answer to the question and then I'll be off on my way for a while.

That's my intention here. Maybe somebody somewhere will be loosed from the delusion that nothing is seriously wrong.

The real intention is simply this: if you deny the problem, if you deny the symptoms, you can't treat the disease. If one finally admits there's a problem, and begins to seek solutions and names discourse as the solution, one will ultimately find that discourse fails, as is happening right here, right now.

It fails because you cannot reason somebody into the Faith. You can tell when it fails, because the people trying to do it say "well, you must be incapable of thinking this through; you must be sick in the head; you must be [insert physically-based cranial incapacity here]. Always a matter of smarts, always a matter of the intellect. Never the will, though.

The Faith has never been about the intellect, but about the will. Salvation has never been based upon knowledge but upon self denial.

After a few rounds of bantering, it's only a matter of time before one realizes that they are helpless to further the Catholic Faith by these means, yet they persist. You know how that saying goes: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again even though it doesn't work" or something along those lines.

There is only one way to gain converts, and one means alone:

The age old life of continual self denial and supplication.

Something like the Rule of Benedict. That's where salvation comes from; not in the knowing and the speaking of things Catholic but in the simplicity of living it.

That never happens in this forum.

That's my whole point; that's what's being lost. But it's real tough to grow these assets unless you first understand the gravity of our condition and the realness of a narrow path of salvation. Right now, the Church is celebrating itself on a broad road. Not good.

Do you see what I am getting at? There's nothing nasty in my intentions; I'm not calling people names. I haven't accused anyone of anything heinous. Poking and prodding, yes, but there's no anathema against that.

My own personal holiness is neither here nor there. The truth of the matter is that it stinks, but that should not prevent any one of us from speaking hard truths; if it was supposed to prevent us from speaking the truth, the Faith would have been lost a long time ago.

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

Emerald,

You just don't get it, do you? I've given you a perfectly good interpretation of your quote that is *different* from your own. How do you reconcile which of us is right? Without some God-given authority, there is no way. You would go on believing what you do, and I'd believe what I do.

Fortunately for ME, there is a correct answer to who is right, the answer given by the church. You feel YOU are right and the church is wrong, and so have left the church. Bon Voyage, Emerald! (not that I think this will stop you from posting the same thing over and over, btw, once you recognize only your own interpretation as supreme, you never have to believe you are *wrong*, even if your opinions change daily.

On your Pope Pius quote:

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non- Catholics:

I assume you understand from this that a Catholic can't be a member of Congress (it's not a Catholic assembly), join the boy scouts, the YMCA, or basically any other organization out there. Is that what you think the Pope meant? Emerald, quit thinking the whole church is wrong except for you. It's a foolish way to spend your life.

Traditional Catholics pester NeoCatholics because they are disgruntled by their undermining of Catholic Truth

HELLO, ANYONE HOME? You just said we went around persecuting them, now you're admitting they are pestering us! Please apologize for your prior comment (which you are now admiting was incorrect, and slandered our character) and admit it's not true.

eoCatholics pester Traditional Catholics because they don't want to hear the truth

No, we want them to quit calling our church an "abomination". The church is our house, and do not have to put up with contempt of our church within it. Go back to your church, and leave us Catholics in peace.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 26, 2003.

Eds back! Proof that missing out on Gods gift of modesty doesnt prevent one being "modest". Very modest indeed. Hi Ed :-)

Hey Emerald its you who is abandoning your faith for reason, albiet very poor reason!

I havent got time to properly address the issues you raise but will give you a few quotes to consider.I accept you are genuinely anguished about this but I ask you consider the information at this outstanding site- "A prescription against Traditionalism", any chance of turning it into a blue link for me? ;-)

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/shawn.html

I see you talk of faith and salvation etc...Briefly Emerald you should be well aware that unity is the will of God.If unity is so tied to the central purpose of Christ's salvific mission, then division is a most serious matter -- not a minor flaw that can simply be tolerated. Division as our Holy Father John Paul II says

"openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the good news to every creature"

But I accept you realise what the Churchs position is today but reject it on the percieved "contradictions" of the past you drag up.

Im no rocket scientist myself and its a shame Mr Butler or Mateo are not still here to help you more than I could ever hope to do. ANy defence would be based on the fact that Tradition you hold so dearly is not a static deposit but instead is a living entity which grows and develops within the Church throughout the centuries.

So when you present your quotes "contradicting" the ecumenical movement youre misunderstanding how the Church magisterium operates.

"Just as the Council of Nicaea took a term previously condemned in a heterodox sense and appropriated it in an orthodox sense, Vatican II took terms previously condemned in a heterodox sense and appropriated them in an orthodox sense. This can be discerned through utilizing the norms of theological interpretation which includes (i) the times the documents were written (ii) the contemporary problems the documents intended to address and (iii) the sense that the documents attach to the terms of discussion. But if you simply prooftext documents then you can manufacture reams of so- called "contradictions". This is why the sacred sciences need to be approached with a humility that frankly is not common to most extremists of any bent."

Ill put it another way that their views of traditionalist like yourself show a fundamental defect in the understanding of what is and is not legitimate unchanging Tradition. Much of what you claim is unchanging Tradition is instead pious customs or ecclesiastical traditions originating not from the Deposit of Faith but instead from the Church which may be suitable for one age but not for another. The only party who can legitimately make that determination - and bind people to the decisions made - is the Church and not individuals.

I trust you accept a pre Vatican II source for your comment:

"The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 ed.) has an extensive article on these two topics because they cannot be separated from one another anymore than Scripture can be separated from Tradition. The article is long but the relevant sections of it have been excerpted here emphasizing certain areas as needed:

III. The proper mode of existence of revealed truth in the mind of the Church and the way to recognize this truth. There is a formula current in Christian teaching (and the formula is borrowed from St. Paul himself) that traditional truth was confided to the Church as a deposit which it would guard and faithfully transmit as it had received it without adding to it or taking anything away. This formula expresses very well one of the aspects of tradition and one of the principal roles of the living magisterium. But this idea of a deposit should not make us lose sight of the true manner in which traditional truth lives and is transmitted in the Church.

This deposit in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; it is not, properly speaking, an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments. Books and monuments of every kind are a means, an organ of transmission, they are not, properly speaking, the tradition itself.

To better understand the latter it must be represented as a current of life and truth coming from God through Christ and through the Apostles to the last of the faithful who repeats his creed and learns his catechism.

This conception of tradition is not always clear to all at the first glance. It must be reached, however, if we wish to form a clear and exact idea. We can endeavour to explain it to ourselves in the following manner:

We are all conscious of an assemblage of ideas or opinions living in our mind and forming part of the very life of our mind, sometimes they find their clear expression, again we find ourselves without the exact formula wherewith to express them to ourselves or to others an idea is in search as it were of its expression, sometimes it even acts in us and leads us to actions without our having as yet the reflective consciousness of it. Something similar may be said of the ideas or opinions which live, as it were, and stir the social sentiment of a people, a family, or any other well-characterized group to form what is called the spirit of the day, the spirit of a family, or the spirit of a people. [2]

Cheers and Blessings from your Cafeteria Catholic mate :-)

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

I'd love to stay on and chit chat with you all, but I would really like my question answered.

Perhaps somebody can tell me how this statement:

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

...can be reconciled with the ecumenist movement.

We have one proposal: The Pope is using mental reservation. Alright.

Any more?

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

off

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

Repeatedly you ask how is your quote to be “reconciled with the ecumenist movement.”

I don’t think your quote is an accurate translation, and I don’t think you understand what the ecumenist movement really means. (Please supply the website address of where you obtained this quote). Lets take a real long shot and give you the benefit of the doubt. Presuming it is accurate then we must determine what the Council meant. We need to ask a the question…

The question is not "What do clueless people think?"

The question is, "Is this what the Church is really saying?"

The Church has made it clear exactly what it is saying.

The key word here Emerald and Ed don’t understand is “join”. When the Pope joins other religious leaders he makes it clear that we're not praying together, the leaders pray according to the dictates of their conscience. By “joining” together we don't affirm the truth of others tradition when it contradicts ours because our Tradition is the fullness of what God himself has revealed. But we should work together on issues of common ground, it’s a start towards unity which is the will of God.

.Again I am surprised, perhaps he has some light to shed, I certainly hope so for his own credibility. Maybe some amazing insight might be forthcoming or he might even reveal a scholar or theologian of note who would support his thinking. But I doubt he will be able to offer any support, he stands alone…oh with Ed and a mishmash of various other unfortunate misguided souls. Nothing substantial, and theyre not taken seriously by anyone other than themselves.

Im not short on hope but when you have insanity crashing against your door, sometimes its best not to open. The real issue is that he has misinterpreted the ecumenist movement with modernism, and does not posses a proper understanding of implicit faith. Below is a outline of the problem Emerald has got himself into IMO.

Blessings Emerald

“The issue is about the contents of implicit faith: any faith, more or less explicit, must have contents - more exactly, supernatural revealed contents -, otherwise it would not be faith, but human thought. According to modernists, religion is the emerging of religious feelings: for modernists, the content of this feeling is not important: a good existential outcome of this religious sentiment is sufficient. So they reason: "Are you contented or satisfied to be a Buddhist or to practice Your homemade religion? Let this sentiment emerge! If you let your religious sentiment emerge, you are a Christian, even though you are not conscious of being a Christian." What is the difference between implicit faith, as we have learned by St.Thomas, and this modernist conception?

The differences concern dispositions of the subject, and the object itself. Man knows, by natural reason, that he must pursue his utimate end; man knows this end is good, lovely; so he desires to pursue his ultimate end. Grace manages to get into this natural desire, and so this natural desire becomes supernatural; this is the psychological beginning of the act of faith. There are already important differences between the Catholic and modernist conceptions of faith. God himself reveals the means of act of faith, the objective contents, even though this knowledge may be not completely explicit.

Gods acts in two manners:

1) with his natural providence; an unbeliever can admire the creation (Rom. 1:20: ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things) and believe (but he may also not believe); or God sends a missionary to the unbeliever.

2) with an immediate supernatural inspiration: we can read the autobiography of some convert, and admire their reflections. But we cannot exclude mysterious inspirations in the hearts of a lot of umbelievers: may we think that a poor primitive in Amazonia or in Asia is forgotten by God?

In both cases, a truth, a content, a supernatural - implicit or explicit - revelation, is proposed to man. A good will wants, "chooses," all these means God revealed to her. St. Thomas says, about such unbelievers -a man that doesn't believe by way of pure negation, as Cornelius, but adheres to everything God reveals to him, that "he does as much he can (quod in se est facit) - he is not, formally, an unbeliver - he has implicit faith." In, this sense we may better understand the word by Fr. Garrigou Lagrange: "Formally are more far from true religion people who deviated preserving many dogmas than people who tend to Catholicism embracing few verities." A primitive man in the jungle, who "does as much he can", has more faith than a dissident theologian! And we have the same faith of the primitive man - in this sense we believe in the same God -, but we have not the same faith of a dissident theologian, and we don't believe in the same God as the dissident theologian, even though he can understand trinitarian procession better than us.

We can so understand what St. Paul says in Acts 17:23 "...the unknown God you revere is the one I proclaim to you." In another sense, we have not the same God of the primitive, but we have the same God of the dissident theologian (from a merely material point of view). In this last sense is true that gods of pagan people are devils. We can understand also why Pope St. Pius X says, in Pascendi, that modernism is the enemy not only of the Catholic religion, but of all religions: because the act of religion, the act that could precede a conversion, is basically undermined. So Fr. Cornelius a Lapide says that in the last days, the Antichrist will fight against all religion!

I tried only to begin to study the facts of Assisi: you didn't read the complete argumentation which would be necessary, but only few e- mails by a mountain priest. I believe I have shown that Assisi is not only a question of ecumenism, but that a lot of issues are implied. We cannot have an unconscious tour d'esprit: "Mortalium Animos didn't provide for Assisi, so Assisi is an heinous fact." There are some new facts that are not in pre-concilar handbooks; and we must be able to evaluate them in a serene manner. The battle for traditional liturgy, for Catholic Tradition et al, expects "new wine in fresh skins" (Luke 5:38). And what must we say about ecumenism? I confess that when I hear this word, my hair stands on end! :-))

But let's forget for a moment this word. Must we try any effort in order that unbelievers convert themselves! Yes, we must. May we compel the act of faith? No, we may not. May we try to persuade and convince them with arguments? Yes! And how do we begin this persuasion? "Hi Protestant; your mother was not an honest woman! Convert yourself, otherwise hell will gulp you down," or trying to not "break the crushed reed or snuff the faltering wick" (Is. 42:3)? Trying to not break the crushed reed or snuff the faltering wick . . . And is this a missionary action? Yes, it's a missionary action. And must we be missionaries? Yes, we must. Is the term ecumenism abused and used to pass the worse foul errors? Yes, but we must be missionaries even though the term is abused.

