Mel Gibson's Passiongreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
As we know, no movie could ever portray the real horror of the pain suffered by our lord for us. From the early scholars and saints, we know that the suffering was beyond explanation. Now, Giboson is trying his best to accurately protray the pains he suffered. People who protest are saying that it would create anti-semetic feelings around the world. I don't understand why. There are people including his disciples who shed tears and tried hard to bring his word to us. How and why would we, who had the privilage to be his childern, turn against God's chosen? Whether they have no accepted him or not, they are God's chosen and they will always have that respect. Indeed it was his word that he would not return again until his chosen would accept him. Now, if the movie would spark hate feelings against him, those who feel the hatred would either be brainless, or idiots. Real catholics would never feel any hatred for them anyway.So what is wrong with trying to accurately portray his pains? We are afraid/reluctant to see his suffering because it is horrible, and we are busy with other important things. The argument about arousing anti-semetic feeling is just an excuse. It is for the same reason why no one would portray the realistic bombing of hiroshima, the crusade which hurt the christians and muslims etc. We do not want to see any of that because they are horrible, where pains we cannot imagine in our mind. So we make up excuses while being busy with other things. The pain of christ is inexplicable. It would be a good thing if we could know about a little of the pain he suffered.
Gibson has done a nice job, holding on to his belief and not "toning down" anything, and by holding on to his faith. It is very admirable, especially because he is a western movie star who is a devouted catholic. It is obvious that the rest of the world turn against him gathering whatever they could find, because as God said, the world hated him, so they defenitely would hate us.
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), August 29, 2003
-- (top@top.top), August 30, 2003.
This movie is a God send. People all over the world at one point in their lives have heard or read about Jesus. Jesus is the one person in history to make the biggest impact on the world, even today. Why shouldn't there exist a movie that depicts so accurately what happened to Him?Today movies depict all sorts of facts, fictions, myths, legends, and fantasies without any or almost no outcry from the public. Many are so graphic and violent that they make lasting impressions on our minds. Yet no one protests. Instead, throngs of people go to see these kinds of movies and the more real the director's can make the scenes to experience, all the better. The more violence the better. The more blood, the better. If all sorts of movies about the Holocaust can be made and viewed without protest, which in fact win awards, why can't this movie about one Jew be shown?
Nobody protested when these Holocaust movies were made depicting the Germans as murderers, which they were. It was the truth and nobody protested that. What about the German-Americans living in the US when they were released? Nobody cared whether these movies would fuel hate against them. They didn't even care. It was the awful truth being depicted. It was a part of the past and they knew it and didn't protest it.
Well, now another awful truth is being depicted about just one Jew and his murder. Why can't these protesters see that the truth is that Jesus' followers today know that if the Jews of Jesus' time hadn't had that hate for Him, Jesus would have never been able to suffer and die for the salvation of the world? This is what it was all about. It was a good thing for everyone.
The God send is that now with today's movie advances, people can really get to see what Christ went through and how horrific it was. No pretty pictures, no teardrop size blood drops flowing down a mildly sweating face. No, this is the real thing. Blood gushing from all parts of the Man. Everywhere, getting on everything. A blood soaked Man. A brutal murder that made a difference in this world. This is the one time in history that people will get to see the real truth about the way Jesus was brutalized. No holes barred. If we were there, this is how it would have been. For Christians, it is what we need to see. Through this movie we can really see the pain caused to the One who gave His life for the world. The actual Blood being shed and spilled for our sake. With no holes barred, no mercy being shown, just as it happened.
I don't think this movie will fuel anti-semitism, but what I think it will fuel is repentance. That's always a good thing.
-- Tina Zerbo (tinazerbo@yahoo.com), September 05, 2003.
Mel Gibson is a Traditionalist and a sedevacantist. If you go see the movie, you will be helping to build a chapel in California where only the Latin Mass is said, without the permission of the local Bishop.
-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 05, 2003.
This is the confusing part. I have never heard of traditional/non traditional catholics. So far, I never saw any division among catholics, but has that happened now? I have no idea who traditionalists are and who the others are. Is this a regional issue? We are catholics, and there are no divisions among us. There should never be.
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 07, 2003.
abraham,there is and has been a split in the church, since the 1960's actually. a schismatic group called the SSPX refuses to recognize teh new mass as being equally valid to the old latin rite. they claim that the vatican II council was under demonic and/or protestant influence, and that while they pay lip service to the pope, they claim that changing the form of the mass is outside his jurisdiction... in other words, when it comes to something they dont want to believe in, they parse the words of the pope and the magisterium to their own needs. not surprising though, because by their own actions they cut themselves from the church into a protestant sect that tricks itself into believing it is still catholic.
-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 07, 2003.
While I agree with your description of so-called "traditionalist" schismatics, I don't agree that the presence of such a small splinter faction constitutes "a split in the Church". There are many small special interest groups claiming to know more than the Magisterium concerning the teaching of the Church. None of these have split the Church. They have simply wandered away from the Church. Orthodoxy represents a split in the Church. Traditionalism, thank God, does not.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 07, 2003.
Hey paul, parse this:From the Bull of Pope St. Pius V:
Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See's institution and confirmation of the Church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity. We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.
Your explanation of the above, paul, would be most helpful.
I have found that in order to achieve being as closed-minded as I am, that having an open mind has been indispensable.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.
...for little paul, that is.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.
If these people believe the authority of the pope, the follower of Peter, how could they doubt his words? If they know that God is the head of the church how could they think that his words are to be doubted? I think they are no different than the heretics in that way. How could they still claim to be catholics if they doubt the pope and the catholic teachings? How could they think that the 2nd vatican council was under demonic/protestant influence? Don't they know that God guides this church and it is infallable? This just seems so silly. Either they are mentally disturbed or they are total heretics. Maybe they should say that all masses should be said in aramaic/syriac like in the old times. Who knows what else they are going to think of? I strongly doubt that it is them who are under demonic influence. It seems like they are so determined to split apart the church. If they do this opposition openly, doesnt the church have the authority to "maharon" (dont know the english word) them?
