Hi there. I stumbled across this forum while looking for a place to discuss the problems in the Church today. I have read through some of the threads here which are no longer active and I seem to find that there is a popular dislike of talking about the Novus Ordo vs. Tradition issue. Is this correct? Should this topic be avoided? Thanks in advance for your answers.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 25, 2003

Answers

psyche and AMDG,

welcome to our humble forum. no, it is not against the rules to discuss the novus ordo vs PREFERENCE for the latin rite mass. what is against the rules is to post anti catholic schismatic materials which deceives others away from loyalty to the true church.

needless to say, the novus ordo vs schism issue is a dead horse beaten beyond recognition, and dredging it up again isnt likely to score you alot of points. HOWEVER, if you have a valid concern about what is occuring in your diocese and how to address it, feel free to ask.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 26, 2003.

Psyche, when orthodox Catholics (loyal to the pope and the Catholic Church) speak of this subject, they avoid referring to it as a conflict between "Novus Ordo" (on one side) and "Tradition" (on the other side). The word "Tradition" cannot be equated with "attachment to the rite of the Mass approved by St. Pope Pius V."

It is not so difficult to determine who adheres to the complete "Tradition" of the Catholic Church. It is the people who are obedient to the pope, who assent to the teachings found in the Catechism, and who do either of the following:
1. Attend the newer rite of the Mass -- but do not criticize the older rite or its attendants.
2. Attend the older rite where it is licitly celebrated (according to the current pope's indult and permission of the local bishop) -- but do not criticize the newer rite or its attendants.

Anyone else is not following Catholic Church Tradition. Anyone else is is schismatic, heretical, or both.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

Discussions of virtually any topic are allowable. What is not allowable is:

(1) Openly hostile attacks against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in any of its officially approved forms

(2) Openly hostile attacks against the Vicar of Jesus Christ

(3) The appropriation of threads posted on other topics, in an effort to turn them into still more threads on nostalgic Catholicism.

Unfortunately, many who fancy themselves as "traditional Catholics" seem quite ready to do any or all of the above, given the opportunity to do so.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 26, 2003.

Defining Terms:

Heresy: The denial or obstinate doubt of any one or more dogmas of the Catholic Faith. Example of heresy: Hans Kung, in his book "On Being a Christian" denies the Mass is the re-presentation of Calvary (pg. 323)

Schism: One who denies the Pope has the authority to rule. Example: The Greek Orthodox Church (which the Pope has referred to as a "sister church".) The Catholic Patriotic Association (the official "Catholic" church in China which openly declares its rejection of the Papacy, has illicitly consecrated hundreds of bishops without Papal mandate and which has never incurred a declaration of schism or excommunication from the Vatican. In fact a Cardinal was present for one of their "masses" held in a church which was stolen from the real Catholic Church.)

Vatican II: A "reorientation of the Church." This clearly declared "pastoral" Council defined no new doctrines and bound nothing on the faithful. It proposed changes which run contrary to scripture and tradition - Example: Collegiality. Collegiality gives the equal power of the Holy Father to the Bishops - this is the liberal interpretation but the one which has been promulgated.

Now then...

(1) Openly hostile attacks against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in any of its officially approved forms

Using offically approved Church documents and quotes from current prelates to demonstrate that the New Mass (in and of itself a valid rite) allows room for abuses which are, and have been, devastating to the faithful isn't "hostile." Using statistics from reliable sources to back up the ill effects the new Mass had/has on the faithful isn't "hostile."

(2) Openly hostile attacks against the Vicar of Jesus Christ

An example of a "openly hostile attack against the Vicar of Christ" would be to say he's an idiot. Pointing out the very erroneous words and actions of the Holy Father isn't "hostile." Its an example of the virtue of Charity.

(3) The appropriation of threads posted on other topics, in an effort to turn them into still more threads on nostalgic Catholicism.

Defending our position against provocative speech directed against us isn't permitted?

I guess there is such a thing as "nostalgic Catholicism." We long for the days when we can attend the same Mass as the Saints and be taught our Faith exactly as the Saints were instructed and the Vicar of Christ wasn't influenced by political correctness and would call a spade a spade.

Unfortunately, many who fancy themselves as "traditional Catholics" seem quite ready to do any or all of the above, given the opportunity to do so.

And many who wish we'd leave this forum and/or barely tolerate our points of view seem all too happy to sling their arrows at us in threads we haven't even offered our posts on, yet complain we have "hijacked" the thread when we defend our position or the hurtful insults against any of our friends.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 26, 2003.

The problem here is not Vatican II or the Novus Ordo Mass. The problem is the lack of effective education and implementation of the authentic teaching of both council and rite.

It shouldn't be surprising to us that this is the real problem. In the first council (Jerusalem) found in the Acts of the Apostles, we see a dispute in the church in Antioch (at the time one of the largest cities in the world). The council decided what to do, settled the dispute and then sent a letter (document) to the local communities along with two representatives to make sure it was applied.

This is the framework which is essential to the success of all subsequent councils and changes of rite or rubrics: you need BOTH the document AND the direct efforts of men vested with authority to make sure the document is interpreted correctly and implemented correctly.

After Vatican II, unfortunately the Churches in Western Europe and North America stubbornly refused to educate their flocks on the real texts of the Council (letting the secular press and self- appointed "expert theologians" do all the reporting and spinning and "therefore" teaching), and they also refused to directly implement and enforce the clear teachings of the coucil and Pope who continued to preach every week on PARTICULAR councilliar and other changes.

The so-called Liberals hijacked both the council and Novus Ordo both in Europe and North America. But in Poland, Mexico, Asia, and Africa, the bishops were more faithful... and lo and behold there are fewer problems with heresy and schism in those places than there are in ours...and they have faster growing churches and booming vocations whereas we don't!

The Church in Mexico, Poland, and Korea is growing - despite a lack of political freedom, social poverty, powerful ideological opposition, and pasts which have included devastation from war and other disasters. Based on the arguments from the anti-Vatican II and Novus Ordo crowd you'd think they'd be utter basket cases...and yet they're not! Why not? Because their bishops are holy, active leaders who implemented Vatican II and the new rite with zeal, sophistication, and care.

The other problem is the logical cul-de-sac that the schismatics place themselves in with respect to the Novus Ordo and legitimacy of the Pope because of supposedly "protestant" leanings or contradictions. They go long on quotes from Trent, but don't quote the council or the Pope in context. They also operate on the logical fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in which all the bad things that happened after 1963 and the Novus Ordo are said to be CAUSED by the council and Mass, rather than by other factors, and all the good that has occured is either swept aside or explained away as either untrue or cynically suggested to be only temporary (which is kind of ironic since the glory days of the Tridentine rite Church was also very temporary).

But if this is so, then what about Trent? All hell broke loose after the 1570's - rise of atheism, masonry, anti-Cathollic nation states, loss of all Church lands, demise of monasticism, repression of missionaries, supression of the Jesuits, persecution of the Church in EVERY European country and in the New World, bloody loss of life in major wars, rise in Protestantism as world embracing force, rise in paganism, world wars, etc.

It has to be obvious that you simply can not have so many cultural disasters going on in Europe and the rest of the world without a substantial loss of Catholics to both the morals and unbelief of the world! Yet that is the final "aha!" proof that all evil and loss in the Catholic Church began with the second Vatican Council and Novus Ordo! Golly Gee - the rise of Fascism in Italy, Anarchy and Communism in Portugal and Spain, Anti-Clericalism in France, Communism and Nazism in Germany and Russia.... all countries with majorities or sizable minorities of Catholics...happened without lax Catholics joining?

Our Traditionalists will just mutely blink away all these awful historical events as "besides the point" whereas they point to precisely the same kinds of things when attacking Vatican II or the new Mass!

Then there is the apples vs oranges arguments: they'll compare a great priest, small tight knit community of active, educated Catholics, who both have excellent prayer lives and thus have great liturgical fervor...with a wimpy uneducated priest, large loose-knit and divided parish full of poorly educated and unmotivated Catholics who thus lack liturgical fervor. "See! See! Look how holy and disciplined Parish X is and how awful and chaotic parish Y is"

While they focus on the language and rubrics, they ignore the glaring primary differences between the two samples!

Thus it's not a fair comparison! If you want to truely compare a typical Tridentine rite parish to one with the Novus Ordo, you have to find "all else being equal...": holy, reverent priest, educated and motivated laity, organized parish community. Without this equality of conditions how will we truly judge whether a difference can reasonably be attributed to the rite itself and NOT SOME OTHER FACTOR?

I'd say, compare your favorite T-rite parish with Christ the King parish in Ann Arbor, and your favorite T-rite seminary with the Legionaries of Christ or Missionaries of Charity. (Which isn't fair because your typical Tridentine rite seminary won't come even close to being as well trained, organized, and run as the LC is).

Not that most of the T-rite seminarians aren't pious and good guys (for the most part). They are. But the seminary formation they get, including the pedagogy and methodology is normally pre-1962 norms, and since their "spirituality" is essentially just devotion to a rite, they're bound to leave alot of other essential areas underdeveloped.