-- Kiwi (csiherwood@hotmail.com), June 27, 2003.

Hi Frank I hadnt time to read through all the responses I see youve already answered Emeralds question earlier. Yet like a man possessed he coninues to ask the same question. Disturbing, I hope hes ok, and I mean that not in a uncharitable way.

-- Kiwi (csiherwood@hotmail.com), June 27, 2003.

I know well, kiwi, the operative word that seeks to end run the Faith: it's the term "subsistence", kiwi. It's a theological speculation. Believe me, there's few stones left unturned here.

The secret is that it isn't just one quote. In fact, I added more quotes to another thread, and Frank takes issue with it and asks me to stick to one. The fact of the matter is that the theory of this "subsistence" is doctrinally refuted not just by one quote here and there, from this time or that time, but that "subsistence" is an error absolutely permeates the entire history and teaching of the Church. It's everywhere at all times except now.

Instead of the archetypical Ark of Salvation, the Church is now seen as something like a river of living water, flowing out and permeating all.

My point is that, if you look into it, that... it isn't like this. Never was; never will be. It's an error.

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

Kiwi,

Don't let me stop you! I tend to have a bit of trouble with charity with these guys after awhile, in the same vein I'd make a poor piano teacher. How many times can someone make the SAME mistake without figuring out what's wrong?

Emerald,

*Sigh* the point is that you don't seem to listen or learn the *first* 15 times you post something, so it really isn't going to do you much good to post ANOTHER batch of quotes on the same topic. You might as well take a page from the Alex Ruiz book and just repeat yourself exactly, it'll save you some typing time.

And in case you missed it, Alex isn't a Catholic, but he's sure he's right, THAT'S why he keeps repeating himself. Similary, YOU think you are right and the church isn't, which is why YOU keep repeating yourself.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 27, 2003.

OK, Frank. Emerald wants the record straight; he's clever.

Alex will never be clever, but he thinks the Holy Bible is clever. Together, Alex and Emerald would tire out Jesus Christ Himself, Poor God! It's hard to deny, Emerald.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

"Similary, YOU think you are right and the church isn't, which is why YOU keep repeating yourself."

How could this be the case?

I'm quoting the 3rd Council of Constantinople.

Why do you keep saying that I'm saying that I'm right? I'm saying that the Church is right.

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

This guy Emerald will not let go. We are completely happy in our ignorance, and that is where we want to stay. So bug off.

-- Whirlaway (Gallopinghorseman@tallyhostables.com), June 27, 2003.

Ed the Wizard speaks, as if he were a great racehorse. But all he is --is the warm stack of dung horses leave behind. Poor hayburner.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

'' Why do you keep saying that I'm saying that I'm right? I'm saying that the Church is right.'' --More cleverness as tossed off by Emerald.

We believe the Council of Constantinople and we follow as well Vatican Council II. The Councils have no contradicting positions. Today they are only streaming from the Emerald City.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

Will the 3 "Cardinals" of V2 kindly stop running their mouth for a minute... and...point out where the Church has "D e c r e e d" the umbrella man theory of salvation somehow by the church. If you can, and you can't, let us know. Yeah sure!

Can give you lots on the other side. Go ahead make my day. All you can go on is the pope and his wise men throwing it around, kinda like my middle name.

Sure they didn't graduate from the Goebbels, Himmler, school of "Truthsayers"?

-- Ed "Dung" Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), June 27, 2003.

You're welcome, horse man. Your compliments accepted.

Been waiting for you to step in your own doo-doo. The doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and others are not much older that the doctrine of Baptism by water and the Holy Spirit, Baptism of Blood, and Baptism of Desire. It didn't take a solemn decree, they have always been known as revealed.

The sacrament of Baptism has as its effects the new sacramental character on the soul. The infusion of sanctifying grace, the total removal of sin, and among other gifts o0f the Holy spirit, inclusion in the Holy Church of Jesus Christ & His apostles.

If the baptism is solemn & public, as Baptism usually is, with it we are subjects and children of the Church. (That answers your main question.) We become capable of receiving the other sacraments. God gives spiritual life to r baptised soul (rebirth) and all the means necessary to preserve it in His grace. Man, on his side, renounces sin, undertakes to lead a good Christian life, and promises obedience to the pastors of the Church, and in particular to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. Baptism of Desire is the one of the non-public substitutes for the Sacrament of Baptism. It has no sacramental character. In order to be eligible to receive Holy communion, that soul would first have to receive the actual Sacrament. In order that a soul receive it, he/she must have had perfect contrition for sins.

The other substitute, of course, is of Blood. Dying martyred for Jesus Christ; that is a soul who has not been baptised by the Church. He who is baptised this way must have at least what's called attrition for his sins, enduring death at the hands of those in opposition to Christ, His Church, our faith, or against a Christian virtue.

In each case, we can say, upon death of this martyr baptism is God's own gift to him. He becomes a member of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, or better said, His Church. He would find salvation in the Church.

Therefore your hope to see the ''decree'' of these truths is pointless, Ed. They are part & parcel of the Catholic deposit of faith from the days of Christ's first disciples. They are even scripturally supportable; but some other time we can humor your ''desire'' for more satisfaction. --Meantime, notice I've stipulated one of a baptised Catholic's obligations is loyalty and obedience to Our Holy Father the Pope whom Jesus Christ has called to act for Him. --A Catholic duty you have been REMISS in; --flunking. That's enough for today.
Ciao, and keep the faith. (I do, and so does our Holy Father.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

"Therefore your hope to see the ''decree'' of these truths is pointless, Ed. They are part & parcel of the Catholic deposit of faith from the days of Christ's first disciples."

That's quite false, Eugene. Nowhere can evidence for baptism of blood and desire be found as something doctrinally defined or as something in the Deposit of the Faith. It has never been anything more than theological speculation.

That's what you would actually find out if you

1. Undertook a real investigation of the issue in good faith

2. Didn't just take somebody else's word for it.

You are just positing this to be a fact, and then claiming that there is no documentation for it because it "always was". How convenient, but also, how incorrect. There are some things like that, but this isn't one of them.

You do realize that, just for the sake of argument, I let you take the blood and desire baptism as a valid premise, that it still can be quite successfully pointed out that ecumenist movement clearly is in violation of doctrine?

We have an obligation to hold the Catholic Faith whole and entire.

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

Oh wow. My apologies, Eugene. I allowed myself to get sidetracked.

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

When you have an opportunity, I was wondering if you could explain how the ecumenical movement does not come into contradiction with this statement, and why.

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

The Blood & Desire baptism is a valid premise. It's been known for ages. You have no way of denying it except speciously saying it had to be a decree. My explanation is taken from (not copied, just understood from an apologetics text published in Ireland a century ago. So, it can't be motivated by what you call a movement'' dating from 1960. Yet, apologetics alone aren't validity, I suppose. We are a religion of faith and love. Fraternal love is what impelled the reforms of vatican II, Emmy. Loving concern for our brethren, who believed the catholic faith was hopelessly ritualistic, the faith of ignorant and backward-looking zealots. You may've evn seen anti-Catholics come in here and call me & others Talibanners.

In order that the people of other faiths might return at last to the faith of the apostles, the newest successors to the apostles convened to help them when practical. But nothing of our Creed or our Communion was compromised or left out. You've accepted the opinions of an elite group who don't understand. They divide. They separate Christians, for the sake of their preferential and exclusive religion. They're like the Pharisees. So darn sure they're right! How was Jesus Christ received by the Pharisees? Like a sinner. A rabble-rouser and a sinner. Our Holy Lord and Saviour! They're attempting today to brand our Holy Father the same way. He consorts with sinners! He's a heretic! He's NOT the (Messiah) Pope!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

"So, it can't be motivated by what you call a movement'' dating from 1960."

Of course not. I never said it did. Blood and desire are in the Pius X catechism, although I have found other approved catechisms from round about the same time that explicitly rule out Baptism of blood and desire.

Of course it isn't tracable to 1960. See, that's a typical Neo assumption that's not accurate. The debate goes back hundreds of years.

But again, Eugene, it is not doctrine. I repeat: it is not a doctrine. It is a theological speculation. Nor is it part of the Deposit of the Faith sealed at the time of Pentacost. What is doctrine is extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the specific archetype of the Church being "Ark".

This is lost.

Now for the Pope... Eugene, the Pope goes far beyond the Three Baptism debate. He proposes universal salvation. I mean just that: Universal Salvation. It's in his writings.

Would you like to see them, or would you rather just look away? Seriously, if you want to see them, I'll post them. If not, I won't do it here.

The objective remains the same: a desperate and seemingly futile attempt to exhort people to prayer and sacrifice for our current situation. The assumption, of course, being that if people don't see a problem with our current state that they might not be inclined to participate in a solution.

As Catholics, think about this: our unity is no doubt integral to our Faith, but our unity comes from truth; our truth doesn't come from unity.

Someone told me recently that truth comes out of charity. I said, "no, that seems backwards". Sure enough, later I picked up one saint's writings that clearly stated the charity comes out of truth.

Our unity is supposed to be in truth, not our truth from unity. That's why we have such fractionalization at this time.

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

You may NOT refer to me as a typical Neo, Emerald. I'm not a typical anything, and I have no assumption in the belief, I believe.

It is proper and fitting because God is All-Just and also All-Merciful; that I should place trust in the works of religious thinkers over many centuries on the LARGER potential for salvation. Only excepting when the Church condemns the works. I'm not pretending I know anybody who was baptised by Blood or by Desire. But you aren't qualified to affirm nobody ever has, just because you misconstrue the words of a Council of long ago.

We have had our own solemnly convened Church Council in Vatican II and I can easily conform my faith to its decisions. If you can't, that's not a problem for me. I stand by what I'm saying; your attitude is that of the Pharisees vs. Jesus Christ. I hope you can be persuaded, but I'm not your master; I leave it up to you.

What I've had to do in discussions with you is treat you as a joke. It's all you get from me, until you return to your senses.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

"You may NOT refer to me as a typical Neo, Emerald."

Why not? Is that like a command, or what is that?

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

"What I've had to do in discussions with you is treat you as a joke."

This is typical style of refutation of those who don't really have a substantive response which they can provide.

The question isn't really a bad one, you know. We have one statement of many from a Pontiff that represents the long-standing stance of the Church on the matter, and next to it we have this contrary movement which flies in the face of it.

Seems some explanation would be appropriate, instead of "well, you lost your marbles and I think you're a joke"

Not very ecumenical, especially considering that ecumenism is part of the issue in question.

Wow, Gene, you must really be grumpy tonight. You didn't even try to package your response in the usual humor. Lighten up, man!

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

Dear Emmy-- I will do you the favor.
I'll lighten up, because my pride isn't even at stake. My veracity is. Why am I, why is any Catholic faithful to the Pontiff supposed to accept a label like Neo? --NEO. Forget you, Emmsie.

As for: '' --"What I've had to do in discussions with you is treat you as a joke." and; This is typical style of refutation of those who don't really have a substantive response,''

Jeeezzz! Again ''typical''. Typical when you label somebody. A Catholic is easily seen by his/her unfailing faith. Not just his/her ''substantive response'' to agitators. If you qualify, then we are both Catholics. Not Neo not dissident, not a snob.

I have to treat you as a joke because you can't be reached. Faith doesn't matter to you any more?

No reasoning is substantive enough to please you. You are interested in the overhand smash; the Ace. Not faith.

I'm faithful. My match point doesn't want to crush you or beat you. I want your love and your fellowship. If this is seen to be impossible, I take anything I can get. Make the whole thing just a joke. You're a joke; retreating into the far horizon. Ha Ha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

"Why am I, why is any Catholic faithful to the Pontiff supposed to accept a label like Neo?"