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 07, 2003.
Maharon them for what?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.
What I was saying was that, if they openly revolt against the church and the pope, there are obviously not catholics anymore. They should be in the "fallen" category. I think the word for "Maharon" is excommunication from what I have read. When they realize their mistakes and wish to be catholics, they could be re-communicated from what I know. I don't want this to happen unless things are that extreme, but I was asking whether the church could(should) do this or not.
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 07, 2003.
"What I was saying was that, if they openly revolt against the church and the pope..."Who?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.
So, paul, are you going to see it?
-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 07, 2003.
*sigh*, . "daily catholic" and "true catholic", websites I know you both are very familar with run forums of sorts I believe, youd be well served taking your unfortunate questions to those who delight in providing the answers you want to hear. Moderator tougher action is needed in regard to those who are intentionally trying to undermine the Church while posing as Catholics, they have shown no indication of wanting to return to the faith, or learn from their errors. Wolves in sheeps clothing indeed.This bull is a liturgical directive. These directives are human laws about how to do things, not definitions of faith and morals. As such, liturgical directives are not protected by the Holy Spirit in the same way that definitions of Faith are.
-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.
for those wanting to read more on the Bull heres a good articlehttp://www.petersnet.net/browse/3536.htm
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.
All I did was post what the Bull says.I drew no conclusions.
Your assumptions about my conclusions belong solely to you.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
"As such, liturgical directives are not protected by the Holy Spirit in the same way that definitions of Faith are."Alright, now you've got a severe problem on your hands.
You've just admitted that the Second Vatican Council was not guided by the Holy Spirit in the same way as matters of Faith are. Is this the second time in a year this has happened? Deja Vu, if I'm not mistaken.
Here's how: You claim that it's the definitions of Faith that are protected by the Holy Spirit, not liturgical directives. But... but Vatican II did not make any definitions Faith. No defining of dogma occurred at Vatican II. You did read Vatican, right? Nothing was defined regarding the Faith at Vatican II. It was not a Dogmatic Council; it was an Ecumenical Council.
Nothing was defined. According to you then, this would place it outside of those things protected by the Holy Spirit.
Explain?
paul, your explanation of the Bull of Pius V?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
despite the fact that i am currently helping you to destroy yet another thread that has nothing at all to do with the subject this thread was started under, i will humor you in your quotations. why? i dont know, because i know that you are wrong... and i think that deep down in your heart you know it too, but your mind pulls you on this schismatic twist that threatens to pull you away from the grace of God. so here goes...Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us;
us being who? you and the other SSPX'ers? or us being the MAGISTERIUM? if i recall the GIRM is put out to be followed by all the churches as prescribed in the quote you have used. us is not gone, the magisterium did not end with pope pius V as you so like to believe it did... instead it lives on to ensure that GIRM may be updated to suit the needs of God.
We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.
there are several things you should note here. first, this refers to the priests and bishops of the church, not of the magisterium itself. im sure that pius V did not state that the magisterium and apostolic succession would end with him and that dogmatic interpretation would not be around any longer. second, note the use of words: no ADDING, no OMMITING, and no ALTERING. however one word is not used. that word is REPLACED. the new GIRM written by the MAGISTERIUM (which is still under Gods influence no matter how you think otherwise) has not ommitted or altered, added or the like, it has taken the place of.
let me ask you this... what if GOD came to you and told you that the new GIRM was acceptable, and that pius V was wrong to make that statement, or (more likely) your untrained interpretation of pius' works was wrong? would you believe God over your beloved lefavbre? if you would believe God then why cant you trust the magisterium, which is influenced by the Holy Spirit?
-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 08, 2003.
"you and the other SSPX'ers?"I'm not an SSPXer.
Before you continue, please note that all I did was post the passage from the Bull of Pius V without drawing any conclusion of my own whatsoever.
I want to make sure you recognize that.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
You're a prophet, but with a twist:"...in other words, when it comes to something they dont want to believe in, they parse the words of the pope and the magisterium to their own needs."
You mean, like this?
"second, note the use of words: no ADDING, no OMMITING, and no ALTERING. however one word is not used. that word is REPLACED."
By all means, please continue.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
i dont need to continue, emerald. i honestly dont think that pius meant to state that apostolic succession and the magisterium died with him, as you would apparently like us to believe.
-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 08, 2003.
and furthermore, your implied interpretation of such is completely unqualified, and it goes directly against the acts of the magisterium in replacing the former GIRM with the new rite of mass, meaning you too have just pointed to the fact that you are only paying lip service when you claim loyalty to the church and the magisterium. do you think they arent aware of the bull of pius V? perhaps they are more qualified than you to know EXACTLY what it means and not some personal interpretation.by the way, you still never answered my question of if God told you lefabvre was wrong who you would side with...
-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 08, 2003.
ABraham apologies my friend for this ruckus but our poor mate Emerald is in a bad, bad way. He doesn’t even realise just how arrogant and faith-damaging his behaviour is towards the Church. He’s a man in denial. SO deluded has he become, that the harmful implications of his unfortunate presuppositions completely and utterly escape him.
>>>All I did was post what the Bull says. >>>I drew no conclusions. >>>Your assumptions about my conclusions belong solely to you.
Indeed but they’re based on my experience of you continually posting documents identical to the favourite documents used by anti Catholic bigots all over the web. Of all the millions of pages of documents from 2000 years you manage to find only the passages contained on the web-sites of simpletons and enthusiastically pass them off as evidence for contradictions to support your delusions. Over and over again, some ancient passages from you have even contained alterations to suit your causes. It doesn’t get any more Protestant than that! Tragic.