The answer then is not the rite at all, but the obedience of bishops and laity to the mind of the Church on this and other matters. This means reading what the Popes have taught - not bits and pieces, not out-of-context snippets, but their whole organic teaching. Yes, this requires sophistication and alot of homework, but if you're going to challenge the Pope you owe him at least that.

IMHO alot of so-called Traditionalists have a lot of heat, alot of passion, alot of hurt (lost family members, guilt, and anguish) but not alot of light and prudence.

So sure are they that it's the Council and rite that caused everything that they're incapable of seeing other factors involved... and amazingly they also confuse matters of taste with orthodoxy.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 26, 2003.

"Using offically approved Church documents and quotes from current prelates to demonstrate that the New Mass (in and of itself a valid rite) allows room for abuses which are, and have been, devastating to the faithful isn't "hostile."

A: TRUE! Any rite allows room for ABUSES, and ABUSES of the liturgy are absolutely unacceptable, whether the rite being abused is the original vernacular Mass, the Subsequent Greek Mass, the even newer Latin Mass, or the current vernacular Mass. However, the abuse of something doesn't make the abused thing bad.

"Using statistics from reliable sources to back up the ill effects the new Mass had/has on the faithful isn't "hostile."

A: It is a well known fact that statistics can be abused to "prove" anything whatsoever, as demonstrated by the innumerable debates in politics and other areas, where each side fully supports its view with its version of statistics. Nothing based on raw statistics can be taken as certain truth. And statistics used as a weapon to attack another position are indeed hostile.

"An example of a "openly hostile attack against the Vicar of Christ" would be to say he's an idiot. Pointing out the very erroneous words and actions of the Holy Father isn't "hostile." Its an example of the virtue of Charity"

A: To say he is an idiot would be a mindless ad hominem attack. To say that he is capable of teaching error is still an attack, not only upon the Pope, but upon God Himself, Who personally appointed the Pope, and Who personally guaranteed the accuracy and veracity of His doctrinal teaching. To criticize his non-doctrinal decisions is a less serious matter of course, but is still likely an exercise in pride, arrogance, and self-deception, not Christian charity.

"We long for the days when we can attend the same Mass as the Saints and be taught our Faith exactly as the Saints were instructed and the Vicar of Christ wasn't influenced by political correctness and would call a spade a spade"

Which Saints would that be? The Apostles and their contemporaries, who celebrated the Mass in their native tongue?   The later Saints who, in obedience to the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church, submissively accepted the new universal Greek Mass which had been imposed upon them? The later Saints who, in obedience to the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church, submissively accepted the new universal Latin Mass which had been imposed upon them, abandoning all but the Kyrie of the traditional Mass they knew and loved? The later Saints who, in obedience to the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church, submissively accept the new vernacular Mass which has been imposed upon us, even with a gracious temporary indult for the outmoded Latin Mass? Which Saints are you referring to? All of these Saints attended, honored, and loved the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Who has the authority to judge one group of the Saints, or the Holy Mass they participated in, as less than any other?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 26, 2003.

Psyche +AMDG+,

I don't believe your last post addressed any of the content of Paul or Joe. Furthermore:

1.) "We din't reject the Pope" is too vague a claim for you to make without giving rise to suspicion. Cafeteria Catholic liberals say the same thing. You should be absolutely clear and say what you mean, which is, I suspect, this: "We'll believe that Pope John Paul II is really the Pope, but anything he says which seems confusing to us, we will flatly reject and quote Trent as an excuse-- and by the way, don't try to tell us there's no contradiction, because we've already convinced ourselves otherwise."

2.) By 'Traditional Catholics' I assume you mean those more properly called "Traditionalists." Traditionalism is not limited to merely "attending or celebrating the Tridentine Mass," but also denying the validity of the full truth of the Council of Vatican II which is, flatly, heresy and schism.

I've quoted him before, but here we go again, with Cardinal Ratzinger:

"It is impossible (‘for a Catholic’) to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. And that also applies to the so- called ‘progressivism”, at least in its extreme forms. Second: It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so- called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.

To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is also our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.”

And finally, 3.) Let's be clear. Your devotion to Christ and to the Church, not to mention your fervor, is admirable. However, your (plural) constant smashing of Vatican II, fundamentalist approach to historical documents, and non-stop barriage of propeganda on this forum are absolutely deserving of all the hostility we can conjure up.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

absolutely deserving of all the hostility we can conjure up.

Here's hoping that phrase comes to mind when you're absolving someone someday.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 26, 2003.

By the way, "conjure" was absolutely the appropriate verb.

Bravo.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 26, 2003.

Skoobouy, “I don't believe your last post addressed any of the content of Paul or Joe.” – I did not intend to address what they said in particular, but to defend these two facts: Traditional Catholics do not reject the Pope, and Traditional Catholics are not and have never been in schism.

“1.) "We din't reject the Pope" is too vague a claim for you to make without giving rise to suspicion. Cafeteria Catholic liberals say the same thing. You should be absolutely clear and say what you mean, which is, I suspect, this: "We'll believe that Pope John Paul II is really the Pope, but anything he says which seems confusing to us, we will flatly reject and quote Trent as an excuse-- and by the way, don't try to tell us there's no contradiction, because we've already convinced ourselves otherwise."” – No. What I mean is what I said. Let me repeat: “this (idea that Traditional Catholics reject the Pope) is, by and large, not true. It is Sedevacantists who reject the Pope and usually there are some bad feelings there too. I am not Sedevacantist. Pope John Paul II is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church. I respect him, pray for him, and feel sorry for him seeing as how he's got such awesome responsibility on his shoulders and he's obviously in very poor health.” I said nothing about disagreeing with the Pope. I said nothing about contradiction. I said that the Pope is a human and, as such, makes mistakes. I don’t know how much less vague I can get.

“2.) By 'Traditional Catholics' I assume you mean those more properly called "Traditionalists." Traditionalism is not limited to merely "attending or celebrating the Tridentine Mass," but also denying the validity of the full truth of the Council of Vatican II which is, flatly, heresy and schism. “ -- No. By Traditional Catholics I mean Traditional Catholics. I and all the Traditional Catholics I have ever known (and there have been hundreds) DO NOT deny the validity of Vatican II. It was a completely valid Pastoral Council, though not a Dogmatic council. If a faction called Traditionalism really exists by your definition, then I and all the Traditional Catholics I have ever known are not part of it and never have been.

“I've quoted him before, but here we go again, with Cardinal Ratzinger: “ – Please give the source of this quote and a link to the online document before I comment on it.

“However, your (plural) constant smashing of Vatican II, fundamentalist approach to historical documents, and non-stop barriage of propeganda on this forum are absolutely deserving of all the hostility we can conjure up.” – In my two original posts I never even mentioned Vatican II. Do not accuse me of “ constant smashing of Vatican II”. I have never smashed anything. Notice that I have never said anything against the Novus Ordo Missae or Vatican II or the Pope or the Magesterium. Where do you get these hateful and inflammatory accusations from? Please explain yourself. If your excuse would be to say that you used “your (plural)” and grouped me in with other Traditional Catholics who have posted on this forum before yesterday, you would be unreasonable and illogical, since how can you presume to know me when I first posted yesterday? “non-stop barriage (sic) of propeganda (sic) on this forum” – again, the first time I ever posted here was yesterday. Please open your mind and your reason. “fundamentalist approach to historical documents” – Red Herring, name-calling. What do you have to say about the fact that Quo Primum is infallible? Have you read it? Please do so before you respond. “absolutely deserving of all the hostility we can conjure up.” – Please get someone to give you a backrub, or sip a cup of chamomile tea or something. It sounds like you are ready to start another bloody Crusade. Again, here is the web address for Quo Primum: http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/quoprim.txt Please read what it has to (infallibly) say about the Tridentine Mass before you or any one else again calls me a heretic or schismatic.

May God forgive you. I already have. Peace, brother.

+Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam+

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 26, 2003.

John G. said it well. Thank you John.

Traditionalist is a misnomer. Anti-Vatican II is more precise.

After each of the Councils, there were schisms. Vatican II is no exception.

I've argued in the past as a self-professed progressive.

Since labels seem to mean a lot to some people, let me state this:

After quite a bit of study, I want to publically re-define myself.

I am a moderate, loyal to Vatican II, Roman Catholic who tends to err on the side of evangalization, and respect for the poor parish priest.

What I have found is that many times, one (MYSELF included, notice the emphasis)forms opinions that are flawed. Not out of malicious intent but of just plain ignorance. Not stupidity, ignorance.

If one takes the time (a precious commodity), to read all the material from the Vatican, Conference of Bishops, etc., one finds that some world class acholars work for the Church.

There is, what is called, "institutional memory". Tradition. The Catholic Church has 2000+ years of institutional memory that has been passed to the current leaders of the Church.

The Vatican has to view the world, not just our little corner, wherever we are.