We've come full circle then. I ask in the same vein:

"Why am I, why is any Catholic faithful the Deposit of the Faith, keeping it whole and undefiled, supposed to accept a label like a heretic and a schismatic?

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

Typical Neo.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), June 28, 2003.

They are faithful to their cause. But not to the Holy Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Church has nothing Neo about her. I was born, baptised given first Communion and married in her bosom. I expect to die in her bosom, in peace. I have been faithful. Now a sect of separatists judges me Neo. How fitting that my faith in Him who was reviled by Pharisees should share in the reproaches He suffered. His Holy Church suffers too-- in the outrages of her own members. Some who give scandal and some who serve the enemy.

I am the more fortunate, because Pharisees shall never see me shamed. They came here for nothing. Better days are coming; I have faith in Jesus Christ. His Holy Church has Faith! Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

Gene, you keep putting up imaginary fences around your own Catholicism, desperately trying to keep us elitist out. Sthtoppit! lol.

Well, looks like I'll have to refute myself then... you could have nailed me so easily! Here:

"EVERY man naturally desires knowledge; but what good is knowledge without fear of God? Indeed a humble rustic who serves God is better than a proud intellectual who neglects his soul to study the course of the stars. He who knows himself well becomes mean in his own eyes and is not happy when praised by men.

If I knew all things in the world and had not charity, what would it profit me before God Who will judge me by my deeds?

Shun too great a desire for knowledge, for in it there is much fretting and delusion. Intellectuals like to appear learned and to be called wise. Yet there are many things the knowledge of which does little or no good to the soul, and he who concerns himself about other things than those which lead to salvation is very unwise.

Many words do not satisfy the soul; but a good life eases the mind and a clean conscience inspires great trust in God.

The more you know and the better you understand, the more severely will you be judged, unless your life is also the more holy. Do not be proud, therefore, because of your learning or skill. Rather, fear because of the talent given you. If you think you know many things and understand them well enough, realize at the same time that there is much you do not know. Hence, do not affect wisdom, but admit your ignorance. Why prefer yourself to anyone else when many are more learned, more cultured than you?

If you wish to learn and appreciate something worth while, then love to be unknown and considered as nothing. Truly to know and despise self is the best and most perfect counsel. To think of oneself as nothing, and always to think well and highly of others is the best and most perfect wisdom. Wherefore, if you see another sin openly or commit a serious crime, do not consider yourself better, for you do not know how long you can remain in good estate. All men are frail, but you must admit that none is more frail than yourself."

--Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ

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

"paleoconservative traditionalists"

lol. That's what I want to be called. Hey Gene, I want you to call me this. I like it.

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

Jake I hear you and Ed have started a new forum . I bet its a laugh a minute, just like your links. Im sure youll get a great crowd. Good for you champ!

Youve been greatly missed. But our loss is others pain... I mean gain... how lucky they are and what a cross it is to have to bear for us. No one said it would be easy. Yet we struggle on. The thought of others missing out on yours and Eds wisdom and wit at our expense is however a burden that no mere Neo could ever carry.

SO tend your priviliged flock and remember weve got your e-mail so dont call us...we will call you. Until that special email its Bye Bye Jake.

A footnote and real reason for my message is not for the first time Jake offers an anti Catholic, protestant link.

Jake's alltime favourite appears to be an unfortunate publication ironically titled "Catholic Daily". These sites are considerably more dangerous than links to Chick type publications as they try and decieve people they are Catholic. This site is openly not in obedience to Pope John Paul II, and the editors are schismatic and excommunicated.

If Emerald, Ed or Jake offer any links in the future I ask that people check the site I offer below first. The list is by no means comprehensive but it covers most of the more well known integrist, schismatic, and sedevacantist non-Catholic sites.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/weave2.htm

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

Thank you, Kiwi,
Ed & Jake are not so gifted that they can hatch the stuff they write here, I know. Emerald can bring the pot to a boil, but suffers from lack of creativity.

Ed copies & pastes, from spurious sources. I doubt he understands much of the sophisms we've seen him post. The In Pectore bit seems a bit too swift for him. Jake might like that material, but his own is lean & hungry, abrasive wit, totally dedicated to dividing us.

You, Kiwi after all are more the tradtional Catholic. We have our faults; division isn't in our repertory. Tradition means retaining all the value and adding to it with love. You've added more than you've subtracted, even if you get me impatient sometimes. Emerald subtracted from Catholic tradition far more than he added yesterday; and made me impatient too. The game is what he enjoys. The overhand smash. We shall have to serve and volley for his pleasure again today.

My love of the Church gives me license to fire at him. I'll make him keep running. God help me.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

* "paleoconservative traditionalists"
lol. That's what I want to be called. Hey Gene, I want you to call me this. I like it.
-- Emerald *

Like it, Emmy? If that were just what Jesus Christ liked, who would question your taste? I believe He said He is the Alpha and the Omega. He dwells above and beyond the future, yet keeps the past present; both your would-be traditional faith, and far in front and above my safe Tradition and arguments. I'm old hat to the Church He heads. He is making your species likely extinct in a short time; since you can't understand the primacy of Peter.

He promised His apostles that our Holy Church would last until He returns. Maybe you'll come back here. He'll make room for you and for Jake & Eddie the Racehorse.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

Kiwi,
For people who don't know how (or don't like) to copy-and-paste -- and who don't want to key in a full URL --
here is a link to your very important site, which exposes scores of quasi-traditionalist (actually schismatic, dissenting, or heretical) organizations and people.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

It includes all the typical liberal slant on the doctrines of the Faith.

It's liberal, like John is. John, if you actually did your due diligence on these things instead of just listening to hash from questionable websites, you would either

1. Become a traditionalist, or

2. Actually be able to answer the hard questions traditionalists pose.

I'm open debate these things as long as you can refrain from your typical exothermic ad hominems. The other option is to simple walk away from the discussion and declare victory through disdain; that works fairly well for most of the others.

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

Gene says:

"They are faithful... But not to the Holy Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

This is a false statement.

"The Church has nothing Neo about her."

Sure it does... the New and Eternal Testament. St. Augustine: "O beauty ever ancient, ever new".

"I was born, baptised given first Communion and married in her bosom. I expect to die in her bosom, in peace. I have been faithful. Now a sect of separatists judges me Neo."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you mention somewhere in this forum that when the V2 changes first came that you were a bit concerned by them? Or was that just a figleaf of my imagination? I was thinking about you a lot today. There must have been a point at which you let yourself go and just kind of went with the flow. Why, I wonder?

At any rate...

"How fitting that my faith in Him who was reviled by Pharisees should share in the reproaches He suffered."

Pharisee. This is quite an accusation. You have insufficient information to be able to make this claim. If you met any one of us falsely labeled "schismatics", you would retract that statement instantly. I know you would.

"His Holy Church suffers too-- in the outrages of her own members. Some who give scandal and some who serve the enemy."

No... really? I sincerely do think I understand this one quite well.

"I am the more fortunate, because Pharisees shall never see me shamed."

You would if you were to have this discussion face to face with any one of the Pharisees so-called. I have zero doubt about that.

"They came here for nothing."

Far from it. I've gained so much!

You guys need to

1. Assume that traditionalists aren't evil incarnate from Hell. That would be far too "dark ages" of a reaction for your age-of- enlightenment, post-conciliar modern mentality. It's beneath you in at least that particular LCD.

2. Abandon the rhetoric and find some reasonable answers.

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

Hi, Emerson!
Caughtcha at the first sentence:

You guys need to

1. Assume that traditionalists aren't evil incarnate from Hell.

But we aren't. I'm solidly standing on Catholic Tradition, the tradition of the Apostles, Em.

You aren't. You're a dissident; but surely not ''evil''. Not incarnate. It's merely that you are unwittingly serving the devil's needs. He needs to divide and then (he thinks) conquer. You divide the Church. I'm not making it up. You insist there's Tradition and then Neo. Not One Church.

Jake has called the Mass in Latin the ''real'' Mass. To suggest my assistance is at a false Mass; because he hates mine and loves his! I love each One!!! I hope to unite us, be good to you, help you. You and he and Ed, joke at our faith; disdain the holy Father, pour scorn on the faithful.

The faithful Catholics not prejudiced against a Mass approved by the Popes!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

Going on:

''--2. Abandon the rhetoric and find some reasonable answers.''

Well; I must confess, rhetoric is my own strong suit. But empty rhetoric is nothing I would waste my time in. If I can, I let my faith shine through the rhetoric.

You send us much verbosity, and don't quit trying. I haven't told you to ''abandon'' your verbal fencing. If you waste your time with empty anthologies written in paleoconservative prose, I let you ramble on. It's good for laughs. The only moment when I objected was when you labelled me.

Rhetoric aside, let me ask you: What's it about ''find some reasonable answers.''---??? I thought I was just about reasonably Catholic. Is this a controversy? Do I have to prove to you I'm Catholic, or that I've never been Neo --?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

"Well; I must confess, rhetoric is my own strong suit."

This is true. Now that's not a slap in the face; I really think that's true, and it isn't in and of itself a bad thing. Obviously the caveat is that I think you are in fact injuring the Mystical body.

With the Prods, I mean. Forget the Trads for a minute, and consider the Protestants. Sparring with Trads takes the back seat numbers- wise in here to sparring with the Prods. I can't help but wonder, is this the pinnacle of ecumenism in action? I don't get it. Is this the New Evangelism?

What it eventually boils down to in most discussions:

The Papacy. Right?

That's why I think most battles are lost with Protestants. The Papacy is the number one advertising gimmick of the NeoCatholic. But the Papacy weapon isn't the right weapon of choice to bring to the battle; the Sacraments are the right points of debate. They aren't starving for lack of the Papacy, but for lack of the Sacraments. The Sacraments save us... that's the real thing of contention. The Pope doesn't save us, and as far as unity, our unity is actually derived from the Sacraments, of which the Holy Orders are just one of seven. The Pope's primary purpose is to keep this in play.

What makes the ecumenism thrust even less effective is that the whole understanding of the Papacy is skewed, so when you walk up to them with the Papacy attack, it makes matters worse because it confirms their worst ill-understood fears.

This is not to say that I disregard the Papacy; far from it. I could douse the forum with more references to the relationship between salvation and submission to the Roman Pontiff than you guys could probably muster up right now. And no, it's not that strange because or course it's a concern of mine. If someone were point out that this is me contradicting myself, I would merely point out that hey, no, you just didn't do your due diligence. Again, who understands the true and real submission and loyalty to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church?

We are unified under the Pontiff, but that itself flows from the Sacraments. So really, the Sacraments are at the root of it all.

Funny thing, that's what people are saying that non Catholics can be saved without. Saved without the Sacraments? No way. Surely this is a hideous way to open dialogue with pagans and heretics in order and jews in order to bring them into the Church.

The Sacraments are our most precious possessions, and are the only way of salvation. Without them, there is no means to God. If not, He wasted His Precious Blood. When you fling open the doors of salvation wide open without recourse to the Sacraments, your reason for unity ceases, and your connection to salvation is severed. In reality, you have in essence nothing more than a lot of pagans holding hands.

"Do I have to prove to you I'm Catholic, or that I've never been Neo --?"

Not to me. But for the Neo Catholic, this is where the majority of energy is spent... proving to other Catholics that he is in visible alignment with a sort of checklist orthodoxy of incidentals. In other words, an intangible list of "smells and bells". Just go look at the new thread "who's who" and see what I mean.

It's almost like the Jewish law.

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

No problem Eugene and thanks John for doing the link. Eugene feel a bit ashamed about giving you grief and twisting your words on the other thread . I feel very strongly on that issue and I can be a bit of a hothead at times. So I want to say sorry.

Gene I think youll like this quote

"Every man who belongs to God and Jesus Christ stands by his bishop .... But make no mistake, my brothers; the adherents of a schismatic can never inherit the kingdom of God"

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

Hi Emerald, finally a bit of light from you beyond the zombie games, at least youre offering something to reply to now. But I want to try and keep this a big picture view as much as possible.

In my mind the so called “trads” are nothing but theologically inept rebels with only very facile understanding of Church history. As Chesterton says “Pride is the falsification of fact by the introduction of self” In my first post to you I said your concerns were nothing but hysterical alarmism which presupposes certain fears and suspicions from the outset and then interprets the proceedings accordingly. That is singularly unimpressive and unpersuasive. I then offered you, as did many others, a sound theological argument against your concerns. These answers have not been refuted or challenged by you.