I wish it was a bad joke but that’s the sorry reality you’re living. I’m afraid everything in life I take on previous experience and in terms of your intentions in regard to this document I am no different. For the love of God wake up Emerald, I love you bud but well its getting tougher not to become a little condescending.
The fact you hide your real intentions is IMO a discredit to you, a man I thought had more integrity and courage. Something as obviously devious, dishonest and deliberate as you efforts on this thread and many many others does nothing to serve him.
I have no intention of turning this thread into another "reconcile this" session on this thread. Against my better judgement Ill take up ANY issues you , Jake, Isabel and Regina etc have with Vatican II on another thread as long as you title it “Selective Traditionalism: A case study of Modernism in Action” . That way we can confine most of the garbage on this forum on one thread stopping threads being spoiled, souls mislead. The incentive for you all is to prevent your collective shortcomings from being exposed all over the forum.
>>>>>Alright, now you've got a severe problem on your hands.
"severe problem" I love it. :)
>>>>You've just admitted that the Second Vatican Council was not guided by the Holy Spirit in the same way as matters of Faith are.
Nope.
>>>>> Is this the second time in a year this has happened? Deja Vu, if I'm not mistaken.
Sorry you were mistaken.
>>>>>Here's how:
This will be good ;-)
>>>>You claim that it's the definitions of Faith that are protected by the Holy Spirit, not liturgical directives.
Nope sorry didnt say that either. Try reading what I said again especially the words in bold.
“liturgical directives are not protected by the Holy Spirit in the same way that definitions of Faith are.”
>>>>>>>>>>But... but Vatican II did not make any definitions Faith. No defining of dogma occurred at Vatican II. You did read Vatican, right? Nothing was defined regarding the Faith at Vatican II. It was not a Dogmatic Council; it was an Ecumenical Council.
Yes well, you haven’t even got this completely right but anyway your point is what?
>>>>>>Nothing was defined. According to you then, this would place it outside of those things protected by the Holy Spirit.
Ohhhhh I get you. Pathetic on every count. pastoral" vs. "dogmatic" council distinction is a bunch of garbage as I have outlined to you many times before. Those two words are descriptive, not definitive. Whatever Vatican II taught authoritatively, Catholics are bound to hold. Period. Theoretically they may err in rare cases, yet as a Catholic, you are obliged to accept their teaching. It is not for you to judge. They judge themselves. We are Catholics, not Protestant.
Im really staggered, though from previous discussions with you on these issues I should not be surprised. I gave you far too much credit. IMHO your attempts to link this Bull with the Councils authoritative teaching shows just how shallow your understanding is of infallibility, theological grades, papal authority, hierarchy of truths, the role and position of Ecumenical Council and the varying levels of the Church’s teachings.
The Bull was a disciplinary teaching which should have told you something. Secondly you didn’t even note how binding this policy was. His words make it clear he attended to bind the Church to this policy until it was changed by a competent (ie papal) authority or “in perpetuity” if it was never changed.
From Mirus
“The point, ultimately, is that the Church is governed by a living authority, and all appeals to Scripture, tradition, emotional attachment or personal preference (however sound and certain these appeals appear to those who make them) must ultimately bow to that living authority or cease to be Catholic.”
Just to check .Do you fully accept all post Vatican II clarifications on salvation and ecumenism ? Yes or No will suffice.
No hard feelings I hope.God Bless you and your family
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.
So, paul,Are you going to go and "The Passion" when it comes out?
Anyone else going to see it?
-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 08, 2003.
Of course no hard feelings, Kiwi. Don't ever give that a second thought. Talk to you soon; I have to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
This is all too confusing for me. The 2nd vatican counsil was faulty? That's either a joke or heresy. God is either crying at the silly problems created by his childern, or laughing at their stupidity. To accuse the church authority of fault is to accuse the head of the church, God himself, of being faulty.
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 08, 2003.
To accuse the church authority of fault is to accuse the head of the church, God himself, of being faulty.By that analogy, you are giving mere men the perfection of God. Dangerous place to be in.
-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 08, 2003.
Oh no you misunderstood me. We all know that God himself is the supreme head of the church, guiding it so that the gates of hell will never prevail against it. When the church authorities make important decisions, especially the counsils, God guides them and gives them the wisdom. Isn't then, to accuse the cousil of being faulty, to accuse God himself of being faulty? The 2nd vatican counsil officially declared the immaculateness of St Mary, and ascension and many other important things. The counsil itself is mentioned in "officially" recognized apparitions like the one in Lourdes, to St Bernadette.We all know what happened to Martin Luther, after he thought he was righteous when he moved against the church.
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 08, 2003.
trying to undermine the Church while posing as Catholics, they have shown no indication of wanting to return to the faith, or learn from their errors. Wolves in sheeps clothing indeed.And this coming from a gentleman who insinuates that he is a good, faithful Catholic and yet, takes the risk of causing much bad example by openly stating that he attends Mass only once a month or so, like it's no big deal, and yet expects to be taken seriously on matters of 'obedience' and 'doctrine'.
By disobeying Church laws you are in no better way of salvation than you think we are. Get yourself to Mass and confession (if you haven't already), Kiwi.........your immortal soul will thank you for it, and then I would be more likely to take your preaching seriously.
-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 08, 2003.
We all know that God himself is the supreme head of the church, guiding it so that the gates of hell will never prevail against it.The Holy Spirit guides the Church, in the manner that he will not let anything that is contrary to truth be defined as binding dogma.
When the church authorities make important decisions, especially the counsils, God guides them and gives them the wisdom. Isn't then, to accuse the cousil of being faulty, to accuse God himself of being faulty?