The internet, and all the various new media sources, make everything available almost instanteously. The Church is still coping with the increase of coverage, as all global institutions are. Does the Vatican err? Sometimes, but not often. Should we remain loyal to the Church and the Pope? Absolutely.

With the problems we are facing: negative perception because of the sexual abuse by clergy, failing health of our Pope (who may very well be declared Great), and other issues, now is the time to pull together.

All the problems of the world, did not stem from Vatican II. We need to show the world a united CATHOLIC front.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), September 26, 2003.

SCHOLARS. Maybe even some that can type. God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), September 26, 2003.

Thanks, John P, for the complimentary words.

Paul, I agree with almost everything you told Psyche and Regina.
There was just one statement in which you used too strong a phrase.
You wrote (with my emphasis added): "To criticize [the pope's] non-doctrinal decisions is a less serious matter of course, but is still likely an exercise in pride, arrogance, and self-deception, not Christian charity."

I believe that it is necessary to write the words "may be," instead of "is still likely." This yields:
"To criticize his non-doctrinal decisions is a less serious matter of course, but may be an exercise in pride, arrogance, and self-deception, not Christian charity."

I believe that the pope himself would agree to this wording, rather than want to stifle (as your wording basically would) almost all criticism of the pope's "non-doctrinal decisions."

There are numerous circumstances in which many qualified people could properly, and with "Christian charity," find fault with papal decisions and recommend that he change his mind. I even think that the pope expects that kind of thing and does not feel offended by it. I don't believe that he wants to be surrounded by "yes-men." He knows that, as a flawed human being surrounded by other humans, he is:
(1) capable of using less than perfect prudential judgment, and
(2) susceptible to making a decision based on incomplete or faulty input.
I think that he knows that there are various circumstances wherein others know more than he does about some matters -- and he profits from their advice/criticism, even after the fact. I think that he knows that he has sometimes not chosen the best person for a given duty, so he accepts the criticism of his imperfect appointments.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

john placette wrote: "Traditionalist is a misnomer. Anti-Vatican II is more precise.

After each of the Councils, there were schisms. Vatican II is no exception. "

This implies that Traditional Catholicism, or what john calls Anti- Vatican II, is a schism. This is incorrect. To be schismatic you have to break with the fraternity of the Church in some way, meaning you must publicly flout the commands of your direct superior, whether he be bishop, archbishop, whatever. If your direct superior is a priest (lay people's direct superior) then the priest must flout the bishop's wishes, or the bishop must flout his superior's wishes, etc. This does not mean simple disobedience, which can be rectified easily and will very little frou-furah. This means a formal break with the ecclesiastical line of authority.

This has not happened with regard to Vatican II. No, us Trads are not in schism and never have been.

Any act of disobedience which the now-deceased Archbishop Lefebvre may have committed by consecrating those bishops all those years ago, would simply have been that: simple disobedience. Not schism. Big difference.

On the personal level, a layperson who attends a Mass which is Tridentine or which is said by a member of Archbishops Lefebvre's (LEGITIMATE) order, the Society of Saint Pius X, whose head is answerable to the Pope himself, and none of who's members (priests, bishops) are answerable to local bishops but are answerable to their superiors WITHIN THE ORDER, that layperson is doing absolutely nothing wrong and is not, nor could be, in schism.

Since the head of the SSPX is loyal to the Pope, his only human superior short of Jesus Christ Himself, and is loyal to the Magesterium of the Church, though not loyal to NON-infallible teachings or documents (whether of Vatican II or not), the SSPX is not in schism. The Pope himself acknowledges this. Why do you think he is about to publish a decree ordering the bishops of the world to allow their priests to say the Tridentine Mass without censure? To show everyone that the Tridentine Mass is 100% legitimate and could never be cause for schism!

Now, about that whole "Anti-Vatican II" thing: how many of the documents of Vatican II are infallible? To be infallible, they have to define or further-define a doctrine or dogma of faith or morals and must be given ex cathedra. Do any of the documents of Vatican II fit these qualifications?

As I said in another topic on this forum, if a document does not fit these qualifications for being infallible, and is therefore NON- infallible, it is by definition prone to error.

Is it a defect in a person to realize the difference between infallible teachings and fallible ones? This is the only "defect" of those people (lay, priests, bishops, etc) who do not give their lives or their Faith over to fallible teachings, but instead continue to believe the infallible teachings of Holy Mother the Church.

Once the door is opened to error and people mistakenly believe it as truth, anything can happen. Human error is the loophope through which the devil may enter the equation. This is why it is so important to differentiate between fallible and infallible documents and teachings, and even more important to not disregard known infallible teachings of the Church, especially not in favor of fallible teachings or documents.

*big, tired sigh* Once again, no, Traditional Catholics are not in schism. Schism requires a formal break with superiors, while in this case there is none. This is a misunderstanding generated by -- what else? -- human error.

And as for "Anti-Vatican II"? Scratch that, and make it instead "Anti- Fallible Teachings". Or, simply, "Anti-Error". No matter where that error comes from!!

I hope this helps.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.

To all who have so graciously announced to the world that they're praying for my soul:

"However, your (plural) constant smashing of Vatican II, fundamentalist approach to historical documents, and non-stop barriage of propeganda on this forum are absolutely deserving of all the hostility we can conjure up."

I am sad no one bothered to take notice that I deliberately wrote this statement about behaviors. And I stand by it.

And further, I thank you for your prayers, but we could all do without the pious announcements thereof, thank you.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.

Ahhhhh, I see now. Not anti-Vatican II. Just anti-everything about Vatican II that I don't personally approve of. Not anti-Church, just anti-whatever the Church teaches that I don't happen to like! Well now, that's different! How very Protestant of you!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 27, 2003.

Oh, and Psyche,

I do sincerely apologize if I have mis-understood you; the "constant smashing" generally comes from Emerald, Regina, Terry, Jake, etc. It appeared to me that you were aligning yourself with them. If I painted you with too broad a brush, then forgive my indiscretion.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.

Paul wrote: "Ahhhhh, I see now. Not anti-Vatican II. Just anti- everything about Vatican II that I don't personally approve of. Not anti-Church, just anti-whatever the Church teaches that I don't happen to like! Well now, that's different! How very Protestant of you! "

Excuse me, but did you even read my posts? It has nothing to do with what I personally approve of or not. It has nothing to do with what I happen to like or not. I clearly explained the difference between infallibility and fallibility, and what each of those means. All it takes is a little logic to follow my line of reasoning. And now, for being logical and Faithful the the Infallible Magesterium of the Church, I am subjected to name-calling.

Please stop the personal attacks and insted attack my argument. If, indeed, you can find anything there to attack . . .

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.

Some say Vatican I's teachings were never promulgated (Old Catholic schism).

Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa's National Catholic Church of Brazil (schism)

Marcel Lefevbre's SSPX. (schism over Vatican II)

"Pius XIII" claims to be Pope.

We need unity.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), September 27, 2003.

However, the abuse of something doesn't make the abused thing bad.

Would you leave the door to your home wide open and let just anyone who wants waltz in? Of course not. You safeguard your home, *protecting* both the people who live in it and the possessions you have.

I had the pleasure of viewing a video called "The Most Beautiful Thing This Side of Heaven." It goes, step-by-step, through the Traditional Mass: Why we do what we do, what certain things mean, and the like. Did you know that each and every second of the Mass is accounted for? I mean, there's even instructions for the priest and where he should direct his eyes (gazing downward during Dominus vobiscum" for instance), the gestures with his hands and so forth. There's absolutely no room for ad-libbing. Those following along in their missals can tell or not whether the priest is doing what's required of him.

In the new Mass there are "recommendations" "options" "at the discretion ofs" "unless there ares" "suggestions" etc. The priest can chose between 3(?) Eucharistic prayers according to what *he* (and the Parish Council, of course) preferes (?!)

Nothing based on raw statistics can be taken as certain truth. And statistics used as a weapon to attack another position are indeed hostile.

So is calling someone a "heretic" without providing what it is about the person's position that makes him heretical, but I don't see anyone admonished for that. That's far worse than being hostile. It's a sin against the 8th Commandment.

A: To say he is an idiot would be a mindless ad hominem attack. To say that he is capable of teaching error is still an attack, not only upon the Pope, but upon God Himself, Who personally appointed the Pope, and Who personally guaranteed the accuracy and veracity of His doctrinal teaching.

Please show me where it has *ever* been taught that the Pope has the Holy Ghost's protection and the guarantee of infallibility when he makes speeches, writes a book (I said book. Not encyclical) or organizes World Peace day(s) with people of other religions: with the idea that if we, of no matter what what faith, will call upon whatever higher power we believe in, that we'll obtain world peace.

It's the erroneous things the Pope has said during speeches and such and some scandelous actions of his that we as Traditionalists are concerned about.

To criticize his non-doctrinal decisions is a less serious matter of course, but is still likely an exercise in pride, arrogance, and self-deception,

And to believe that the Pope is incapable of error in everything he says and does is Papolatry. It's funny. I wonder why only our current Pope and the three before him are given the status of perfection, but those before the council aren't.