The battle with the self is nothing new as St Augustine of Hippo c. 354-430 A.D. highlights,

so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will separate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved?

The 'traditionalist' rebel is not to be trusted on faith matters because they are constantly erring in properly setting forth the "Catholic" position on issues. Indeed they quite often have no idea what the "Catholic" position is. Because of this and other reasons they cannot legitimately call themselves faithful Catholics but instead they are rebels, and as such, the term Protestant is not out of place. To be a Catholic is to be in accord with Sacred Tradition which is why the phrase 'Traditional Catholic' is so offensive.

To be honest there is little point in interacting with traditionalists on a micro level, as Emerald was attempting to do. As soon as we refute each charge another equally simple minded and inane “contradiction” will appear. Or even worse, like the fanatics that many are, they will mindlessly repeat the same charge showing all the language comprehension skills of your average household blow fly. Frustrating, tiresome, boring ..yes, but in the overall scheme of things insignificant. “I used to be indifferent but now Im just bored. ”

Its much better to look at the big picture of these people operate.

Emerald you ask “who understands the true and real submission and loyalty to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church?”

A good question and while most well read Catholics understand the difference between disciplines and doctrine (even rebels can recognise this). However at the root of many of their charges is an serious misunderstanding what constitutes authentic Tradition from mere ecclesiastical traditions . This distinction and the inability of self-styled 'traditionalists' to differentiate between the two is a serious problem. To put it as bluntly as possible: no Apostolic Traditions were abolished by Vatican II. There were some ecclesiastical traditions that were modified but this is not something that is uncommon throughout history.

Here is what the Catechism states on the matter: 83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

The second issue rebels conveniently ignore is the indefectibility of the church (Matt. 16:18, Luke 22:32)

Here is Catholic apologist Shawn McElhinney

The basic difference between Catholic faith and all other Christian faiths -- the belief that God preserves His Church in the truth. There isn't some vague, will-o-wisp church that pops up here, fades away and then apostacizes only to reappears over there under new management, but a specific church, founded by Christ upon Peter. We submit to this one church because God guides it into the truth. Dispense with that, and everything unravels. It's not good enough to agree with the church's doctrine. You have to believe that the God is at work in the church, leading it into all truth

I too found myself seduced by the beauty and the solemnity of the Tridentine Mass but it was being offered in "Jeroboam's Israel." The Catholic Church (for all of the problems she has today) is still Rehoboam's Judah: the only acceptable sacrifices are the ones in communion with Rome or "according to the law."

The Church's authority over us must be an active authority or it is no authority at all. The self-styled 'traditionalist' or the schismatically minded of the Indult Catholics who decides to judge the Magisterial documents for themselves and decide which they will or will not obey is no better then the "reformers" were in rejecting the authority of the Church. For that is what the self- styled 'traditionalist or the schismatically minded of the Indult Catholics do and this is beyond a shadow of doubt the way they act. You either hear the Church as you would hear Christ or you reject the Church and in doing so reject Christ (Matt. 10:40; Luke 10:16; John 13:20). There is no halfway, no 'traditionalist' attempts to weasel out of it. You obey God or you obey men (Acts 5:29). And no matter how well intentioned that most 'traditionalists' are in their positions, they are objectively no better then the Protestant who is equally well intentioned who does the exact same thing. The only difference is that our Protestant brethren are more consistent in this regard then the so-called 'traditionalists' and the schismatically minded of the Indult Catholics are."

No matter how dark it appears to get inside the church its ALWAYS much darker outside. Until next time Emerald God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

Emerald,

The Papacy is the number one advertising gimmick of the NeoCatholic.

You're disgusting Emerald. Congratulations, you've obtained the same status (in my book at least) as Jake and Ed Richards. The sad part is you're probably still claiming to be Catholic.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 29, 2003.

The "New Summer....err...Springtime"

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), June 29, 2003.

Don't ever forget this is a defense of the Faith, and don't ever let anyone jaw in your ear that it is the opposite. We live in a world that daily lives and speaks in open opposition to God and His laws. It is always the matters directly pertaining to the immutable truths dealing directly with salvation and it's source that the enemy seeks to compromise.

Look for the hidden premise, the assumed premise. The rest is a reductio ad absurdem in light of the principles of the Faith.

"But I want to try and keep this a big picture view as much as possible.

The big picture is the last four things: Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell.

"In my mind the so called “trads” are nothing but theologically inept rebels with only very facile understanding of Church history."

An assumption, which may or may not be the case.

"As Chesterton says “Pride is the falsification of fact by the introduction of self”"

Here, a hidden assumption. Left out is the premise: "traditionalist are prideful". The hidden premise here may or may not be the case.

"In my first post to you I said your concerns were nothing but hysterical alarmism which presupposes certain fears and suspicions from the outset and then interprets the proceedings accordingly."

An opinion, a speculation. This may or may not be the case.

"That is singularly unimpressive and unpersuasive."

An opinion, which may or may not be the case. Even if it were the case across the board, it would still not void the existence of the truth. The truth is not rendered non-existent for lack of available perceivers.

"I then offered you, as did many others, a sound theological argument against your concerns."

False premise: that many offered argument. Not many offered argument; see above.

Also put forth, an assumed conclusion: that the arguments were sound theological argument. This is simply posited.

"These answers have not been refuted or challenged by you."

No clear case has been set out for retutation or challenging.

"...so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness...etc"

Again, you are assuming the conclusion, and assume that the quote used actually refers to the case at hand, or the people involved, namely, traditional Catholics.

"The 'traditionalist' rebel is not to be trusted on faith matters because they are constantly erring in properly setting forth the "Catholic" position on issues."

Again, an assumption; not demonstrated, but merely posited. No case has been presented.

"Indeed they quite often have no idea what the "Catholic" position is."

Again, assumption of the conclusion. A simple postulate.

"Because of this and other reasons they cannot legitimately call themselves faithful Catholics but instead they are rebels, and as such, the term Protestant is not out of place."

Not demonstrated.

"To be a Catholic is to be in accord with Sacred Tradition which is why the phrase 'Traditional Catholic' is so offensive."

Redundancy is the better term than "offensive", which doesn't seem to relate.

And on, and on, and on it could go, kiwi. Lots of assumptions. These are old wine skins. Draw a line:

_______________

...and to the point:

There's doctrine. Proceed from there... why not? With the exception of number one below, none of the following premises can be known except by Divine Revelation. The principles of theology are divinely revealed, and more certain than any principle obtained through human reasoning (St. Thomas Aquinas). The following are some doctrines of the Faith:

1. Truth is immutable 2. We start out damned by original and actual sin 3. We cannot save ourselves 4. We deserve nothing, we merit nothing of ourselves worthy of God 5. God in His mercy has made a way of salvation available to us

Lest we contradict what God has ordained regarding the way of salvation, a person must recognize a couple things:

Among doctrines there are doctrines concerning the office of the Papacy. Also a doctrine is that the Deposit of the Faith was sealed and complete at the time of Pentacost.

Next, it is impossible for the Roman Pontiff, in an act of true infallibility (a dogmatic definition) to contradict the Deposit of the Faith.

All the arguments you have given, and all the arguments that Matt1618 has given, all of them, everywhere, from everybody, across the board, come from magisterial statements and references that have not dogmatic definitions as their source.

Because of the promise of the Holy Ghost, this will never happen by a valid pontiff.

It has not happened yet.

On the contrary, dogmatic, infallible statements of immutable truth have been rendered many, many times prior to and in opposition to the modernist's re-renderings of the ways and means of salvation.

This current pontiff clearly believes in universal salvation. Lumen Gentium clearly admits of a way of salvation outside the Church.

Neither Lumen Gentium nor any of this Pope's statements regarding a way of salvation outside of the Church has bound the Faithful in any way, shape or form: none were dogmatically defined. None. Furthermore, elements contradict known doctrine. We shrug our shoulders and keep the Faith.

While it is true that we owe allegiance to the Pontiff in certainly more than just matters of infallibility, this submission clearly does not extend to the obligation to deny existing doctrine. NOT EVEN in the name of a greater, newer, or better "interpretation" of doctrine, so called.

The end run around these articles of Faith by modernists consists of the attempt to widen the nature and extent of Papal infallibility beyond it's true scope in order to make it appear as though new understandings and new ideas bind the Faithful in obedience.

This is not the case.

Furthermore, the modernists likewise attempt to widen the scope of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church in a similiar manner. The attempt is to make it appear as if doctrine comes from the magisterium itself as it's originating source.

It does not. It never has. The magisterium's role is to safegaurd the Deposit of the Faith, which is sealed. Not to originate doctrines, and not to "interpret" that which has already been defined.

Adherence to doctrine is prior to adherence to the pontiff if and when the pontiff speaks in any way, shape or form that compromises these doctrines.

However, when he says a war is unjust, listen up.

The doctrines cannot, and will not, change.

What's more, and very important: Dogmatic definitions, by definition, do not admit of interpretation. The modernists will attempt to end run doctrines by proposing newer, better, more likely or more complete explanations.

But dogmatic definitions do not admit of interpretations.

Furthermore, any such compromise will never occur by way of any act flowing from an infallible statement of the Supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The Holy Ghost prevents this from happening.

Thinking about the "dogmatic" in the title of Lumen Gentium? Well, read the footnotes. You'll see the not only The Process in action, but the Holy Ghost opposing it; it's quite a show of force on both sides.

This, kiwi, is why they never nailed Feeney for heresy. This, kiwi, is why they never nailed Lefebre for safeguarding the Tridentine Mass.

Trumped up obedience failures.

This is why they could never find fault with either man's agenda... because their agenda was the defense of the Catholic Faith.

The keeping of the Faith whole and undefiled comes at a great price and is usually done under duress, which I personally believe is the will of God, as it reflects the Standard of the Cross. We are free to believe what we wish to believe, until the day of judgement, and after that, there's just the truth. That's all; just truth.

Truth is that the Catholic Church is the way of salvation, and this will never change because it is the New and Eternal Testament. The modernists want to break it down, and they will fail, but there will be many losses.

If you are truly worried about my soul, then pray and sacrifice for me.

On the other hand, if you truly believe in universal salvation, then why bother?

See, it always comes back to prayer and sacrifice... which directly deals not with knowledge, but the will. Most people don't want to be bothered with participating in the Mystical Body; it's not a walk in the park.

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

"You're disgusting Emerald. Congratulations, you've obtained the same status (in my book at least) as Jake and Ed Richards. The sad part is you're probably still claiming to be Catholic."

Frank, you are willfully bending what I said to mean something it did not.

Knock it off.

"The Papacy is the number one advertising gimmick of the NeoCatholic."

...meaning that they are emphasizing the Papacy over the Sacraments.

NOT that the Papacy is a gimmick.

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

Game on! Anyone can play semantics but few as good as Emerald Yes, finally he kicks into life, with something that merits more than a generalised swipe, it was lazy of me and he called me on it.

He cuts to the chase but even the most cursory glance will see errors,

"This current pontiff clearly believes in universal salvation."

prove it,

"Lumen Gentium clearly admits of a way of salvation outside the Church."

prove it,

"Furthermore, elements contradict known doctrine."

prove it

"consists of the attempt to widen the nature and extent of Papal infallibility beyond it's true scope in order to make it appear as though new understandings and new ideas bind the Faithful in obedience."

prove it

etc etc but unlike my lazy broad generalisations which are easily demonstratable and true he provides a number of clear errors and I believe lies which I will demonstrate.

He makes a number of points that are true but none that contradict anything I have said. A reply will take some time, and its very late I should be asleep, its 12.30 Monday morning Ill reply tonight after work.

Playing semantics with my generalisations wont save you... theyre all demonstrable! The immutable truth you seek then... watch this space.

>"A defence of the faith" . Not demonstrated.

An attack on the faith? Soon to be demonstrated. ;-)

See you tommorow night and God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 29, 2003.

Jake,

Thank you for calling me a manipulative jerk. As your belief is that the Catholic Church is "an abomination", it makes me very happy to know you think I'm "bad" in some fashion, as it means you don't think I'm on your "side".

What REALLY would have offended me is if you had said that we both believed the same thing!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 29, 2003.

Emerald has approached this subject with scholarly skills. Trouble he drops rich seeds, but nothing is catching on. I will try a little satire.