You have an errant knowledge of the infallibility of the Church. Do you know the requirements for infallibility to be guaranteed? Other than that, it is possible (though sad and unforturnate if it should happen) that error or more likely, ambiguity, could be promulgated. Especially if they are not open to the guideance and wisdom of the Holy Ghost. Pope Honorius was condemned a heretic by a later Pope and council of the Church. So you see, they are not always so protected.
The 2nd vatican counsil officially declared the immaculateness of St Mary, and ascension and many other important things.
The Second Vatican Council declared no such things. The Second Vatican Council did not declare any new dogma, not previously defined, that is binding on Catholics. These things had already been declared dogmas of the faith.
The counsil itself is mentioned in "officially" recognized apparitions like the one in Lourdes, to St Bernadette.
Please show me where.
-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 08, 2003.
Thanks, Kiwi, for the URL of that outstanding article by Jeffrey Mirus (who has long been associated with the orthodox Christendom College). I want to make a link out of your URL, because everyone interested in this subject needs to read that article. For many, it would be helpful first to read the 1570 document under discussion ("Quo primum"), written by Pope St. Pius V. A part of that document was quoted above in the challenge to "little paul."New subject ... To say, as someone did above, that "Pope Honorius was condemned a heretic by a later Pope and council of the Church," is simplistic and inaccurate. To get the facts on this subject, please read the February 21 posts (especially those of "Big Paul") on this thread.
Thank you, Abraham, for cutting through the fog. You were completely unfamiliar with this controversy, but upon being made aware of the facts, you immediately saw through the obfuscation of the self-styled "traditionalists." You knew exactly where our allegiance lies and where our duty as good Catholics leads us. You could see that the people writing on this thread who speak negatively of Vatican II, the newer rite of the Mass, the reliability of the pope, etc., are not really Catholics, but a new form of protestants.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.
Hi Abraham.I'm one of those people John claims is not a Catholic, but a protestant.
Funny thing is, I'm a graduate of the orthodox college Thomas Aquinas College, and know Karl Keating's group Catholic Answers and have volunteered for him in the past.
I go to a local bishop-approved indult Tridentine Mass and hold each and every one of the doctrines of the Faith.
If I end up in Hell, I will end up there as a Catholic who has denied Christ. One who did not pick up his Cross and follow Christ, one that didn't pray and do penance, one that did not love his neighbor, one that chose this world's goods over the next.
With your prayers and the prayers of others, by God's grace this won't happen to me but instead may I see the Beatific Vision after I leave this world.
Thank you for seeing through the fog.
If you would kindly look upthread at my post of a section of the Bull of Pius V, please note that I only posted the section itself, the words of Pius V, and drew no self-styled conclusions of my own.
Thank you.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
Isabel,this was posted by abraham,
To accuse the church authority of fault is to accuse the head of the church, God himself, of being faulty.
to which you responded...
By that analogy, you are giving mere men the perfection of God. Dangerous place to be in.
well, by that analagy you are denying that God told us he would work through his church and proclaiming yourself to be a protestant by belief that the church is fallable. dangerous place to be in.
NOW, emerald,
you keep telling us to note that you only posted the bull of pius V, and no self styled comments of your own. duly noted. do you think that all of us, having read your posts in various other threads DONT know whey you stand? dont know what your implying?
and this line about you graduating from a catholic school making you a solid catholic, im calling BS on that one. i go to a catholic university that is half catholic, but i can tell you for a fact that only a quarter are REAL catholics. so i dont buy for a second this "i graduated from catholic school that makes me catholic" line.
second, you go to a mass approved by your bishop?? who cares, its what is in your heart that matters when it comes to being a catholic. going to non approved masses isnt what makes jake, isabel, and regina schismatic. what makes them schismatic is the fact that they view the new mass, and the vatican II council as being wholly unsufficient. your views are less in keeping with a traditionalist catholic who merely prefers the old mass and more in keeping with a schismatic who views the new mass as invalid. in fact, im not even going to call you a traditionalist, because that implies that you at least recognize the validity of the new mass. from now on im just calling you schismatic.
Jake,
thank you for trying to return this thread to what it was intended to be. im not sure if i will be attending the movie when it comes out. im a college student so it really depends on how much money i have at the time whether i'll see it in theaters or just have to rent it.
how about you?
anyway, God bless you all, even when i debate with you it is with the best of will towards you.
-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 08, 2003.
Correction : It was the 1st counsil mentioned in the apparition at Lourdes, to St Bernedette. 4 years after the dogma of the immaculate conception was declared, St Mary revealed her identity to the young lady as "the immaculate conception", when the young girl asked her who she was. St Mary could have said this many times over the millenium, but right after the holy catholic church made its declaration, she revealed that she is, indeed. It was as if, St Mary herself came down to show that the declaration of Pius the 9th was infallible.Her biography and the story is wonderful, and everyone should read it. It shows the faith and the purity of a poor innocent girl, to whom the holy mother identified herself. Her body still remains uncorrupted, and the pictures show the the beautiful face of the young lady, as if she is sleeping peacefully.
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 08, 2003.
well, by that analagy you are denying that God told us he would work through his church and proclaiming yourself to be a protestant by belief that the church is fallable. dangerous place to be in.I never said the *Church* was fallible, I said the people in it are. And it's true. You need to study the infallibility of the Church, when it is infallible, how it works, etc. to gain a clear picture of this. By the position you hold, as such, you claim that anything that comes from the vatican concerning faith or morals must be infallible. Dangerous place to be in.
what makes them schismatic is the fact that they view the new mass, and the vatican II council as being wholly unsufficient.