It is our *obligation* as Catholics to oppose errors being taught no matter who is doing the teaching. It is our duty to *expose* those errors so that no one mistakenly believes the error to be Truth. It is love for our Faith and for the Holy Father. Nothing more, nothing less.

--------

And Skoobuoy -

As long as we're quoting prelates with regard to Vatican II, I managed to find some that are just as interesting. So for those who foolishly believe that Vatican II was in no way a change or a departure in Tradition, read on:

"Vatican II marked the end of the Tridentine epoch and the end of the era of Vatican I" [a dogmatic council] - Cardinal Suenens.

"Compared to the post-Tridentine epoch of the Counter- reformation, Vatican Council II represents in its fundamental characteristics, a 180 degree turn...It is a new Church that has sprung up since Vatican II." - Hans Kung

"...the anti-Protestant, anti-Modernist aspect of the Catholic Church might as well die." - Father Bouyer, a French expert at the Council.

The Jesuit magazine, based in Rome, La Civilta Cattolica remarked, "With Vatican Council II, the Tridentine age was brought to a close for the Church."

Modernists, as St. Pius X warned, do not accept anything as fixed or unchanging. Their most important idea is the "evolution of dogma." The few I quoted above an many in this forum believe that religion must change for the sake of changing times and that's why Vatican II was necessary. That is Modernism, condemned infallibly Vatican Council I:

"The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissable to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding."

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 27, 2003.

LOL! Been away a week, wouldn't know it.

Regina,

Do you know that at the top of the thread you cited Hans Kung as committing heresy, and at the bottom are using him to support your position? Pretty strange, but then as the Arabic saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", right?

Frank

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

LOL! Been away a week, wouldn't know it.

Welcome back!

Do you know that at the top of the thread you cited Hans Kung as committing heresy, and at the bottom are using him to support your position?

You are missing the point. My friends and I have been saying essentially the same things as the clergy I quoted, but we've been bashed for it. The difference is that the clergy I quoted said these things in a *favorable* light. The argument has always been, "Vatican II didn't depart from Tradition." I've shown evidence that it did, right from the horses mouths, so to speak.

As long as Kung is unfortunately still in good standing with the Church, his input is relevant. Frightening that a heretic had so much influence at the Council. I shouldn't be surprised, though. A whole group of them helped form the new Mass...

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 28, 2003.

Regina,

You're right, I read this when I got home last night and now see that you were using them as "bad examples" as it were.

I have a few comments though:

Vatican II marked the end of the Tridentine epoch and the end of the era of Vatican I" [a dogmatic council] - Cardinal Suenens.

Of course it did, VatII detailed a new rite of mass, so it's obviously the end of the "Tridentine epoch", just like when the Tridentine mass was introduced, it marked the end of the "Greek epoch". So what? The church can change the rite of mass when they deem it appropriate for the faithful. With regard to it being the end of the era of Vatican I, this is also true, but then Vatican I was the end of the era of the Council of Trent. That's the way life is Regina, the truth remains the same, but time marches on. If no further clarifications or instructions are necessary for the church, why have there been 21 councils called? Shouldn't the first have addressed everything? If you respect the first 20, saying the church doesn't have the authority or responsibility to change things in a 21st when they deem it necessary doesn't make sense.

"Compared to the post-Tridentine epoch of the Counter- reformation, Vatican Council II represents in its fundamental characteristics, a 180 degree turn...It is a new Church that has sprung up since Vatican II." - Hans Kung

He's wrong of course, the church is the same. It's actually closer to the church of the apostles, in that it returns the mass to the vernacular, but that's beside the point.

"...the anti-Protestant, anti-Modernist aspect of the Catholic Church might as well die." - Father Bouyer, a French expert at the Council.

an opinion, not a very wise one, but then "experts" aren't infallible, are they? Actually, I don't think a Catholic should be "anti-Protestant", or "anti-Modernist" in that one should focus all their energy on being "pro-Christ" or "pro-Catholic". To define yourself as "anti" something is to lose sight of your overall goal which is going towards Christ. Obviously, this "expert" is a little lost, as are we all.

The Jesuit magazine, based in Rome, La Civilta Cattolica remarked, "With Vatican Council II, the Tridentine age was brought to a close for the Church."

See the first answer. Yes, the Tridentine era is effectively over. So what? Christ's church on Earth continues, and THAT is what's important, not a rite of mass.

On modernism, you are trying to say that the church is doing what's condemned. This is your error, not the church's. In some ways the church DOES need to change, if by change you *really* mean address the crises of the times. For example, look at nuclear weapons or human cloning. The ethical implications of these weren't really addressed before the 20th century, because the ethical problems they present didn't exist. If the church doesn't come up to the plate and address these issues, it's not doing it's job in protecting the faithful, yet it IS change for the church to be changing it's catechism to confront new challenges. (Unless of course you can show me where the Nicean or other old church council addressed cloning...). This to me is not "modernism", but a necessary function of the church. "Modernism" when it was brought up by Pius X was in response to the authority of the church being "threatened" by advances in the sciences and increased historical scrutiny of the church, and people were trying to bend the doctines of the church to fit it in to what was becoming known as historical or scientific "fact". He was not talking about interreligious dialogue, and certainly never meant that the church couldn't change to meet whatever problems it encountered. After all, his encyclicals themselves were changes in the church as they were emphasizing something new! The truth remains the same, the church as she sees fit expands upon some areas, deemphasizes others, all to help the faithful.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 28, 2003.

Can someone clarify this for me; All popes for many centuries took this papal oath until recently. Coincidentely with this refusal, dramatic channges took place. Is there some kind of tie in with this? It just does not seem right.

Since it is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is responsible for the alterations in the Faith it is appropriate to present the Papal Coronation Oath, an oath taken by a Pope upon his assuming the office of the papacy. Although the oath applies directly to the Pope, all members of the hierarchy of the Church should be guided by it.

I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the grace of God, whose Vicarship I posses with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy divine tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God almighty and the savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rites of the Church. I will put outside the church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would are to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelical Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture. (Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, Patrologia Latina 1005, S. 54)

The papal coronation oath was formulated in the latter part of the seventh century by Pope St. Agatho. For over fourteen centuries every Pope, up to and including Pope John XXIII, had taken the oath. Popes Paul VI and John Paul II were the first popes to refuse to take the oath. It is clear the purpose of the oath is to assure the Pope will maintain the integrity of the traditional Catholic Faith by preventing the introduction of novelties or changes which contradict that Faith.

-- Paige Collins (Paigegirl@yahoo.com), September 28, 2003.

It seems to me this is the *duty* of the popes anyway. Do you know what events in the 7th century caused there to be the NEED for this oath?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 28, 2003.

If no further clarifications or instructions are necessary for the church, why have there been 21 councils called? Shouldn't the first have addressed everything? If you respect the first 20, saying the church doesn't have the authority or responsibility to change things in a 21st when they deem it necessary doesn't make sense.

Yes, time marches on. With the passing of time, the inhabitants of the world change, too. New ideas, philosophies and such. Some of these ideas and philosophies are harmful. The Church in Her Wisdom and Love helps us in these matters through those who make up Her Magisterium. The Protestant Revolt made Trent necessary, for instance. It, in no uncertain terms, reminded us of our obligations, made us aware of the dangers of this revolt, why they are dangers, and that we must combat them at all costs. The Magisterium has a wonderful history of "fine tuning" the Mass, such as the restoration of Gregorian Chant, adding St. Joseph to the Canon and changing the language universally to Latin so that we could be united not only in Faith at Mass, but in language, too. But there's a big difference between fine tuning and radical change.

Vatican II on the other hand, instead of combating the theological, moral and social decay of the day, threw itself open *to* it. Instead of helping the faithful better recognize the errors of the "modern" world and how to combat it, offered an olive branch to the world. Those who wished to destroy the Church grabbed it. The result is the crisis we are experiencing today.

"...the anti-Protestant, anti-Modernist aspect of the Catholic Church might as well die." - Father Bouyer, a French expert at the Council.

an opinion, not a very wise one, but then "experts" aren't infallible, are they?

No, of course not. But an "opinion" carries alot of weight when it comes from one whose influence and participation at the Council was substantial.

Actually, I don't think a Catholic should be "anti-Protestant", or "anti-Modernist" in that one should focus all their energy on being "pro-Christ" or "pro-Catholic".

But, in order to *be* Pro-Catholic and therefore Pro-Christ, one must be opposed to heresy which is what Protestantism is. As a Catholic one must chose between the "modern" world or the Faith. If Modernism opposes Truth, which it does, we must be ready to fight it and get it out of our schools and parishes, but we can't do it if we can't recognize it. That's the problem. Churchmen don't seem to condemn much of anything as an absolute error. This has left too many of the faithful indifferent to error. Except the Traditional movement, of course. That appears to be the only objective error in the Church today which the faithful are only too happy to boot out.

To define yourself as "anti" something is to lose sight of your overall goal which is going towards Christ. Obviously, this "expert" is a little lost, as are we all.