Once upon a time Our Lord commissioned some Apostles to go into the world to preach the Gospel to all men.

They did, and succeeded but in the process a lot of shoeleather, animals, boats , and most of all, blood was used.

Today we use a different approach. The pope gets on a plane, logs more miles than all the apostles combined, pollutes the environment, but says not a word about conversion. Why? He doesn’t have to. He just puts some ink to the paper, and voila! Everyone is now somehow a catholic. At least they all get to Heaven by being covered with this great parachute.

Miracles of the 21'at century.

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

Ed,

We have to rely on God's grace and mercy to get to Heaven, no amount of following your favorite ritual will get you there. Or is that something that your church doesn't believe in any more?

For someone

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 29, 2003.

Kiwi made a meal out of Emmyrald's pretensions. Good response, Kiwi, I think that you may have cribbed some of it; but it's wonderful material.

The pics Jake inserts in there re: his scorn for Catholics of post- Vatican II are nice. They don't relate to the Novus Ordo Missal. We see a lady in that group leading a prayer session. Big deal! Then a Consecration taking place outdoors. My reverence for the Body of Christ is undiminished. But Jake has a yen for darkened apses, marble sanctuaries. I don't oppose these either. I'm less an elitist than Jaded Jake. It's Jesus Christ Who moves me, not the congregated people.

Ed is his normal blasphemous self. A well-cultivated disrespect of not only our Holy Father, but even for Holy Orders, the sacrament. He isn't saved by Christ, he's saved by repudiating Christ's Church. He's the stereotype of everything non-Catholics disdain, the idol-worshipper and Marian fanatic. Asserting every Marian apparition's truth, or every Catholic prelate as false. Even the Pope! I guess if Ed is ever in danger of imminent demise, and a priest offers to hear his last confession, Ed shall chase him away. Such is the blindness of the unfaithful.

Ever-merciful and Holy Lord Jesus Christ; we implore Thee convert Thy children in temptation of schism and sin back into Thy Catholic fold, with our Father John Paul II, Thy Vicar and saint. Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 29, 2003.

It is not the ministry of the Vicar of Christ to be running around the streets personally trying to "convert" people. When your local bishop makes an appearance, does his homily consist of a call to become Catholic? By the Pope's teaching, and by his actions, he demonstrates to the world what being Catholic means. THAT is what makes people desire to become Catholic. Jesus said "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) The love, faith, and humility demonstrated by His Holiness to the entire world draws people into the Holy Catholic Church. This is evangelism in its purest form. Millions of people have converted to Catholicism just during the past few years, all of them drawn by the Church's holiness, truth, compassion, faith, hope, and charity, as demonstrated to the world most visibly in the teaching and the personal life of His Holiness, John Paul II.

"I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd." (John 10:16)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 29, 2003.

I trust all the popes of history...except the conciliar popes. Thats about 260 to 4. thats about 98% catholic and 2% heretic. The Novus Ordo's are just the opposite. Just the encyclical Unam Sint, contains enough heresy to condemn the concliar church.

You cannot spin V2 with V1 and Trent. They condemn ecuanism over and over again.

X X X

Non-Catholic religions are a means to salvation

Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio: “3... It follows that these separated Churches and Communities... have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation...”

John Paul II, Catechesi Tradendae: “32. It is extremely important to give a correct and fair presentation of the other Churches and ecclesial communities that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using as means of salvation.” Non-Catholic religions are not a means to salvation

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors: “Condemned proposition: 16. In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum: “...We are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin,”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “The Church alone… supplies those means of salvation.”

What more do you want? No spinning here.

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

Ed,

You miss the point completely. Other religions are never the means to salvation. Salvation is through the Holy Catholic Church alone, both for her fully united members, and even for those who are not in full union with her, like persons of other faiths who earnestly seek the truth, and those within her who pick and choose which truths they profess. Your God is too small, Ed. The real God can reach out from the Church which alone is the channel of the graces of salvation, and apply those graces to sheep of other folds, who have sincerely sought Him, but have not found Him.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 29, 2003.

I have been reading this thread and would like to question the accuracy of a couple of posts.

First of all the picture posted of the supposed Mass being said on the beach; if you right-click on the picture and click on "properties", it shows the source of the photo - the website is for an Episcopal church, not a Catholic church. One could safely assume the picture would be related to that church, so to present it as being a picure of a Catholic Mass would appear to be in error.

Secondly, I looked for the quote from the Third Council of Constantinople which was stated as follows:

If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." -- III Council of Constantinople

In looking for that quote, I did not find it as stated. This is the quote as I found it at the EWTN library:

"So now that these points have been formulated by us with all precision in every respect and with all care, we definitely state that it is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated."

If these are indeed the accurate and original words issued from that council, (and I would welcome any correction to the EWTN excerpt) the meaning is quite different from the first excerpt.

I would encourage anyone who quotes councils, Popes, encyclicals, etc. to give sources when possible - and for those who read said quotes to research sources themselves if they are not given.

-- justa lurker (lurker@hotmail.com), June 30, 2003.

Hi lurker thanks yes you are dead right with the quote. Emeralds quote was not accurate, I too had given him the correct translation upthread which he ignored. Unfortunately when pride takes over the truth becomes irrelevant.

Emerald Im real busy and out tonight but Ill get back to you with a full reply when I have a spare hour or two. Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 30, 2003.

No problem kiwi.

That's not the same section. We'll get better, or other translations, if you want. Let me see if I can do that for you.

This isn't a matter of one isolated quote taken out of context. It can be approached in an inductive way by pulling in all sorts of passages from all different time periods producing the exact same message: the inter-religious prayer deal was not allowed. Want to go that way?

Tomorrow night though for me; I'm up too late again. Get your thing together and put it up when you're ready. I Promise I won't take a period of silence as victory. Victory is not what it's about anyways; just want to know the truth, that's all.

Slap me upside the head kiwi! No quarter.

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

Eugene writes:

"The pics Jake inserts in there re: his scorn for Catholics of post- Vatican II are nice. They don't relate to the Novus Ordo Missal. We see a lady in that group leading a prayer session. Big deal! Then a Consecration taking place outdoors. My reverence for the Body of Christ is undiminished. But Jake has a yen for darkened apses, marble sanctuaries. I don't oppose these either. I'm less an elitist than Jaded Jake. It's Jesus Christ Who moves me, not the congregated people."

Eugene, don't let Jake trick you. His traditionalist spin omits the fact that this is an Episcopal (Protestant) priest.

Jake, when will you abandon your calumny? I know, it's easier for you to focus on the sins of others than your own sin. But, true Christianity requires the effort of looking at the log in one's own eye first.

Enjoy,

Lurker Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 30, 2003.

Dear Emerald, et al:
You are much more worried about this:

''This isn't a matter of one isolated quote[s] producing the exact same message: . . . the inter-religious prayer deal was not allowed.''

And seem never to worry about: ''And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.'' (John 10, 16.)

But then, why should you worry about that? The Pope has to take care of these annoying problems. He's Christ's disciple, not you.

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

I hate italics.

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

Emerald,

I don't hate you for it, as I'm sure you know I think you've fallen off the right side of the path, evidenced by your copious criticisms of the Catholic Church and absence of criticism of the excommunicated Lefebvre movement. So say on, Jeeves, in America at least, you have the right.

Frank

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

Hmmm,

If that IS an Episcopalian priest do you think Jake will apologize for attempting to defame the Catholic church?

Wondering here...

Frank

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

Thank you for calling me a manipulative jerk.

Welcome.

As your belief is that the Catholic Church is "an abomination"

Did I say that? Post the url.

What REALLY would have offended me is if you had said that we both believed the same thing!

Trust me, I know very well that we do not believe the same things.

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

Hmmm... forgot the apology

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

TRUST JAKE THE FAKE?

Look for a better teacher. Anyone else is better. Unless you're studying to become elites.

Or in Pharisee training. Ha ha ha!

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

Yeah, well look Mateo, what I see is lying.

See, it's lying when someone says this:

"by your copious criticisms of the Catholic Church"

When anybody with an ounce of honesty can clearly see that I have only criticized what I believed to be deviations from the Catholic Church.

It's also dishonest, Frank, to pick through someone's post and find a poorly expressed sentence and twist it to make it sound like I said something I had no intention of saying, or would ever have any intention of saying.

So I can't see what makes you people so different.

I perceive post-conciliar Catholics as being guilty of the same sins and tactics you level against traditionalists. I see the same arrogance there too; and gobs of self devotion. I should know; takes a sinner to know one.

Sorry Kiwi but I resign to you the full victory in the discussion we would have had. Best of results in your thirst for truth, and I mean that.

You know, Frank and Mateo, if you twist a man's words and make it look like he said something he didn't say... that the "Mass is an abomination", which you know full well what he meant to say, what do you expect? What the hell do you expect?

Besides that, if you don't forgive Jake his failings, you won't get to Heaven anyways. It's in the Lord's prayer. If you make a fool out of him, then you forfeit whatever forgiveness you need from God for yourselves.

Spray some that New Springtime scent around after you use the watercloset. It's for everyone's benefit.

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

As for the failure of ecumenism in practice:

You're witnessing it right here, right now.

And what can you do to make it work better?

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

Emerald,

How's it going? My wife and I are about to celebrate one year of marital bliss!

Anyway...you write:

"Yeah, well look Mateo, what I see is lying. See, it's lying when someone says this: "by your copious criticisms of the Catholic Church"

Emerald, I don't think this comparison is appropriate. You admit that you criticize the Catholic Church. No points against you for that. Frank, for whatever reason, has the opinion that the amount of criticism can be characterized as "copious." It's OK to disagree; but the disagreement is subjective. In contrast, Jake posted a picture of an Episcopal priest on a beach in the hopes of mocking an idea of a "Catholic Springtime." I don't know if the mistake was intentional, but it is an objective fact that the priest is not Catholic.

Further, you write:

"You know, Frank and Mateo, if you twist a man's words and make it look like he said something he didn't say... that the "Mass is an abomination", which you know full well what he meant to say, what do you expect? What the hell do you expect?"

I can't really see what this has to do with my post. Jake (either by ignorance or deceit) posted a picture with the hope of attacking the Catholic Church. I would recommend that he re-read 1 Corinthians 13 if tempted to either calumny or even gloating in the failings of a priest:

1 Cor 13: 4-7 -- "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

It's as if SSPX has twisted Ignatian spirituality into, "Calumny for the Greater Glory of God," as if their desired ends justify such uncharitable--even sinful--means.

You write:

"Besides that, if you don't forgive Jake his failings, you won't get to Heaven anyways."

Again, is this directed at me? I suppose his credibility is hurt when he posts something like this. But if he can't admit what he did was not right ("You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"), I forgive him anyway.

I tend to believe that Jake got this picture from a website that catalogs any pictures/stories to smear the Catholic Church. When seeing another Catholic's fault (a bishop, a priest, or lay person), true Ignatian spirituality should lead one to discern the correct choice to glorify God: fraternal correction in place of sarcastic vitriol or shirking the responsibility to correct.

Finally, you write:

"As for the failure of ecumenism in practice: You're witnessing it right here, right now. And what can you do to make it work better?"

Pray...a lot!

God bless you,

Lurker Mateo

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

[Try number 2--bad underline!]

Emerald,

How's it going? My wife and I are about to celebrate one year of marital bliss!

Anyway...you write:

"Yeah, well look Mateo, what I see is lying. See, it's lying when someone says this: "by your copious criticisms of the Catholic Church"

Emerald, I don't think this comparison is appropriate. You admit that you criticize the Catholic Church. No points against you for that. Frank, for whatever reason, has the opinion that the amount of criticism can be characterized as "copious." It's OK to disagree; but the disagreement is subjective. In contrast, Jake posted a picture of an Episcopal priest on a beach in the hopes of mocking an idea of a "Catholic Springtime." I don't know if the mistake was intentional, but it is an objective fact that the priest is not Catholic.

Further, you write:

"You know, Frank and Mateo, if you twist a man's words and make it look like he said something he didn't say... that the "Mass is an abomination", which you know full well what he meant to say, what do you expect? What the hell do you expect?"

I can't really see what this has to do with my post. Jake (either by ignorance or deceit) posted a picture with the hope of attacking the Catholic Church. I would recommend that he re-read 1 Corinthians 13 if tempted to either calumny or even gloating in the failings of a priest:

1 Cor 13: 4-7 -- "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

It's as if SSPX has twisted Ignatian spirituality into, "Calumny for the Greater Glory of God," as if their desired ends justify such uncharitable--even sinful--means.