Show me. Prove to me. I in no way deny the office of Peter, I in no way deny my Holy Father to be Pope John Paul II, I in no way deny any doctrines or dogmas of the faith. I maintain all that needs to be maintained to be a faithful Catholic. The burden is on you to prove me not to be, if you insist on flinging those epiteths. BTW, did you get to read the post on Pascendi before it was deleted? How do you reconcile that with your beliefs?
God bless you all, even when i debate with you it is with the best of will towards you
And the same here. I want nothing more than the salvation of everyone's soul.
-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 08, 2003.
I have to see the movie at all costs. Only one other movie made about our Lord has been excellently done in my opinion. The 4 parts of Jesus of Nazareth. In the 4th part, we could actually feel the pain suffered by our lord, even though toned down. I think Mel Gibson is trying to go one step further, in trying to let us know exactly how painful his suffering was. It hurts me everytime to even think about or lord's suffering, because I cannot even endure the pain of a simple injection by a small needle. I cannot even imagine how much my lord suffered for me.
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 08, 2003.
Person 1: "I'm a graduate of the orthodox college Thomas Aquinas College."Person 2: "Yes, but you graduated from there more than ten years ago, when you were still Catholic."
[It is true, paul, that TAC in California is one of the few truly orthodox Catholic colleges in the U.S., and I believe that nearly every graduate is a genuine Catholic. It's a very small place, and it has a unique way of educating. I doubt that any heretic (many even any dissenter) could stand to hang in there for four years. Did it ever occur to anyone that the major reason I have been so hard on "Emerald" for over a year is my being heart-broken that a TAC graduate could go bad. You see, I have been a financial contributor to TAC since 1985.]
Person 1: "I'm a graduate of the orthodox college Thomas Aquinas College."Person 3: "Yes, and Father Martin Luther was a graduate of an orthodox seminary."
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.
These postings on this website are all a waste of everyone's time. They are supposed to be about our opinions on Mel Gibson's movie and the controversy surrounding it. Not about the various opinions on who are heretics and who are not. I'm sure there are plenty of websites that these opinions can be voiced and challenged.What I can see is a bunch of Christians trying to find their way. Are you all sure you are followers of Jesus and not of someone or something else? If you were you should recall the words of OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST first. Words like... "Judge not, lest ye be judged", "He who is NOT AGAINST Me is for me" (Mark 9:38-41). That is one of the most important scriptures for anyone trying to find out the "which church?" question. What I'm saying is that if we are Christians, we should not point the finger at eachother trying to find fault. Remember that is what the scholars of Jesus' time were doing to Him. All of you talk like scholars pointing the finger. We need to remember Jesus' words to all of us. "He who is not against me is for me" that is the main thing. If a church is for Jesus and gathers together in the name of Jesus and does acts of love in the name of Jesus, then God is amoung them. End of story. Even if the details of the doctrine have some challenges. If they DON'T gather in the name of Jesus and gather in someone else's name or under another God, then they are the ones against the Lord denying His profound act of Love.
Please don't give the name "Christian" a bad name by having all this dissention between eachother. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus because we ALL gather in the name of Jesus. Therefore we are "FOR" God and not against Him.
The issues you all bring up make little difference to an unbeliever to which we have been commissioned. The movie we are supposed to be discussing could make a difference for us and for them, for it shows the ultimate act of love lavished upon the whole world, good and bad.
This dissension between you is of evil root. Just as the issues in Ireland are. Do you see love there among brothers and sisters in Christ? No, just wars between catholics and protestants. Two divisions of Christianity voicing the same opinions you all are doing on this website. Their war started out with words not so different than your own, and now look at what these words have gotten them. Terrorism labels them now, not love. Always remember what Christ said... "My prayer is not for them (the apostles) alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message (us), that all of them (us) may be ONE, Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You. May they (us) also be in Us so that the world may believe that you have sent Me. I have given them (us) the glory that You have given Me, that they (us) may be ONE as We are One: I in them (us) and You in Me. May they (us) be brought to complete unity to let the world know that You have sent Me and have loved them (the world) even as You have loved Me. (John 17:20-23)
Do you see what you are doing by entertaining these discussions of division? This is the reason why the whole world is not for Christ. Because we have not shown unity among us. Not only have we denied our commission from Christ to be unified, but we have shown the world that not only does God NOT love us, but He does not love Christ as well as to deny that Christ was sent by God Himself. Our disunity projects these truths to the world. Can you deny this? To deny these words, is to deny Christ Himself because He spoke these words to all of us on that fateful night, just before He showed His complete unity and love in and for our Father as well as for you and for me.
To be divided in Christianity is to show distain and disgust for the sign that our Lord said would prove to the world that Jesus is the Son of God and that God loves Him and us.
So again, in my opinion, this movie needs to be seen by all the world.
-- Tina Zerbo (tinazerbo@yahoo.com), September 08, 2003.
"do you think that all of us, having read your posts in various other threads DONT know whey you stand? dont know what your implying?"Yeah... sort of. It's kind of depressing, really.
Let me be absolutely unambiguous, if I may.
1. Say your Rosary every single day. Beg the Mother of God to keep you close to her and to her Son, and to the Church, which is the Ark of Salvation. Mary is the archetype of the Church. Nothing which you ask of her will be denied. I would suggest only that you ask for eternal salvation, and the salvation of other souls. You will get what you ask for.
2. Seek Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. In Communion, in adoration. Seek to understand as best you can what you are receiving. Understand your true predicament, your real condition before God as best you can... say over and over again "Lord, that I may see".
3. Make your entire day an offering to God. During the day, repeat small prayers over and over again; the Hail Mary. Learn the other ancient prayers. The Blessed be God, Blessed be His Holy Name. Whenever something negative happens to you, say "Blessed be God".