Please take no offense, and maybe I'm reading you wrong, but that sounds a little wishy-washy. It makes it more difficult than necessary in "going towards Christ" if that journey is filled with ambiguity and a fear of taking a stand and declaring your opposition to something (being anti-something), especially when you know that that "something" is something which Christ Himself is opposed to.

See the first answer. Yes, the Tridentine era is effectively over. So what? Christ's church on Earth continues, and THAT is what's important, not a rite of mass.

But it is. The Mass defines every aspect of our Faith. It's the crowning jewel of our Catholic lives. If the Mass isn't offering what it should, or is offering it in a watered-down, more worldly way, what's the result? Watered-down faith and a worldly attitude towards it.

On modernism, you are trying to say that the church is doing what's condemned. This is your error, not the church's.

Not The Church. She is spotless. She cannot contradict Herself. I'm talking about Churchmen.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 29, 2003.

Regina,

Vatican II on the other hand, instead of combating the theological, moral and social decay of the day, threw itself open *to* it.

This is your opinion, and I understand that. Without trying to be offensive, what it means is that you disagree with the direction of the church, not that the church is wrong. Remember that at Vatican I, which you think is perfectly acceptable, there were another group of Catholics who felt that the church was going out of control and became schismatic, the "Old Catholics". How can you PROVE to me that your group of dissenters is any different than the previous group that felt the church was in error and left (who I assume you feel were in error as well)? They after all claimed to be the "true" Catholics as well, and with good reason, declaring Papal infallibility 1800 years after Christ was very radical (although not a change, defining this appeared this way to many), much more so than anything done at Vatican II.

To define yourself as "anti" something is to lose sight of your overall goal which is going towards Christ. Obviously, this "expert" is a little lost, as are we all.

Please take no offense, and maybe I'm reading you wrong, but that sounds a little wishy-washy

No, look at it this way: if you define your faith as being "anti- modernist", where are you when modernism isn't really a big problem? You either have to admit that your emphasis is now irrelavent, or try and MAKE big issues out of minor things to make yourself believe you are relavent. Do you see what I mean? If you make your position the opposition to something, you will only HAVE a position as long as you have an opponent to push against, real or imagined. This is why you see people like Jesse Jackson still trying to fight a battle that ended 30 years ago -- society has moved on, but he hasn't. If you define yourself as being "anti Vat II" you will NEVER see the good side of the Living Church, because to do so would mean you were either wrong, or irrelevant. By saying you are "pro" Christ, although you may think this sounds Protestant or something, what it really does is let you keep your focus on Christ regardless of the difficulties of the times. Trials may come and go, and they won't alter where you are pointed.

See the first answer. Yes, the Tridentine era is effectively over. So what? Christ's church on Earth continues, and THAT is what's important, not a rite of mass.

But it is. The Mass defines every aspect of our Faith. It's the crowning jewel of our Catholic lives. If the Mass isn't offering what it should, or is offering it in a watered-down, more worldly way, what's the result? Watered-down faith and a worldly attitude towards it.

Regina, I think you've missed a very important distinction. The MASS defines our faith, not a particular RITE of mass. If you don't like the new rite of mass, again, that's a fine personal opinion, but that's all. Let's try a different approach. Say you are 100% correct and the church has completely lost her way, and has in an official council steered the whole church in a Satanic direction (I don't know what you guys believe on this). How do you reconcile this with the Holy Spirit's assurance to guide the church? Remember we are not talking about INDIVIDUAL churchmen going bad and sinning here, we are talking about an approved council of the Pope and Magesterium. To me that doesn't square as something that would happen. Nowhere that I know does Christ say he will allow His church to deliberately lead His children to sinfulness, which really is what you are asserting if you think that the church is teaching people to be unfaithful. To me it seems like you don't have the basic Trust in Christ's assurance to guide the church if you believe the whole church is in error. I don't know how else to put it, really, I think you just have to trust, or not. Now OTOH, I'm NOT saying one has to put up with *abuses* of the mass, as these are occuring, and need to be stopped, but this is a different issue.

Frank

P.S. I'm kicking myself right now for not posting this earlier when I still remembered! A month or so ago I was at mass (Tridentine) and a priest ad-libbed (or misspoke) a line and it was really a crack up. I really got a kick out of it, but can't remember what it was, but it was funny to think about how everyone here would rail against the abuse of the mass. Oh well, people are human.

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

Hi, Frank.

Before we get started I just want to acknowledge that I reneged on my word that I wouldn't discuss these matters we've been debating on this forum again, but I've given much of my time time doing just that. It's just that you offer a great challenge, you make your points clearly and concisely and respectfully, that it's a pleasure debating these topics with you. But that pleasure has be felt on *both* sides. I'm assuming you're enjoying these discussions, too. If I'm wrong, you need to let me know, and I'll be happy to go back to not discussing these topics here again. For my own defense I think I've been good about not introducing the topic on other threads unless they've been brought up by someone else (i.e. a "welcomed" forum regular) so as not to be accused of "hijacking" any threads.

Ok. Now then...

I said: Vatican II on the other hand, instead of combating the theological, moral and social decay of the day, threw itself open *to* it.

You replied: This is your opinion, and I understand that. Without trying to be offensive, what it means is that you disagree with the direction of the church, not that the church is wrong.

*Exactly.* Vatican II brought about a "new orientation" for the Church. I believe that this "orientation" has taken the Church off the trail which was already blazed.

Remember that at Vatican I, which you think is perfectly acceptable, there were another group of Catholics who felt that the church was going out of control and became schismatic, the "Old Catholics".

In all honesty I know next to nothing about the "Old Catholics." But from what you've mentioned here I assume they broke off because they disagreed/opposed Papal Infallibility?

How can you PROVE to me that your group of dissenters is any different than the previous group that felt the church was in error and left (who I assume you feel were in error as well)?

Well, for starters you need to be clear as to what you believe we dissent from. If you'll let me assume for a moment that you're talking about our approval and support of the SSPX and the Pope's declaration of it, I think we both know it's been hashed, re-hashed, baked and burnt to a crisp on this forum. But to summarize, it pays to familiarize yourself with Canon Law. By doing this you can't help to begin to understand that even the Pope himself is subject to it. And in the case of Archbishop Lefevbre and the 4 Bishops, there was much the Pope (deliberately?) overlooked. Again, going back to Athanasius to prove my point, a declaration of "excommunication" is subject to error. Cardinals and Canon lawyers have verified this in regards the SSPX.

Also, there's (I know you don't want me to say it lol) Quo Primum. In short, it guarantees that the Mass of St. Pius V can be celebrated by any priest. No one here in this forum will give a definitive answer as to how and when Quo Primum suddenly became null and void. No one can point us to any declaration which directly abrogates this *infallible* declaration. Sure, there's talk of us "misinterpreting" the document, but there's nothing to interpret to begin with. It's all spelled out clearly. There's nothing cryptic or ambiguous about it.

According to Cardinal Stickler, the Pope organized a commission of nine Cardinals to study and determine whether or not the Traditional Mass had ever been revoked. The results were that it had not. The Pope was ready to make this public but was advised not to. Furthermore, after the Pope's last meeting with Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, he was willing to officially lift the "excommunication" and allow the SSPX to continue their work, answering directly to him, but the French bishops threatened schism if he did. The Pope submitted to the pressure and puts it back to square one.

Secondly, if you agree that the Church's "orientation" was correct *before* Vat. II, how can you claim we "left" the Church by the fact that we cling to Her "orientation" before Vatican II? To "leave" the Church would mean we've accepted heresy. Do you believe we have? If so, what is our heresy?

No, look at it this way: if you define your faith as being "anti- modernist", where are you when modernism isn't really a big problem?

Oh, ok. Now I see what you're saying.

As long as there are sinners, there will always be sin. As long as people continue to be imperfect, there will always be imperfection. That's why it's critical that we not only know our Faith, but that we demand that the Faith be taught, well, faithfully. By the Grace of God, maybe Modernism will be rooted out someday, but we must remain vigilant for what the Enemy tries to serve up next.

It's like this. You're Anti-abortion, therefore you're Pro-Life. It goes hand in hand. You can't say you're pro-life but think abortion is ok for some in certain circumstances. You wouldn't be pro-life. Likewise I'm Catholic, therefore opposed to anything which threatens the Faith. I can't say I'm Catholic (The One True Faith) but believing that other belief systems are valid paths leading and pleasing to God. I couldn't be Catholic.

Say you are 100% correct and the church has completely lost her way, and has in an official council steered the whole church in a Satanic direction (I don't know what you guys believe on this). How do you reconcile this with the Holy Spirit's assurance to guide the church?

The Church will remain whole and undefiled until the end of time as promised by Our Lord. Churchmen are trying to lead Her (and us) in a different direction. That's why we are Traditionalist. We cling to Her and the direction God established for Her. I find fault with churchmen. Not the Church.

Remember we are not talking about INDIVIDUAL churchmen going bad and sinning here, we are talking about an approved council of the Pope and Magesterium.