You write:

"Besides that, if you don't forgive Jake his failings, you won't get to Heaven anyways."

Again, is this directed at me? I suppose his credibility is hurt when he posts something like this. But if he can't admit what he did was not right ("You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"), I forgive him anyway.

I tend to believe that Jake got this picture from a website that catalogs any pictures/stories to smear the Catholic Church. When seeing another Catholic's fault (a bishop, a priest, or lay person), true Ignatian spirituality should lead one to discern the correct choice to glorify God: fraternal correction in place of sarcastic vitriol or shirking the responsibility to correct.

Finally, you write:

"As for the failure of ecumenism in practice: You're witnessing it right here, right now. And what can you do to make it work better?"

Pray...a lot!

God bless you,

Lurker Mateo

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

"How's it going? My wife and I are about to celebrate one year of marital bliss!"

I'm very happy for you, and I've been thinking about you. I thought that I would just throttle you first and ask questions later, just to see what kind of response I would get... figuring the best results would be right at instant of long-time-no-see. And you win.

Now, I'm going to step out of the middle, lest I become the product of synthesis, and I'm going to bed. Good to hear from you.

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

true Ignatian spirituality should lead one to discern the correct choice to glorify God: fraternal correction in place of sarcastic vitriol or shirking the responsibility to correct.

Like it is in this forum, you mean? Please.

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

Its been a year Mateo! Crikey, time flies, congratulations! Ive missed you and Chris B around here, nice to see your name again.

Hi Emerald, I replied on another thread for you, hope you get a chance to provide a few comments its a bit messy I cut and pasted bits all over but youll get the gist of the argument.

See you

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

Emerald,

"by your copious criticisms of the Catholic Church"

When anybody with an ounce of honesty can clearly see that I have only criticized what I believed to be deviations from the Catholic Church.

I agree with you. The trouble is the CHURCH doesn't believe it's in error, only YOU do, and what you consider the errors of the church is the entire direction the church is going. Therefore when you criticize the "errors" you find in the church, you are in fact criticising the church. You are basically saying here, "it's not that I'm against the church, just against everything it's doing". There may be some fine distinction there, but for practical purposes, I still say your criticisms are against the church, and quite copious.

It's also dishonest, Frank, to pick through someone's post and find a poorly expressed sentence and twist it to make it sound like I said something I had no intention of saying, or would ever have any intention of saying.

Such as...

You know, Frank and Mateo, if you twist a man's words and make it look like he said something he didn't say... that the "Mass is an abomination", which you know full well what he meant to say, what do you expect? What the hell do you expect?

This is a defense? Emerald, in the mass Catholics are active participants in Christ's sacrifice for that, you're saying that Jake called this an abomination and so that's o.k.? Do you *still* believe you're a Catholic?

Besides that, if you don't forgive Jake his failings, you won't get to Heaven anyways

Well Emerald, on a personal level I do forgive him, I don't know what personal Hell led him to go the way he did, but that's between him and the Lord. OTOH, there's an aspect of continuing to perform the same hateful behaviors (such as posting his pics with the *intention* of damaging the church) which we have a duty to fight back against. This would apply to your constant efforts to undermine the church's direction as well.

Jake,

true Ignatian spirituality should lead one to discern the correct choice to glorify God: fraternal correction in place of sarcastic vitriol or shirking the responsibility to correct.

Like it is in this forum, you mean? Please

Well, if someone attacks you you either defend yourself or die. Quit attacking the church and see how friendly it gets. I tried turning the other cheek with you guys for a long time, but am human also. I'm not Christlike enough by a long shot to keep hearing you guys defaming the church over and over and just put up with it. If you quit coming here to insult the church, you have my Word that I won't follow you to some schismatic website and insult *your* church. How's that for a fair trade?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 01, 2003.

"Well, if someone attacks you you either defend yourself or die."

Well, I must have been reasonably successful in defending myself, 'cause I ain't dead yet!

I still think you're twisting my words, as happened to jake's (or was it Regina's?) words a long time ago. imho, you are allowing yourself, in that respect, to fall into the same trap that you believe the traditionalists are supposed to have fallen into. I believe this claim is demonstrable, but I also believe that people choose not to see it.

But Frank, no hard feelings. But atst, bear me out with patience and don't jump to conclusions. Kiwi, I'll be back with you soon.

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

Good response, Frank.
In any dialogue between men a certain level of friction is to be expected. Especially when one person can always be trusted to rain on the parade, attack, mock and blaspheme your most cherished love; --to me the Catholic Church.

Not the NEO-Catholic; the Church we are all members in. Even Jake. The friction doesn't come from spirited dialogue toward our goal. It comes because all we received from the start, by Jake and Ed, was unrestrained ill will.

What little deviated from the cruel went into black humor. That isn't dialogue. I've often answered in kind, I realise. Why? Because I love the Church. It hurts me to see her maligned anywhere! I love the Latin Missal as much as the Novus Ordo. And for this Jake repeatedly condescended and made his cutting remarks. Ed cut and pasted everything insulting he could find, mostly from spurious sources. Or in bowdlerized form from ancient encyclicals. Encyclicals that we all know are teaching in an extinct context. They were written to save the faithful from heretical teachers, not from her faith. These two parties had to be Pharisees.

Answering Emerald, then:

As for ''the failure of ecumenism in practice: You're witnessing it right here, right now. And what can you do to make it work better?'' -- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net------------------

Ecumenism isn't failing. Nor is this ecumenism. You're seeing here simple disagreement; and faulty dialogue. Read the remarks written just above. There's no profit in this dialogue which is one zinger after another. And in true ecumenical exchange there must always be apparent good will.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church has never compromised the true faith to win sympathy from non-Catholics. NOT EVER. She has maintained her holiness in front of all the peoples, not just preached to her own choir.

There is ample justification for this holy work. It's written plainly in John's gospel. ''And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring.'' John 10 :16.

Our Popes have this mission for the rest of human history, Emerald. To make us all one, and under One Shepherd. This is the Will of Jesus Christ. It has to come; and if we lack faith in the Holy Spirit, there can't be understanding nor unity. In almost every argument here against real ecumenism, we've pointed out the elitists' and pharisaicals' clear lack of faith. I'm now pointing out yours, to you.

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

Hi Emerald, Kiwi, et al,

I miss all of you guys. I'm trying to lay low, lurking now and then. I pray for all of you. Please keep my family and me in your prayers!

Jake,

You write:

"true Ignatian spirituality should lead one to discern the correct choice to glorify God: fraternal correction in place of sarcastic vitriol or shirking the responsibility to correct."

Like it is in this forum, you mean? Please."

You can choose to hold yourself responsible for your behavior, or you can take the relativistic stance that your lack of charity is somehow OK because someone else isn't charitable toward you.

In secular terms, the golden rule applies.

In St. Paul's terms:

Romans 12:14,16-21 -- "Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them. Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation. Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good."

This is 180 degrees from the excuse, "But he hit me first."

I suppose that this applies to many if not all of us here. But, while others attribute their own lack of charity to the hostility of others, they don't forget to admit their remorse and responsibility for their behavior.

God bless you all,

Mateo

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

Gene, there's no way for someone who reads Mortalium Animos (On Fostering Religious Unity) by Pope Puis XI and reconcile it with the current ecumenist movement.

It's just not possible.

This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

Go read the whole thing; it's short and you can get it right on the Vatican website.

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

Emerald your becoming tiresome, for the love of God man, wake up. Im struggling to hide my contempt and amazement at just how poorly you understand ANY of these documents. It pains me to say it but you're in bad way. I may be also not attending Mass every week , but I recognise it. Youre in la la land, and your posts reflect it.

Emerald downloads the selective encyclicals he thinks can prove his pet theories and proceeds to interpret the documents himself... better than the church can herself. The arrognace, the pride, the stupidity.

I havent even read the encylical...I dont have to, Emerald will have got it wrong.That much is certain. If you really want me or others here to read it and have to explain it to you we will, but youre making a fool of yourself.

ANy simpleton could see that his attempt to link the encylical with the "current ecumenist movement" is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding.

Off the top of my head perhaps the Pope was criticising the excessive infleuence of elements of "modernisn"(and rightly so) I bet, or something else certainly not the "current ecumenist movement".

Emerald doesnt even know what this movement is, he just sees the abuses that have taken place in the name of this movement. ABuses that have in the main been corrected and were never part of our faith.

Your reply on the other thread to me was even worse than your effort here. I hate to say it to an old friend but it doesnt merit a reply. You stil havent even dealt with the first issue which was your original dodgy quote. Im not wasting my time any more sorry, I tried to help you but youre not in good shape mate.

Frank expresses digust, and I can feel it too, but I feel much much more sorrow.

God Bless Emerald

-- Kiwi (csiherwood@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.

Pull yourself together and go read it again. =)

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

Im struggling to hide my contempt and amazement at just how poorly you understand ANY of these documents.

But you didn't read them, so... how would you know?

"It pains me to say it but you're in bad way."

But I'm not.

"I may be also not attending Mass every week , but I recognise it."

So, then, what good is any of this doing you anyways? lol!

"Youre in la la land, and your posts reflect it."

This may or may not be the case.

"Emerald downloads the selective encyclicals he thinks can prove his pet theories and proceeds to interpret the documents himself... better than the church can herself. The arrognace, the pride, the stupidity.

Except one minor, little detail. I didn't interpret anything... lol! I just asked you to read them. And what a reaction we get, huh? Must be hitting close to home.

"I havent even read the encylical...I dont have to"

Oops. Not a good thing to say.

"Emerald will have got it wrong. That much is certain."

Is this a postulate, or is this the product of induction, or is this a self evident principle? lol!

"If you really want me or others here to read it and have to explain it to you we will"

Oh please do...!

"but youre making a fool of yourself."

Couldn't possibly be. You haven't read it.

"ANy simpleton could see that his attempt to link the encylical with the "current ecumenist movement" is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding."

Mere postulating. How so? Explain.

"Off the top of my head perhaps the Pope was criticising the excessive infleuence of elements of "modernisn"(and rightly so) I bet, or something else certainly not the "current ecumenist movement".

I have this completely insane idea, that if you actually took the time to read it, you might find out differently. Silly me!

"Emerald doesnt even know what this movement is"

Actually, I do.

...he just sees the abuses that have taken place in the name of this movement.

Maybe, maybe not.

"ABuses that have in the main been corrected and were never part of our faith."

My point exactly.

"Your reply on the other thread to me was even worse than your effort here."

No it wasn't.

"I hate to say it to an old friend but it doesnt merit a reply."

Sure it does.

"Im not wasting my time any more sorry, I tried to help you but youre not in good shape mate."

I call your bluff. You don't like what you see, or you don't like what you think you might see, so you resort to the above nonsense.

"Frank expresses digust, and I can feel it too, but I feel much much more sorrow."

So what. Take the time to actually read it. Then, email Gecik and ask him what you ought to think. Have Gecik download his thoughts into your head. Then, come back here and post it.

Come on, man. Read the document.

God Bless Emerald

LOL! You forgot JMJ at the top of your post. You're supposed to put "jmj" at the top of the post, then write a bunch of godless filth, and then write "God Bless" at the bottom.

What's the matter with you? If you're going to do it, do it right.

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

Read it and explain it, kiwi. Seek the truth.

I call your bluff. =)

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

Yeah right.

Insanity is back crashing against my door and I dont want to open. Call me closed minded, I think its sensible. The only "bluff" youve shown me is the one youve fallen off. Carry on Emerald.

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

You can choose to hold yourself responsible for your behavior, or you can take the relativistic stance that your lack of charity is somehow OK because someone else isn't charitable toward you.

In secular terms, the golden rule applies.

Indeed, it does. I'm as guilty of being loose with my tongue as anyone else, and I obviously ned more prayer and graces to conquer this one of my plentitude of faults.

Still, there's the part of me that feels slighted in light of the fact that more than a handful of posters here spew any number and degree of filth, foul language, and virulent insults, and get hearty slaps on the back. I call Frank a "jerk", and I get beaten with the charity stick. Probably just my pride. Add it to the list of faults I mentioned above.