4. Take whatever garbage people throw at you and don't bite back. Just tell the truth; stand by the truth long after the last person is done trying to discredit you. Remember that you are a worm, a mere nothing that God happens to love. The spouse of Christ. You deserve Hell, and by the grace of God and His goodness alone, you can be saved. Never, ever, though, because you deserve it.
5. Read what the saints wrote. Not what other people write about the saints, but, what the saints actually wrote. Do what they do, believe what they believe. Be the last man standing, and make sure nobody sees it.
Do I do all this stuff? I'm a miserable flippin' failure at all this stuff. That's the truth.
No one can argue that it isn't the path to salvation, though. They argue to the thin air, to the wind.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
Tina, do you call this judgement? If the early fathers followed what you said, the church would be no more. The church will not fall, because there will always be people who are guided by God, who stand against those who try to destroy it from within. Think again about who is trying for seperation and quarrel.Think about all the saints, who were the most compassionate to even those who hurt them, but look how ferociously they fought against the evil known as heresy, even St Antony, who is known as the silent saint, did not quell his anger at those who knowingly/unknowlyingly tried to cause seperation and quarrel from within.
In the bible read this part. Proverbs 6:16 - 19
Among the 7 things God hates, the most he hates is
Those who sow discord among bretheren.
If anyone decides to stand back and let them prevail, instead of correcting them, they are bringing doom upon themselves as well. It is not catholics who are determined to be divided in christianity, but those who practice and preach heresy. If everyone did as what you said, letting them roam around freely, the world would be filled with nothing but heretics. This, is not judgement. This is where the faithful defend their faith against the evil from outside, and from within. No catholic wants one of his bretheren to be fallen . By trying to correct them, people are being compassionate.
The postings on this website are not a waste of time. If one soul reaches out with his heart and embraces the truth instead of heresy, you would know the value of those who contribute here. It is not they who are judging, and trying to create seperation. They are trying their best to prevent it. They are not like the pharasees who tormented christ. They are following his words by upholding the faith, and trying to prevent others from falling into heresies, which God himself has warned us about. Taking some of his teachings and ignoring others, is not what a catholic does. It is what protestants and heretics do.
Those who are not against him are with him. Is that all you want for them? Are they not against him when they question his words and teachings? People here are not judging others, but trying to help them, and trying to help many others from falling into their mistakes. Those people would be thankful, NOT for staying away as if this is not our business to stop people from tearing the church apart and finding excuses and reasons to justify that, BUT for holding on to the faith and defending the one universal church, and defending it against all heresies, and trying to prevent others from falling.
What did Jesus do to those "faithful" who turned his church into a business place? What did Jesus tell those "faithful" who tried to twist the teachings because they could be justified? What is the 7th thing which God hates the most? Why did the apostles work so hard to prevent such seperations? Why did the saints lose their temper and fight against those who do these things? Why does the church struggle so much against people causing these disturbances from the inside? Either it was all for a very good cause, or they are all fools, which no sensible person would be able to say. The last thing the church needs, is for catholics to stand back so that corruptions and quarrel could be planted. Fortunately there are many people who hold on to their faith, with the blessing of God, to prevent that from happening. We have to pray to God for these people to stop this evil, and we have to do our duty by not letting anyone fall into their trap. Standing back and saying that God will do everything for us is not enough. We have our responsibilites and duties, to God and for others.
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 08, 2003.
Emerald,I've got a question for you. This is the nth thread where you've encouraged everyone to read about the saints, but I can't recall you ever encouraging anyone to read the Bible (although you may very well have, I just don't remember it) is there a reason for this, or do you just assume everyone here is reading the Bible, but not saints?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 08, 2003.
I thought I wasn't supposed to play priest, to be holier than the Pope, to encourage people to interpret Scripture on their own. I thought that was my brother's job. He's got my stuff and I have his.There will be no white flag above my door
Is this pride, or is it love? Maybe nobody knows which end is up anymore, or which is down.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
As I check with my peripheral vision that the door is still open, I slowly back towards it, speakingin
a
calm,
reassuring,
manner
about
something
totally
unrelated.
Frank
P.S.
How's the weather out there?
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 08, 2003.
lol!Same as it ever was, of course.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
Think in terms of analogies, Frank. Don't... take it at face value.Please.
That was funny; you DO have a sense of humor!
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
Some people want to remain true to the Catholic Faith. Now called faithlessness.Some people want to see the beauty in Catholicism. Now called rule following and stale and lacking the Spirit.
Some people want to understand their Faith better. Now called pride.
Some people want to adhere to Catholic Truth. Now called schism.
Some people want to really love their Catholic Faith. Now called faithlessness and betrayal.
Some people want to drink a little deeper from the wellspring of Catholicism. Now called elitism.
Now, the doors are swung open for everybody, and salvation is available to all, without them even really moving from where they are to where the Church is. It's open to everbody, salvation is, except... to the people listed above.
They're outside the Church. They're damned.
Can't you see the absurdity in this?
What is up is now down, what's down is up.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
Emerald,Well, thx. I'm a bit shy of analogies though. On this forum every disagreement is a mile-long thread. I don't want to obfuscate the issues any more than necessary.
Some people want to remain true to the Catholic Faith. Now called "Neos" by people who left the church and believe they know more than the Pope and Magesterium what the correct form of the mass for today's Catholics is.
Some people want to see the beauty in Catholicism. Now, as ever, called Obeying the Pope and following the direction of the magesterium.
Some people want to understand their Faith better. They attend licit masses, ALL licit masses, and this is explained to them. Especially in "Novus Ordo" masses, where over a 3 year period almost all the Bible is covered, as opposed to the more limited readings of the Tridentine mass. The church's understanding continues to Grow!
Some people want to adhere to Catholic Truth. They try to follow what the church tells them is correct, and not believe the church should follow what THEY think is correct.