But I am. And many of the faithful are following them believing that the Holy Ghost is going with them, too. Because the Council is "approved" by Churchmen doesn't necessarily mean that the Holy Ghost *approves* of it, or that it was His presence which guided it. This is why it was clearly declared to be a pastoral council, not a Dogmatic Council. There's a world of difference.

To me that doesn't square as something that would happen. Nowhere that I know does Christ say he will allow His church to deliberately lead His children to sinfulness, which really is what you are asserting if you think that the church is teaching people to be unfaithful.

His Church will not lead His children to sinfulness, but He never promised that the Churchmen would be just as perfect. Unless we're talking about the Gift of Infallibility - used only rarely by special circumstances. That's why we need to know our Faith. People need to stop judging things (and us) in light of Vatican II and instead, judge Vatican II in light of infallible definitions. It is those - not Vatican II - that are the unchanging standard by which one measures every doctrine. Try as they might, no one can suddenly decide that Vatican II is the new yardstick by wich the Faith is measured.

The Deposit of Faith - The Church Herself - cannot fail, but novelties can fail us. Men can fail, the faithful can fail, priests, bishops, Cardinals can fail. Even the Pope can fail *in matters which do not involve his Gift of Infallibility.

To me it seems like you don't have the basic Trust in Christ's assurance to guide the church if you believe the whole church is in error. I don't know how else to put it, really, I think you just have to trust, or not. Now OTOH, I'm NOT saying one has to put up with *abuses* of the mass, as these are occuring, and need to be stopped, but this is a different issue.

The Deposit of Faith - The Church Herself - cannot fail, but novelties can fail us. Men can fail, the faithful can fail, priests, bishops, Cardinals can fail. Even the Pope can fail *in matters which do not involve his Gift of Infallibility.

Frank

P.S. I'm kicking myself right now for not posting this earlier when I still remembered! A month or so ago I was at mass (Tridentine) and a priest ad-libbed (or misspoke) a line and it was really a crack up. I really got a kick out of it, but can't remember what it was, but it was funny to think about how everyone here would rail against the abuse of the mass. Oh well, people are human.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 30, 2003.

Oops. Left the remainder of your post on mine. 'Scuse me.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 30, 2003.

Regina,

I think we've hit on some common ground, that "p.s." you put in was EXCELLENT! On enjoying discussions, I usually do when I'm learning something, but do feel saddened that something I (IMO) see clearly such as assent to the Magesterium is completely disregarded by someone else. Of course, this isn't limited to people who turn their backs on Vatican II, the same applies to Protestants or non- Christians, but the issues discussed with them are quite different. I do feel it's much more frustrating to me personally to see someone who is or was a Catholic leave the church. How can someone see the truth and turn their back on it?

*Exactly.* Vatican II brought about a "new orientation" for the Church. I believe that this "orientation" has taken the Church off the trail which was already blazed.

I understand this is your position as well. I feel it's my obligation to believe that when the Pope and Magesterium complete a council (Vat I was ended early) we have the duty to obey, just as we need to assent to Trent, etc. Unless they are teaching something UNTRUE, we should assent.

In all honesty I know next to nothing about the "Old Catholics." But from what you've mentioned here I assume they broke off because they disagreed/opposed Papal Infallibility?

Right, it's been a while since I read up on them, but I think there's a good article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on them if you're interested. They were a European movement that had a *considerable* popular and even state-assisted support in some countries who disagreed with the "new" decree on Infallibility. They petered out over the next several decades though.

Again, going back to Athanasius to prove my point, a declaration of "excommunication" is subject to error. Cardinals and Canon lawyers have verified this in regards the SSPX.

The Pope has the keys of binding and loosing, can you have someone be excommunicated who is innocent, or is the excommunication itself a finding of guilt regardless of merit? You can't have it both ways IMO, either the Pope has the authority to excommunicate someone (and have it mean something) or he doesn't. If Christ has passed on the authority to exclude someone from the ranks of the faithful, then they are excluded. On the second line, it doesn't really matter what some canon lawyers or cardinals say, they don't have the authority to trump the Pope's authority to excommunicate someone by name.

Quo Primum. In short, it guarantees that the Mass of St. Pius V can be celebrated by any priest. No one here in this forum will give a definitive answer as to how and when Quo Primum suddenly became null and void.

I've never said that it is illicit for someone to say a Tridentine mass, or invalid. It IS illicit to attend a mass performed by someone who's been excommunicated though. They no longer have the right to perform the sacraments. (oh, one other thing we haven't brought up much is that other sacraments performed by excommunicated persons are INVALID, such as pennance or marriage. Therefore having these done by an exommunicated priest would be as if they were never done. A serious jeopardy to one's soul, I'd think.

The Pope was ready to make this public but was advised not to. Furthermore, after the Pope's last meeting with Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, he was willing to officially lift the "excommunication" and allow the SSPX to continue their work, answering directly to him, but the French bishops threatened schism if he did.

I don't understand this, are you saying that the Pope offered them the chance to return to the fold but they REFUSED to obey Papal authority? Isn't that the very definition of schism? or do you mean non-sspx French bishops?

Secondly, if you agree that the Church's "orientation" was correct *before* Vat. II, how can you claim we "left" the Church by the fact that we cling to Her "orientation" before Vatican II?

Obeying the "orientation" isn't what makes one a Catholic, obeying the Pope and Magesterium is. If you refuse to obey, you are a no longer following the church, and are leaving it, the "orientation" is in this case, irrelavent. The same stance as yours could have been taken when the Tridentine rite was instituted, and those people who rejected it would have been just as wrong. It's the church's decision to decide the church's orientation or rite of mass, not that of individual parishoners!

It's like this. You're Anti-abortion, therefore you're Pro-Life. It goes hand in hand. You can't say you're pro-life but think abortion is ok for some in certain circumstances. You wouldn't be pro- life. Likewise I'm Catholic, therefore opposed to anything which threatens the Faith. I can't say I'm Catholic (The One True Faith) but believing that other belief systems are valid paths leading and pleasing to God. I couldn't be Catholic.

Well, to take an extreme example, say someone was anti-abortion because they made baby clothes, and didn't think they'd sell as many if abortion was legal. They couldn't care less about being pro-life, but are very much anti-abortion. To a lesser degree this can happen in a lot of situations, one could be concerned about one side of an issue without being concerned about the other, and why I brought up the "emphasis" part. This is a trap that one could fall into saying they are "anti-VatII" for example, placing their trust in Christ and His promise to guide His church secondary to their rebelling against something they feel that the church (as a whole!) is doing wrong. I'm decidedly NOT saying you should say that being a Mormon is the same as being Catholic, but if your strongest feelings of Catholicism are in opposition to the will of the Magesterium, I worry about that.

The Church will remain whole and undefiled until the end of time as promised by Our Lord. Churchmen are trying to lead Her (and us) in a different direction. That's why we are Traditionalist. We cling to Her and the direction God established for Her. I find fault with churchmen. Not the Church.

This IMO is 100% incorrect, and the heart I believe of our disagreement. When the Pope and Magesterium complete a council, that IS the correct direction of the church. Taking the view of one or a few dissenters and saying they are the "true" Catholics is wrong. With a church the size of the Catholic church, you could probably find a few Bishops who support near anything (sad to say), but it is NOT Traditional to oppose the will of the Magesterium.

Remember we are not talking about INDIVIDUAL churchmen going bad and sinning here, we are talking about an approved council of the Pope and Magesterium.

But I am. And many of the faithful are following them believing that the Holy Ghost is going with them, too.

Sigh. There's really not much to say to this. Vatican II is NOT one churchman's opinion, but the result of an official church council! Perhaps you can enlighten me, but I wasn't aware that the church had councils you could disregard entirely if you didn't like them. Can you tell me which of the other 20 councils you disregard, or is Vatican II the only one? If VatII is the only one, it seems to me like you decided you weren't going to obey it based on what it said before finding a rationale not to.

Try as they might, no one can suddenly decide that Vatican II is the new yardstick by wich the Faith is measured.

If by this you mean *nothing true changes*, this is true. However, that's not what I think you mean, I think you mean that we don't have to alter our behavior based on Vat II, and I'd disagree. Vatican II spells out the way the church wants us to go, and therefore you should assent to its directives, the same way the people living in the time of Vat I needed to "suddenly" assent to its directives. Vatican I was therefore a new yardstick for the faithful, and they had to obey. Vatican II is the same.

The Deposit of Faith - The Church Herself - cannot fail, but novelties can fail us.

Nothing is more novel than assuming that you as an individual know a better path for the church as a whole than an official church council. There is NOTHING novel about obeying a church council, or obeying the Pope and Magesterium.

Frank

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

I think we've hit on some common ground, that "p.s." you put in was EXCELLENT!

8-)~

On enjoying discussions, I usually do when I'm learning something, but do feel saddened that something I (IMO) see clearly such as assent to the Magesterium is completely disregarded by someone else.