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

Alright, I will carry on. Thank you. We have two propositions: 1. Emerald has gone insane
2. Kiwi refuses to consider the truth.
Gee whiz. I wonder which is the more likely proposition. Choices, choices... hmmm. Shall we flip a coin? Ask Gecik? What shall we do?
Mental images evoked:
1. Emerald foaming at the mouth in his insanity
2. Kiwi actually sitting down and picking up the encyclical and starting to read it. The funny thing is kiwi, is that your accusations of mental illness is what's really far out there. When you have intellect preceding will where matters of Faith are concerned, and someone does agree with you, their... insane, right? Interesting. The others do this do. But clearly, the will precedes the intellect. You choose not to read the encyclical. You plan your Sundays accordingly.

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

The choose to follow the narrow path with jake.

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

Maybe I am insane. I meant to say, "I follow the narrow path with jake".

It's always the case that the man that is being specially cared for by God is chastised by Him for even the slightest error. It seems harsh and it seems like a crushing weight, but it effects salvation. It's "hiking the holy hill"; it's the Standard of the Cross.

Jake's situation can be found in the words of the Tridentine Mass itself, interestingly enough, and next Sunday, kiwi, while you're out doing your thing, whatever that is, I will think of these words and pray them for Jake:

Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me. Quia tu es Deus fortitudo mea: quare me repulisti, et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me inimicus? Emitte lucem tuam, et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt, et adduxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernacula tua. Et introibo ad altare Dei: ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam. Confitebor tibi in cithara Deus, Deus meus: quare tristis es anima mea, et quare conturbas me? Spera in Deo, quoniam adhuc confitebor illi: salutare vultus mei, et Deus meus.

Or in your own language:

Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy; deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man. For Thou art, God, my strength; why hast Thou cast me off? and why do I go sorrowful whilst the enemy afflicteth me? Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they have conducted me and brought me unto Thy holy hill, and into Thy tabernacles. And I will go in to the altar of God: to God Who giveth joy to my youth. To Thee, O God, my God, I will give praise upon the harp: why art thou sad, O my soul, and why dost thou disquiet me? Hope in God, for I will still give praise to Him, the salvation of my countenance and my God.

Take heart, jake.

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

Such mistreatment of the poor Pharisees. They ARE NOT the brood of vipers!!!

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

Yeah, poor Jake,

Comes to a Catholic site, starts posting things intending to try and damage the faith and then acts so *shocked* that people don't like it. (Oh and doesn't bother apologizing when the priest he's using turns out to be Episcopalian, LOL)

It's like I've said before Jake, if you'll stay at your schismatic websites you won't see me following you there to mock YOUR faith, please return the courtesy and stay away from Catholic websites with the intention of mocking mine.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 02, 2003.

Hey, Frank, Chavez...

Get off your butts and read Mortalium Animos (On Fostering Religious Unity) by Pope Puis XI.

Then come back here and reconcile it with the current ecumenist movement.

"...rack him!"

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

"Comes to a Catholic site, starts posting things intending to try and damage the faith..."

Yet another false accusation. A judgement about his intentions that you have no business making. A judgement about his intentions which, furthermore, is incorrect.

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

Emerald,
Quiet, please! I wouldn't wish to awaken the Pharisees. It's bad enough letting you ramble on & on; all we need is their steady stream of glaring blasphemies.

I'll read what I can. I've been reading since the 1940's, and that's preponderantly Catholic literature.

A ''movement'' is also debateable, BTW. It's really reached a standstill except for the more recent visits of our Holy Father to peoples of varying faiths. That is overall a wonderful thing. You must mean the Novus Ordo Missal controversy (which is a tempest in a teapot); and of that effect of the ''movement'', how could Pius XI have anticipated it? In what way is his encyclical damaging to the Novus Ordo changes? Oh; I get it. Some scrupulous Catholics have no use for it! Thanks! Movement in the direction of unity? Not Emerald!

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

Hi Jake,

You write: "I call Frank a "jerk", and I get beaten with the charity stick."

Assuming you think I'm the one with the "charity stick," this really isn't related to my post. The "sarcastic vitriol" was your attack on the Catholic Church with your post of the picture of an Episcopal priest on the beach.

You also write:

"Still, there's the part of me that feels slighted in light of the fact that more than a handful of posters here spew any number and degree of filth, foul language, and virulent insults, and get hearty slaps on the back."

I can only speak for myself. I don't recall applauding "filth, foul language, and virulent insults." If I did, you'd be more than justified to correct me. I'm trying to be a lurker, so I'm not going to post every time I see people failing in common courtesy on the Internet. Your post contained a falsehood, and I identified it. That's it!

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

Emerald, quoting Frank:

"[Frank writes] 'Comes to a Catholic site, starts posting things intending to try and damage the faith...'

[Emerald responds] Yet another false accusation. A judgement about his intentions that you have no business making. A judgement about his intentions which, furthermore, is incorrect."

Emerald, explain what your belief is. What was the purpose of Jake's "Springtime/Summertime Beach" post? When you say it's not done with the intent to damage the faith, it sounds a little like those who defend the depiction (subsidized by the US taxpayer) of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung. Hey, the artist isn't attacking our religion, it's "art."

Jake and others practice muckraking against the Catholic Church. Honestly, I don't know the intent; but I do know this pattern of behavior. As I mentioned above, websites sympathetic to SSPX have whole sections dedicated to digging up and disseminating anything to shine a bad light on the Catholic Church.

The "SeattleCatholic.com" traditionalist site has a link to the Episcopal beach party/mass picture that Jake cited. But even they admit that it is an Episcopal priest, and has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

You claim Frank made a false accusation. I think his conclusion (that muckracking is used to damage its target) is just common sense. But, I've got an open mind if you or Jake would like to explain the intent of the muckraking posts. In the end, it is up to Jake to either hide or reveal the intent of his behavior. He has already mentioned that he derives pleasure when he mocks the Catholic Church and when he "gets a rise" out of others. I hope he has other reasons besides what seems to be mild sadism.

I agree that intent is really the issue. Important questions for each personal decision/action/statement are:

1) Is the intent to glorify Our Father in Heaven?

2) Will the result glorify Our Father in Heaven?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

It's like I've said before Jake, if you'll stay at your schismatic websites you won't see me following you there to mock YOUR faith, please return the courtesy and stay away from Catholic websites with the intention of mocking mine.

I would gladly honor your request, Frank, but I don't visit any schismatic websites, with the only possible exception being this one.

My purpose here is not to mock the Cathlic Faith, but to illustrate the absurdities of its new fashioned substitute, the Novus Ordo Missae, and to demonstrate how it is a danger to the Faith,a failed experiment, and a huge detriment to salvation.

I apologize for calling you a jerk.

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

You are now committing slander and blasphemy. Jake; will you ever learn? You aren't a Pope. Not by any stretch of imagination. You apologise for one affront and send more of them. Thank God your ill-will is transparent, and no one is fooled by your moralizing.

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

Gene:

Part of this road to Tradition (abandonment of the Novus Ordo religion in favor of the Catholic Faith) has been my own realization of my status as an insignificant worm and a faithless sinner. As you start out on that narrow road, there are a great any obstacles, the first of which is usually ridicule from family & friends; some simply ignorant and some openly hostile. They remind you, at every opportunity, just how much of an insignificant worm you are, and at first that's a hard thing to swallow, particulary when those sentiments come from parents, prests, etc.

But then a little further down the road, you start to realize that there's a lot of grace in being thought of and spoken about as a worm, being considered so insignificant that it would not have made one iota of difference for pourposes of the world had you never even existed. It's the realization that being a Catholic means to suffer. Smiley-face Catholicism is not the real thing. There's no more time for all the Novus Ordo onsense. People have to take up their crosses. There's no other way to heaven. None.

When you can embrace that sort of thing, smile through it and thank God for it, you are probably on the right track. When you not only accept your physical, financial, and spirital sufferings, but you weep tears of gratitude for them, there's something powerful in that. My steps along the narrow road are shaky, and I sometimes fall. I am by no means worthy of salvation, but I hope to obtain it throught the merits of Jesus Christ. The smallest amount of suffering gladly offered to the Most High has tremendous value.

More later.

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

Suffering as a direct result of doing what is right can be offered to the Most High. Suffering as a result of denigrating His personal Vicar and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot reap any spiritual benefit.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.

Jake:
''(abandonment of the Novus Ordo religion in favor of the Catholic Faith)''

IS a figment of your imagination. You can't abandon the Church over her Mass, you did not take a road to Tradition. We are NOT a ''Novus Ordo religion'' Nor has the Novus Ordo rite escaped or deviated out of Tradition. --There is no Neo nor Trad Church. Christ founded ONE Church, and we're all in communion with Him IN her, both the faithful of my Church and the NON- schismatical faithful of the Mass of Trent. There is no breach, nor will there ever be.

You are presuming to guard the Church from ''error'', by disdain of her Holy Rite in the Novus Missal. This is the sin of blasphemy. You are injuring the Body of Christ by your scruples.

Jesus says we are to be known as His people by our love for one another. I have undying love for you in the Church. You have allowed love to dry up in your heart; in a preference for the Latin Missal over the New One. To you, we are as the ''rabble'' whom the Pharisees hated (John 7:49). You have no love for the members who worship Jesus (quite religiously, thank you) in every Cathoic parish. You are a divider. Worse, an elitist divider. Don't be a blasphemer in the bargain.

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

Jake,

I would gladly honor your request, Frank, but I don't visit any schismatic websites, with the only possible exception being this one.

Out of curiosity, what website did you get those pics from, assuming you didn't go to the Episcopalian church's website to get them? Any SSPX website is IMO a de facto schismatic website. Oh and thanks for posting that Episcopalian's website BTW, there's a St. Anthony's (I think it was) right up the street from there in Hermosa Beach that I went to mass on Christmas once, when I was out visiting. Seeing the address brought back some memories.

And thank you, but no need to appologize for your name calling, I've done the same, probably more so in *intent* at least, and probably in letter too, and it's just one of those failings some of us are afflicted with. I'd much MORE rather have you apologize to the church for trying to defame her.

My purpose here is not to mock the Cathlic Faith, but to illustrate the absurdities of its new fashioned substitute, the Novus Ordo Missae

By posting pictures of an Episcopalian priest? Again, this is a REAL mass, and saying it's a *substitute* for the Catholic faith is offensive and untrue. I know you know this, which makes it MORE offensive.

It's the realization that being a Catholic means to suffer. Smiley- face Catholicism is not the real thing. There's no more time for all the Novus Ordo onsense.

All it means is you found a mass that appeals to you personally. It's no better or worse, objectively, unless you can show me how the body of Christ is present in one and not the other. (I don't really want you to try, btw, I'd hate to see your effort (( you too Emerald!))) I think I've said this a few thousand times before, but my wife and I prefer different masses, I the tridentine, her the Novus. Which of us is the better Catholic? Knowing us both, I'd say she is. Since going to one mass doesn't make a person "good" or "bad", you're wasting your time insulting the church!

Emerald,

"Comes to a Catholic site, starts posting things intending to try and damage the faith..."

Yet another false accusation. A judgement about his intentions that you have no business making

Emerald,

Try as I might I can't think of any other reason he posted these. What totally unrelated motive do YOU feel he had when posting them?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 02, 2003.

Suffering as a direct result of doing what is right can be offered to the Most High. Suffering as a result of denigrating His personal Vicar and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot reap any spiritual benefit.

In typical Neo fashion, you totally missed the point.

I mean.

Wow.

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

Jake's last post about suffereing and the narrow path was the greatest outpouring of pure, unadulterated TRUTH that I have EVER seen on this forum.

That IS the essence of Catholicism.

Shame on the rest of you.

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

"What totally unrelated motive do YOU feel he had when posting them?"

It's a lonely and painful experience to really pursue the Faith; it hurts. It rips you painfully from out of the world and the world's ways.

It's natural to seek some companionship along the journey, but it is hard to find like-mindedness any more, because so many Catholics in the world are OF the world itself and offer no real companionship. People like you people.

But sometimes people try anyways. Other times, it's to try to offer the pearl of great price you've discovered, in good faith, to help people to learn the things that you've learned and experienced... but then you find out that they just don't get it. But you try anyways. It's a lot like trying to win back a lost love anymore; and you know how people act when they are frustrated with failure in that regard.

You people are like the lost love with a hardened heart. Ecumenistically speaking, you say "let's just be friends", but that isn't good enough for us. Canticle of Canticles.