Some people want to really love their Catholic Faith. You see them in Catholic masses across the country every Sunday. Of course you also see Protestants of all stripes in churches, most are born into it, some leave the True Church to follow the path of an excommunicated archbishop.
Some people want to drink a little deeper from the wellspring of Catholicism. They pray to the Lord in what ever way they find most effective. They are often scorned by schismatics for praying "for the wrong things".
And there are others, who need to lighten up and just ask God for forgiveness and understanding. These should realize that God loves His children like a father loves his children and is not going to damn them to Hell for not following some long littany of prescribed tasks, just like a loving human father wouldn't break his kid's arm for dropping a dish.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 08, 2003.
Re-written, with corrections ...Some people (e.g., "little paul," "Four Jacks Ed," et al.) want to remain true to the Catholic Faith. This is called practicing orthodox Catholicism.
Some people (e.g., Jake and Theresa Huether) want to see the beauty in Catholicism. This is called practicing orthodox Catholicism.
Some people (e.g., Kiwi, Alicia Star, et al.) want to understand their Faith better. This is called practicing orthodox Catholicism.
Some people (e.g., Eugene Chavez, Frank Someone) want to adhere to Catholic Truth. This is called practicing orthodox Catholicism.
Some people (e.g., JFG, David, et al.) want to really love their Catholic Faith. This is called practicing orthodox Catholicism.
Some people (e.g., "Big Paul," Abraham, et al.) want to drink a little deeper from the wellspring of Catholicism. This is called practicing orthodox Catholicism.
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.
Frank, we had somewhat similar ideas and posted almost simultaneously. Too bad Tina Z probably won't see this. JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.
"These should realize that God loves His children like a father loves his children and is not going to damn them to Hell for not following some long littany of prescribed tasks, just like a loving human father wouldn't break his kid's arm for dropping a dish."Exactly! See, that's the way I see it. Let me just speak like a normal person for minute.
What I see in the post conciliar Church is that very arm-breaking thing. You can't hardly breathe without someone coming crashing down upon you like a ton of bricks and screaming "dissenteeeer" in your ear. It's not just this forum, it's everywhere I go. It's like the new orthodox walk around with their handy dandy measuring rod to find out who's orthodox and who isn't. It's hateful, really. The only, and I mean only, litmus test anymore is rapid fire questions about being "loyal to the Pope and to the Magisterium". As soon as you say "yes", they say fine, and walk away. That's some kind of Catholicism, huh? Some share in the Mystical Body of Christ. Measure me; now what? It's a straightjacket.
It's as if our only doctrine anymore is that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and requires our allegiance. It's like that's it, that's all there is. Accept this and go home. As if I didn't know this and accept this already! What about living the Faith? Notice that if there aren't any traditionalists hanging around here, there isn't much to talk about.
Quite simply, traditional Catholicism, or what I simply call Catholicism, is a thing of beauty. It is a romantic thing. Take an any couple, Frank. Old or young it doesn’t matter. "What does she see in him", people say. "What does she see in her"? They'll never know, now, will they? They’ll never know and it's not theirs to know. What they have is a garden enclosed per the Canticle of Canticles. It will never look anything but nutty to you until you give yourself to partake in something like it, and then you will have some insight into it. I'm not saying you don't, I guess, I mean anybody won't "get it" that just swipes aside the traditional Catholic as just so much baggage from the past. The relationship between Christ and His bride the Church is not something that is thrust into the limelight and is not something given for all to understand unless they wish in a certain measure to partake in it some how. A traditionalist's relationship to the Church is like an old couple with a long history that nobody could understand. Who likes to sit around hear the old farts tell stories over and over and over again? lol!
When a traditionalist is disparaged, his marriage to Christ is brought under scrutiny and disparaged. What is a traditionalist supposed to do? Try to get you to understand the depth of her relationship? Why? What for? Would you understand it, or would you accept it? It exists whether you understand it or not, or disparage it or not. It traverses 2,000 years within seconds and remains solidly in place long after everyone’s objections to it have gone silent.
Now I'm not saying that you aren't part of what I have and have no clue about anything, but I disrespect the case being made that I'm not a part of your mystical body of Christ. You're a baptised Catholic; as far as I'm concerned, you are irrevocably involved in this drama along with me and the supposed other "separated brethren" whether it's irritating or not. See what I mean?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
Emerald,I'd like to speak plainly as well.
What I see in the post conciliar Church is that very arm-breaking thing. You can't hardly breathe without someone coming crashing down upon you like a ton of bricks and screaming "dissenteeeer" in your ear.
This is not honest, Emerald. No one here started bashing the SSPX until the SSPX showed up and started saying anyone who attended a Novus Ordo mass was getting an INFERIOR mass (or an abomination). I attend a Tridentine mass myself for the most part, but no one criticizes it. The difference with you, Jake, et. al. is that you say that the church of the here and now is WRONG, and quote 3 or 4 documents from the past to "prove" it. It's YOU who is causing the fighting here, all you need to do is get up the strengh to say that faithful Catholics can attend ANY licit mass, Novus Ordo or Tridentine, that both are equal in God's eyes, and attendees are equally faithful and blessed, and learn equally much about their faith. I can say it, can you? If not, the problem is YOU. The one who is not "Catholic" is YOU. (the same goes for the rest)
Why not give it a try Emerald? If you quit dissenting, you won't be called a dissenter, and you can still attend whatever mass you wish.
I disrespect the case being made that I'm not a part of your mystical body of Christ
I think you are a part of the mystical body, and never said you weren't. LOL, that might not mean much to you though, but that's for another discussion.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 08, 2003.