I'm really sorry you see me this way. As if I just shrug off the Magisterium. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I do feel it's much more frustrating to me personally to see someone who is or was a Catholic leave the church. How can someone see the truth and turn their back on it?

You never explained what I've done which was an act of "leaving."

I understand this is your position as well. I feel it's my obligation to believe that when the Pope and Magesterium complete a council (Vat I was ended early) we have the duty to obey, just as we need to assent to Trent, etc. Unless they are teaching something UNTRUE, we should assent.

OK. Fair enough. Maybe you could help me understand what Vatican II requires of me. Was there something new that had come about at Vatican II which the faithful (me included) were not required to obey previously?

Right, it's been a while since I read up on them, but I think there's a good article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on them if you're interested. They were a European movement that had a *considerable* popular and even state-assisted support in some countries who disagreed with the "new" decree on Infallibility. They petered out over the next several decades though.

I'll check out the article, thanks. It does sound interesting.

You can't have it both ways IMO, either the Pope has the authority to excommunicate someone (and have it mean something) or he doesn't.

But it *can* be both ways. Yes, the Pope has the authority to excommunicate someone, but there is criteria which is required to be followed so that it *can* mean something. It prevents a Pope from abusing his authority and it preserves the integrity of his authority. He has to determine, following Canon Law, if the offender has met the requirements (for lack of a better word) to warrant an excommunication.

The Catholic Patriotic Association, China's approved "Catholic" Church, fulfills all the requirements for a justified excommunication. They support the pro-abort, Communist-controlled government and reject the authority of the Pope. Strangely, they have incurred no declaration of schism or excommunication. Why? Why, indeed.

If Christ has passed on the authority to exclude someone from the ranks of the faithful, then they are excluded.

Yes, but it can be seen that the Church under the guidence of the Holy Ghost, has happily forseen such necessary exceptions to the law and, by positive laws, has even legislated for such exceptions.

On the second line, it doesn't really matter what some canon lawyers or cardinals say, they don't have the authority to trump the Pope's authority to excommunicate someone by name.

So, if you believe that's what they have done, have they "left the church", too?

It IS illicit to attend a mass performed by someone who's been excommunicated though. They no longer have the right to perform the sacraments. (oh, one other thing we haven't brought up much is that other sacraments performed by excommunicated persons are INVALID, such as pennance or marriage. Therefore having these done by an exommunicated priest would be as if they were never done.

Canon 2261 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law says otherwise: "The faithful may for any just reason, ask for the Sacraments or the sacramentals from an excommunicated person especially if there is no other priest available. The excommunicated person may administer to them without any obligation to inquire into the reason for the request." I don't understand this, are you saying that the Pope offered them the chance to return to the fold but they REFUSED to obey Papal authority? Isn't that the very definition of schism? or do you mean non-sspx French bishops?

The non-SSPX French bishops.

Obeying the "orientation" isn't what makes one a Catholic, obeying the Pope and Magesterium is. If you refuse to obey, you are a no longer following the church, and are leaving it, the "orientation" is in this case, irrelavent.

So anyone who disobeys the Pope for any reason automatically makes one a non-Catholic? If your answer is yes, how is that Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, the CPA of China, Mahoney, for example, remain Catholic? All of them at one time or another disobeyed the Pope on one matter or another, or taught heresy, but remain Catholic?

The point is, disobedience doesn't always amount to a schimatic or excommunicable offense. To use your "murderer" example from another thread, killing someone doesn't always equate to murder. Killing in self-defense for example, isn't murder.

Well, to take an extreme example, say someone was anti-abortion because they made baby clothes, and didn't think they'd sell as many if abortion was legal. They couldn't care less about being pro-life, but are very much anti-abortion.

Again, you've made your point clearer to me. But while I've spent a good deal of time demonstrating my opposition to Modernism and Heresy (Protestantism) it's because that's what we've been talking about. First and foremost I am a Catholic. A Pro-Christ Catholic (which is redundant, but what the heck.) but I feel that by proclaiming myself to be Catholic, it should be understood that as a Catholic I am anti- modernist, anti-Protestant, anti-heresy and anti-anything which opposes God and His Church. I believe they go hand in hand. Using the Pro-life/pro-death example once again, no one, knowing I am a Catholic should have to ask me what my views are on abortion. It should be a given. Unfortunately today, it isn't. But I think I'm getting off the subject.

but if your strongest feelings of Catholicism are in opposition to the will of the Magesterium, I worry about that.

How does my Catholicism oppose the will of the Magesterium? By believing that Vatican II documents contain error?

The Church will remain whole and undefiled until the end of time as promised by Our Lord. Churchmen are trying to lead Her (and us) in a different direction. That's why we are Traditionalist. We cling to Her and the direction God established for Her. I find fault with churchmen. Not the Church.

This IMO is 100% incorrect, and the heart I believe of our disagreement. When the Pope and Magesterium complete a council, that IS the correct direction of the church.

So, a council can take the Church in any direction it wishes? I think you know better than that. I think you know that any Council must be in accordance with the Deposit of Faith, infallible definitions. Infallible definitions are higher than any Rank or any council in the Church. To believe otherwise undermines the whole integrity of the infallible Magisterium. It's an attack on the very credibility of the teaching office of the Church and therefore an attack on Catholic dogma.

but it is NOT Traditional to oppose the will of the Magesterium.

If the will of the Magisterium is a hindrence to my salvation and the faithful as a whole, it is. Enough Saints have said this already, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Paul, St. Catherine of Sienna. Your argument might be, "we don't listen to Saints!" To that I'd say, if their example was poor or inaccurate or wrong, why did we elevate them to our Altars and make them Saints whose examples we should follow especially in times of crisis?

Try as they might, no one can suddenly decide that Vatican II is the new yardstick by wich the Faith is measured.

If by this you mean *nothing true changes*, this is true. However, that's not what I think you mean, I think you mean that we don't have to alter our behavior based on Vat II, and I'd disagree.

Ok then. What behaviors have you had to change about yourself as a Catholic because of Vatican II that wasn't required of you to change before it?

Vatican II spells out the way the church wants us to go, and therefore you should assent to its directives,

Christ already spelled out the way He wants the Church to go. I assent to Him through His Church.

And where does it want me and you to go, anyway? And if it's direction was incorrect before the Council, where is *your* trust in the Holy Ghost? Where has He been for all this time?

And besides, what was wrong with the Church's direction before the council, anyway?

the same way the people living in the time of Vat I needed to "suddenly" assent to its directives. Vatican I was therefore a new yardstick for the faithful, and they had to obey.

Being a dogmatic Council, we are certain it was guided by the Holy Ghost. Therefore we are assured it was free from error and in full accordinance with the Deposit of Faith. Vatican I didn't change anything or expect our behavior to change as a result. Vatican I didn't require us to believe anything we hadn't believed previously.

Vatican II is the same.

A pastoral Council does not enjoy the same certainty of the Holy Ghost's guidence that a Dogmatic council does. Therefore, there's no reason for a person to be accused of "leaving" the church because they, lacking the certainty of the Holy Ghost's guidence, believe that a pastoral council isn't guaranteed to be free from error.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 01, 2003.

I think we've hit on some common ground, that "p.s." you put in was EXCELLENT!

8-)~

On enjoying discussions, I usually do when I'm learning something, but do feel saddened that something I (IMO) see clearly such as assent to the Magesterium is completely disregarded by someone else.

I'm really sorry you see me this way. As if I just shrug off the Magisterium. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I do feel it's much more frustrating to me personally to see someone who is or was a Catholic leave the church. How can someone see the truth and turn their back on it?

You never explained what I've done which was an act of "leaving."

I understand this is your position as well. I feel it's my obligation to believe that when the Pope and Magesterium complete a council (Vat I was ended early) we have the duty to obey, just as we need to assent to Trent, etc. Unless they are teaching something UNTRUE, we should assent.

OK. Fair enough. Maybe you could help me understand what Vatican II requires of me. Was there something new that had come about at Vatican II which the faithful (me included) were not required to obey previously?

Right, it's been a while since I read up on them, but I think there's a good article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on them if you're interested. They were a European movement that had a *considerable* popular and even state-assisted support in some countries who disagreed with the "new" decree on Infallibility. They petered out over the next several decades though.

I'll check out the article, thanks. It does sound interesting.

You can't have it both ways IMO, either the Pope has the authority to excommunicate someone (and have it mean something) or he doesn't.

But it *can* be both ways. Yes, the Pope has the authority to excommunicate someone, but there is criteria which is required to be followed so that it *can* mean something. It prevents a Pope from abusing his authority and it preserves the integrity of his authority. He has to determine, following Canon Law, if the offender has met the requirements (for lack of a better word) to warrant an excommunication.

The Catholic Patriotic Association, China's approved "Catholic" Church, fulfills all the requirements for a justified excommunication. They support the pro-abort, Communist-controlled government and reject the authority of the Pope. Strangely, they have incurred no declaration of schism or excommunication. Why? Why, indeed.

If Christ has passed on the authority to exclude someone from the ranks of the faithful, then they are excluded.