You people are also like the crowds of Palm Sunday, cheering Christ from the roadsides. The following Sunday, the killed him. They accused HIM of blasphemy, too. He said, if they did it to me, they'll do it to you too, and so you soak it in as much as possible and try not to get angry or let it affect you.

Contrary to what Paul says, I claim that this suffering is in fact an acceptable sacrifice worthy of being received before the throne of God, profitable for salvation and the salvation of others.

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

Hmmm he carried on alright... thanks Emerald but "remain focussed"...

Ive read the document as you asked. A very good document at that. And as I said...

There is no problem, no contradiction, no conflict with anything the Church has taught before or since. As such it does not need to be reconciled with the "current ecumenist movement".

IT IS RECONCILED!!!!!!!

Yet you claim...

"there's no way for someone who reads Mortalium Animos (On Fostering Religious Unity) by Pope Puis XI and reconcile it with the current ecumenist movement....It's just not possible."

It is reconciled. Your poor comprehension skills and lack of understand are the only things preculding you appreciating this. If my putting it bluntly to you unthread hurt your feelings I make no apologies. Its the truth and you want the truth...dont you?

You need to explain why its not as you put it "possible", preferably with the backing of a respected Catholic theologian. Or if it is as I suspect just a poor comprehension issue please explain what words you’re having difficulty with. Someone will help you I hope. Im too busy these days and I dont think its worthwhile

Ps Mateo agreed intent is important but the following is food for thought

The Holy Office: “Let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith…Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them applies without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation. “

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

There is no problem, no contradiction, no conflict with anything the Church has taught before or since. As such it does not need to be reconciled with the "current ecumenist movement".

Uhh... it's... reconciled? Fiat style? How so? A layout of reasonings would help. Although the Fiat argument you provide does seem rather efficient... very nice. Saves electrons.

Consider this from the document:

"This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?"

Ouch.

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

The necessity of union with the See of Peter is all over the place, at all times, and powerfully stated, and stated Ex Cathedra.

You think I don't know this? Hello! Geez, put your thinking caps on. Duh.

Do you think this is lost on jake? Or maybe there's more to his situation than meets the eye. Maybe it's beyond your capabilities to call him in schism, and in fact, I claim that it is, based upon all the forum's collected limited knowledge and lack of willingness to gain any understanding of the difficulty whatsoever.

Rome has clearly spoken that it is not a schismatic act to attend an SSPX mass. Attending such a Mass does not put jake in schism, as you people claim so blindly repeated over again. What it does prove is that you guys don't know what you are talking about.

Leave jake the job of making sure that he is in communion with Rome. He knows what's at stake; he knows what the objective is; he knows what he is striving for; he knows that if he asks his Blessed Mother for assistance in salvation he'll get it.

His own efforts to strive for truth within the sanctuary of his family are far finer than all your boisterous, blathering excretions and bone finger-pointing about schism and whatnot. If he deems it necessary to come in here and rattle the tree a little... what of it? You're big boys, so I hear. You can handle it.

If you really care, leave him alone and pray for him, and sacrifice for his soul. In doing so, you might all actually obtain salvation for your own selves. Talk about elitism... while many are dancing and singing and soaking up the sunshine, others are actually doing the dirty work of finding their way back to God, and attempting to seek out their salvation in fear and trembling.

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

Another 75,000 word anthology from the emerald city.

And:

''Jake's last post about suffereing and the narrow path was the greatest outpouring of pure, unadulterated TRUTH that I have EVER seen on this forum. That IS the essence of Catholicism.
Shame on the rest of you.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 02, 2003. --

You are easily impressed I see. It is kind of an ''outpouring'', I'll admit. Stale beer? need some Pe-pto Bizmool?

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

. . . . .

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

Yawwwwn, Against my better judgement....

What Pius XI is talking about is indifferentism in ecumenism.This quote while not a blatant lie like his first one from the Council, but it is taken out of context.

If we look at the preceeding passages we see Pius refers to ecumenism where phrases such as "common basis of the spiritual life," and "all without distinction . . . "I believe the Popes thoughts were prefaced by the remarks above, which refer to indifferentism But Catholic ecumenism is very different to this.

Ho hum indeed Gene.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.

Emerald,

Have you noticed your buddy didn't apologize for the "episcopalian" incident? Does that change your ideas of his motives?

Oh, and if you are going to reply, give the condensed version. I must admit I've skipped your last posts after the first paragraph or so, too much fluff.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 03, 2003.

Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint:

"Dialogue is not simply and exchange of ideas. In some ways it is always an "exchange of gifts". For this reason, the Council's Decree on Ecumenism also emphasizes the importance of "every effort to eliminate words, judgements, and actions which do not repond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fariness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult."

Eugene: "It is kind of an ''outpouring'', I'll admit. Stale beer? need some Pe-pto Bizmool?"

Wooops.

Kiwi... Did you read Ut Unum Sint? Maybe you should read to the two so that you can accurately compare them.

The ho hum thing... try to do better. Look into what the Pope has said about universal salvation, and suddenly, the whole picture then begins to change into exactly what you are talking about: indifferentism.

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

Ho hum.

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

Hey, I like that. That bears repeating, wouldn't you say, Frank?

Pope John Paul II:

"Dialogue is not simply and exchange of ideas. In some ways it is always an "exchange of gifts". For this reason, the Council's Decree on Ecumenism also emphasizes the importance of "every effort to eliminate words, judgements, and actions which do not repond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult."

Assuming, that is, that the subjects in question are really separated or not.

But if they are, that's ok, right? Because there's this "mysterious relationship" whereby those outside the fold can be saved. Can you see where this is going?

Probably not. Kiwi, give Frank a "ho-hum" free pass ticket. It might come in handy for him.

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

Kiwi reckons:

"What Pius XI is talking about is indifferentism in ecumenism. This quote while not a blatant lie like his first one from the Council, but it is taken out of context."

The entire context lends itself to the position that what is expressed in this document is diametrically opposed to what we witness as "ecumenism".

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

Where's the six-fingered man? Someone go get the six-fingered man.

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

>Kiwi... Did you read Ut Unum Sint? Maybe you should read to the two so that you can accurately compare them.

No I will do so thankyou. As I said rather more emotionally Im going to leave you to it. God Bless

BTW here is one persons view of the comparison you speak of I ask you read it. (From Matt1618)

"The problem that self-styled 'traditionalists' have is that they do not read documents very carefully before they formulate their objections. The reason the SSPX and other so-called 'traditionalists' make such egregious blunders as we are delving into right now is because they do not consider the difference between the policies outlined in the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio and their usual blueprint for ecumenical approach: Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos. The two magisterial documents were written in different time periods, under different assumptions, and with different aims. Mortalium Animos was written specifically to address a method of ecumenism that sought reunion at the expense of truth.

As Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos §5 after giving a brief description of the kinds of meetings these groups undertook and the principles that governed them:

We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians. [15]

The key error that underpins all of the encyclical's condemnations is highlighted above. Pope Pius XI would go on to expound in some detail on that theme but before touching on that it is important to consider what Vatican II sought to do that differed dramatically from what Pope Pius XI did.

For one thing, Pope Pius XI took at face value the term "ecumenism" as used by the Pan-Christians. Vatican II by contrast took the term "ecumenical movement" and defined it in a Catholic context as " the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity" (UR §4).

The Council also made it unmistakably clear that authentic ecumenism aimed at overcoming the obstacles to ecclesiastical communion so that "all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning" (UR §4). And rather than a movement that was seeking a non-existent unity, the Council declared in the same Decree that "[t]his unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time" (UR §4).

So in short, Vatican II (VC II) defined the term "ecumenism" and outlined an acceptable policy for Catholics to follow in this endeavour: embracing what was good in the previous errors while reaffirming what was condemned. The core doctrinal teaching of Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos (MA) - that reunion cannot come at the expense of truth - was reaffirmed in the Decree.

The Second Vatican Council marked a definitive turning point in the realm of ecumenism wherein the Catholic Church "committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture" (Ut Unum Sint §3) and outlined the principles that would guide her in directly involving herself in the ecumenical movement. Pope Pius XI did not set any sort of policy but was instead aiming to condemn certain errors at the heart of the Pan Christian movement for unity. The core error of course was indifferentism - an error that Unitatis Redintegratio declared was "foreign to the spirit of ecumenism" (UR §11). However, Unitatis Redintegratio sought to formulate an active policy for working towards Christian unity. By contrast, Mortalium Animos took the approach of reiterating the same "come back to Rome" speech which is hardly an approach that had any hope of working as long as every jot and title of orthopraxy was treated as immutable.

-- Kiwi (csiherwood@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.

Kiwi, I do confess, I really like you, man. I really do. I even like Gecik. lol!

I just had to say that.

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

I've been long aware of Matt16:18, and have been toying with the idea of actually taking his work and responding to it line by line and putting it on a static website.

But that would be quite an undertaking, simply because to the sheer volume of it.

But why? Because if I did it, I would actually be able to claim some semblence of being a true apologist.

That's being an apologist though, for what it's worth. What's more to the point, what's more to the essence, what's more urgent:

The Sacraments, prayer and sacrifice.

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

I don't see the problem in the Ut Unum Sint quote, Emerald. To quote our favorite movie "I don't think that means what you think it means".

It's one thing to seek ways to NOT offend (so as to better evangelize) and other entirely to so water-down your language so as to become indifferent. You err by failing to see the difference.

Similarity is not identity.

Some people decide to go in guns blazing: "First of all you damned Protestants you must obey the Pope of Rome who is right!" probably won't convince or win any converts as much as another approach...

But then, those who are confident in their faith and cause don't loose their temper or get defensive. They can afford to change emphasis and see what the weaker brother needs.

If your protestant cousin has this "thing about Mary" your approach should probably be to focus on Christ and then later work things around to honoring his mother!

If your protestant cousin has this thing about church authority, your approach should probably be to focus on holiness - in the lives of the saints, the martyrs, the fathers.... to dispell any misconceptions... giving people reasons but also assurances to believe in authority, not because of overwhelming force, or arbitrariness but in relation to the love of Jesus who sent us apostles....

IOW, rather than pick a fight, there are ways to "dialogue" which can lead to charity, practical cooperation, human relationships, friendships...the first and essential stages for conversion. (Except in those exceptionally rational people who can be converted after losing an intellectual debate.) Now, I may be one of those types of people - but that doesn't mean most people are. Most people need friendship, and charity, and patience, and "dialogue" to let go of their prejudices, bigotries, fears, and irrational worries...

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), July 03, 2003.

Joe,

I appreciate your sentiments, there's just one problem:

The modernist ecumenical movement as championed by Pope John Paul II has absolutely nothing to do with conversion to Roman Catholicism.

Absolutely.

Nothing.

Not. One. Thing.

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

Oh really? Then how do you explain all the Protestant ministers and others converting to Catholicism every year? In my parish alone we had a dozen adult converts last year! Most referenced Pope John Paul II, his example and teaching as a key element to their conversion.

You also betray an embarrassingly myopic "catholicism" by supposing that the "Church" is only existent in North America and Europe. I have been in Mexico and Central America, and have friends in Asia - all places where the Church is GROWING despite poverty, repression, lack of many things we take for granted... and in these regions the priests and bishops and laity by and large love JPII and his magisterium.

Fact is, the Church LOST lots of "faithful" in the so-called "good old pre-vatican II days in NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 03, 2003.

Emerald:

Your last statement is sound and Catholic:
''That's being an apologist though, for what it's worth. What's more to the point, what's more to the essence, what's more urgent'':

The Sacraments, prayer and sacrifice.

Nothing to debate. You just left out a fourth urgency. The Truth.

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

Joe,

I once spoke to a Nigerian priest/canon lawyer. He was visiting a friend whom we both knew. my friend, the God father of my son, mentioned to this African priest my situation(described in the other thread you and I are currently on). This priest asked me how this all could be, as such a thing could never happen in Nigeria, where he was trained.

I told him to go back to Nigeria and bring the whole seminary class when they graduate but tell them NOT NOT NOT to absorb American culture or listen to American Canon lawyers. The American culture has already consumed most of our priests. We are a missionary country. God please send us priests like this man.

He said he knew what challenges faced the Church in the US.

But Joe, it is far worse in the time after VaticanII, than before. Really.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.