Contention: "It's as if our only doctrine anymore is that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and requires our allegiance. It's like that's it, that's all there is. Accept this and go home. As if I didn't know this and accept this already! What about living the Faith? Notice that if there aren't any traditionalists hanging around here, there isn't much to talkabout."Refutation: That paragraph contains several errors.
1. It only seems to the writer that "our only doctrine any more is that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and requires our allegiance." The problem is that this is such a basic, fundamental doctrine (impacting all others). And, since the writer and his allies fail properly to accept this basic doctrine, they never lets the forum get around to discussing the other profound and important matters that are of great interest to everyone.
2. The writer wrongly claims that he properly "accept[s] this already" -- i.e., that he holds an orthodox belief re the pope. Only after he has undergone a conversion to the proper belief some day, then he will be able to talk about "living the Faith." [Catholicism is not currently his Faith.]
3. This was a lively and fine forum, with plenty being discussed from 1998 through 2001, at which point the schismatics/dissenters/heretics [i.e., self-styled "trads"] began to cause more and more damage, starting and wrecking more and more threads. This formerly excellent forum has been under siege for 1.5 years, yet one of the greatest culprits now hypocritically complains about the limited scope of discussion. How incredibly ridiculous are these words of his -- "if there aren't any traditionalists hanging around here, there isn't much to talkabout" -- because the real fact is that precisely WHEN "trads" are "hanging around here, there isn't much to talk about." When one's house is on fire, one is very busy putting out the flames and cannot stop to chat about the vegetables in the garden.
It's a terribly sad thing to ponder the fact that, if the same level of improprieties had been visited upon the forum by people identifying themselves as non-Catholics, they would have been sent packing more than a year ago. The writer and his allies, apparently by misidentifying themselves as Catholics, have gotten an undeserved, apparently endless, free ride. How incredibly unjust to the rest of us! Because of the continued and unabated presence of this cancer, the forum continues its slow and steady deterioration. Only when the "trad" presence has ended will the forum undergo a wondrous revival.
Comment: "[A]ll you need to do is get up the strengh to say that faithful Catholics can attend ANY licit mass, Novus Ordo or Tridentine, that both are equal in God's eyes, and attendees are equally faithful and blessed, and learn equally much about their faith."Observation: Oh, much more than just that is needed. That only covers one problem -- the liturgy. Much more of a conversion is required of each self-styled "trad." He/she must also publicly assent to all that is taught in Vatican II, the Catechism, and in the teachings of Pope John Paul II -- the very things from which he/she formerly publicly DISsented. And one last thing ... He/she must publicly denounce the errors of his/her former allies, encouraging them to convert too -- and especially not to attend illicitly celebrated Masses.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.
Teach me sanctity, John.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
If I ever leave, John, it wouldn't be for your sake; it would be for the sake of the traditional Catholics... so that I would stop being an occasion of sin for them by continuing with this fruitless effort to correct you in your errors, and for distracting them from what they know is their real purpose in life which is to unite themselves to a life of prayer and penance for the salvation of other souls, including your own.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
"Why not give it a try Emerald? If you quit dissenting, you won't be called a dissenter, and you can still attend whatever mass you wish."Because I owe you nothing. I owe almighty God everything. Quid retribuam domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi?
Wait... I do owe you something. Forgive me. I owe you love, the love of neighbor as myself. You have that then.
You don't seem to understand, though. I need prove nothing to you, only to Almighty God. I answer to Him for what I have done and what I have failed to do.
John knows something. He knows that I can take him apart line by line, painfully.
I know something. I know that if I did as much, John wouldn't see it and Frank wouldn't understand, and nobody else would care. Including God Almighty Himself.
I know something else. I know that if I trash John's objections line by line I run the risk of offending Almighty God even if I were right in each and every line of each and every thing I said. Why? Because I myself deserve Hell for my sins. Who doesn't?
Can you cure us all, John?
Should I proceed with taking John apart or should I just let it go?
I think I'll let it go.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
I think I'll fix the italics.
-- (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.
There is no need for an answer. Can't you see that there is no need for an explanation. The cross unites us all and if you understand the message of Jesus Christ, you will realise that our differences are nothing to Him. Just love each other like the way Jesus thought us about the Samaritans. Love the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Christians, Atheists...it doesn;t matter...I really can't belive so mush time has been spent on this forum arguing about such trivial things...
-- Allan (allan@massmedia.com.my), October 14, 2003.
"those who hate one another can learn to love one another if both love Jesus Christ"
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.
Dear Allan,Loving all men is indeed essential. Jesus said men will know we are His disciples by our love. But truth is also essential. Jesus said that truth is what sets us free. If we truly love others, we will not stand by and leave them in the bondage of ignorance, when we possess the truth which could set them free. The Church Jesus founded has a divine mandate to make disciple of all peoples. That is the principle way in which God has called us to love others.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 14, 2003.
Who's gonna boycott the film, based on the fact that Mel Gibson is a Traditionalist & a sedevacantist (by your definition "schismatic"), and that part of your ticket money will go to build a big, beautiful church in California for the un"approved" celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass?Any of you going to walk the walk?
I wonder.
-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), October 18, 2003.
Wonder no longer, Bud.From the day we first heard about this film, we said, "Too bad the profits will go for a bad cause. We'll have to skip this one, unless we hear that Melvin returned to Catholicism after visiting the Vatican."
It would be good for the sneering inquirer (who presumably hates the errors taught in Judaism, Islam, and atheism) to divulge now that he has hardly visited any cinemas in his whole life, because viewing screenings of almost all films would have put some shekels in the pockets of people who would them use them for horrible things. Or is the inquirer just the anti-Catholic hypocrite he seems to be, having visited many cinemas and enriched many who have used his shekels for assorted sins?
-- (Walkers@OfThe.Walk), October 18, 2003.