Yes, but it can be seen that the Church under the guidence of the Holy Ghost, has happily forseen such necessary exceptions to the law and, by positive laws, has even legislated for such exceptions.

On the second line, it doesn't really matter what some canon lawyers or cardinals say, they don't have the authority to trump the Pope's authority to excommunicate someone by name.

So, if you believe that's what they have done, have they "left the church", too?

It IS illicit to attend a mass performed by someone who's been excommunicated though. They no longer have the right to perform the sacraments. (oh, one other thing we haven't brought up much is that other sacraments performed by excommunicated persons are INVALID, such as pennance or marriage. Therefore having these done by an exommunicated priest would be as if they were never done.

Canon 2261 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law says otherwise: "The faithful may for any just reason, ask for the Sacraments or the sacramentals from an excommunicated person especially if there is no other priest available. The excommunicated person may administer to them without any obligation to inquire into the reason for the request." I don't understand this, are you saying that the Pope offered them the chance to return to the fold but they REFUSED to obey Papal authority? Isn't that the very definition of schism? or do you mean non-sspx French bishops?

The non-SSPX French bishops.

Obeying the "orientation" isn't what makes one a Catholic, obeying the Pope and Magesterium is. If you refuse to obey, you are a no longer following the church, and are leaving it, the "orientation" is in this case, irrelavent.

So anyone who disobeys the Pope for any reason automatically makes one a non-Catholic? If your answer is yes, how is that Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, the CPA of China, Mahoney, for example, remain Catholic? All of them at one time or another disobeyed the Pope on one matter or another, or taught heresy, but remain Catholic?

The point is, disobedience doesn't always amount to a schimatic or excommunicable offense. To use your "murderer" example from another thread, killing someone doesn't always equate to murder. Killing in self-defense for example, isn't murder.

Well, to take an extreme example, say someone was anti-abortion because they made baby clothes, and didn't think they'd sell as many if abortion was legal. They couldn't care less about being pro-life, but are very much anti-abortion.

Again, you've made your point clearer to me. But while I've spent a good deal of time demonstrating my opposition to Modernism and Heresy (Protestantism) it's because that's what we've been talking about. First and foremost I am a Catholic. A Pro-Christ Catholic (which is redundant, but what the heck.) but I feel that by proclaiming myself to be Catholic, it should be understood that as a Catholic I am anti- modernist, anti-Protestant, anti-heresy and anti-anything which opposes God and His Church. I believe they go hand in hand. Using the Pro-life/pro-death example once again, no one, knowing I am a Catholic should have to ask me what my views are on abortion. It should be a given. Unfortunately today, it isn't. But I think I'm getting off the subject.

but if your strongest feelings of Catholicism are in opposition to the will of the Magesterium, I worry about that.

How does my Catholicism oppose the will of the Magesterium? By believing that Vatican II documents contain error?

The Church will remain whole and undefiled until the end of time as promised by Our Lord. Churchmen are trying to lead Her (and us) in a different direction. That's why we are Traditionalist. We cling to Her and the direction God established for Her. I find fault with churchmen. Not the Church.

This IMO is 100% incorrect, and the heart I believe of our disagreement. When the Pope and Magesterium complete a council, that IS the correct direction of the church.

So, a council can take the Church in any direction it wishes? I think you know better than that. I think you know that any Council must be in accordance with the Deposit of Faith, infallible definitions. Infallible definitions are higher than any Rank or any council in the Church. To believe otherwise undermines the whole integrity of the infallible Magisterium. It's an attack on the very credibility of the teaching office of the Church and therefore an attack on Catholic dogma.

but it is NOT Traditional to oppose the will of the Magesterium.

If the will of the Magisterium is a hindrence to my salvation and the faithful as a whole, it is. Enough Saints have said this already, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Paul, St. Catherine of Sienna. Your argument might be, "we don't listen to Saints!" To that I'd say, if their example was poor or inaccurate or wrong, why did we elevate them to our Altars and make them Saints whose examples we should follow especially in times of crisis?

Try as they might, no one can suddenly decide that Vatican II is the new yardstick by wich the Faith is measured.

If by this you mean *nothing true changes*, this is true. However, that's not what I think you mean, I think you mean that we don't have to alter our behavior based on Vat II, and I'd disagree.

Ok then. What behaviors have you had to change about yourself as a Catholic because of Vatican II that wasn't required of you to change before it?

Vatican II spells out the way the church wants us to go, and therefore you should assent to its directives,

Christ already spelled out the way He wants the Church to go. I assent to Him through His Church.

And where does it want me and you to go, anyway? And if it's direction was incorrect before the Council, where is *your* trust in the Holy Ghost? Where has He been for all this time?

And besides, what was wrong with the Church's direction before the council, anyway?

the same way the people living in the time of Vat I needed to "suddenly" assent to its directives. Vatican I was therefore a new yardstick for the faithful, and they had to obey.

Being a dogmatic Council, we are certain it was guided by the Holy Ghost. Therefore we are assured it was free from error and in full accordinance with the Deposit of Faith. Vatican I didn't change anything or expect our behavior to change as a result. Vatican I didn't require us to believe anything we hadn't believed previously.

Vatican II is the same.

A pastoral Council does not enjoy the same certainty of the Holy Ghost's guidence that a Dogmatic council does. Therefore, there's no reason for a person to be accused of "leaving" the church because they, lacking the certainty of the Holy Ghost's guidence, believe that a pastoral council isn't guaranteed to be free from error.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 01, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Regina. I'll give Frank a rest, unless he wants to add some further thoughts to mine.

----- "I'm really sorry you see me this way. As if I just shrug off the Magisterium. Nothing could be further from the truth."

Actually, nothing could be further from error. {_8^D) If you were still qualified to be called Catholic, I'd lump you in with the "cafeteria Catholics," because of the way you pick and choose only those magisterial nuggets that you want to assent to.

----- "You never explained what I've done which was an act of 'leaving.'"

Heck, it's so obvious, I saw no need for Frank to "explain" it, and you shouldn't have either. You "left" by the willful choice to attend illicitly celebrated Masses, forbidden by your bishop. Either before or after that, you deepened the "leaving" by gross disrespect for a rite of the Mass ["an abomination," you said], and you made the "leaving" still more formal (in my opinion going into heresy) by failing to assent to some of the Church's teachings, including at least one dogma.

"Maybe you could help me understand what Vatican II requires of me. Was there something new that had come about at Vatican II which the faithful (me included) were not required to obey previously?"

You should know, rather than have to ask. Read the documents and find out.

"Yes, the Pope has the authority to excommunicate someone, but there is criteria which is required to be followed so that it *can* mean something. It prevents a Pope from abusing his authority and it preserves the integrity of his authority. He has to determine, following Canon Law, if the offender has met the requirements (for lack of a better word) to warrant an excommunication."

No, you cannot tie the pope's hands. The pope is the supreme legislator of the Church. He can add or delete a canon at will, permanently or temporarily. He can excommunicate for reasons that are not spelled out in Canon Law -- and he can do it with justice and fairness if the guilty party is warned of the need to stop or to avoid a certain behavior.

"The Catholic Patriotic Association, China's approved "Catholic" Church, fulfills all the requirements for a justified excommunication. They support the pro-abort, Communist-controlled government and reject the authority of the Pope. Strangely, they have incurred no declaration of schism or excommunication. Why? Why, indeed."

Wow! You don't understand that situation at all. As the pope has no trouble discerning, the CPA doesn't really "support" the sick government. It just pretends to do so in order to survive. This is a matter of life-and-death pressure. If the government were to fold overnight (as in Russia), the CPA would immediately come into complete alignment with the Vatican, would embrace, and assent to all the teachings of Vatican II, of the current pope, and of the Catechism -- and (after catechesis and priestly training) would begin to use the newer rite of the Mass. I have even heard that some, if not many, of the CPA bishops have, in secret meetings with Vatican officials, pledged their loyalty and rejected any thought of schism.
Contrast that with the Lefebvrite mind-set, wherein a body of Catholics -- under no governmental pressure at all (much less life-and-death) -- freely chooses to go into schism and undergo excommunication. How pathetic!

"First and foremost I am a Catholic."

It's not enough just to say those words. You have to "live the talk," which you do not do in all the necessary ways (but only in some of them).
I have had discussions with an Eastern Orthodox person, an Anglican, and a Lutheran -- all of whom, like you, claimed to be "Catholic." Naturally, the one is a schismatic, and the other two are protestant -- not "Catholic" -- just as you are no longer Catholic.

"How does my Catholicism [sic] oppose the will of the Magisterium? By believing that Vatican II documents contain error?"

[It should have been, "How does my form of Christianity oppose ...?"]
Failing to assent to the teachings of Vatican II comprise one part of your rebellion against the Church's teaching authority (magisterium).

"The Church will remain whole and undefiled until the end of time as promised by Our Lord."

A good reason for you to re-enter her.

"Churchmen are trying to lead Her (and us) in a different direction."

Not "churchmen," but "ex-churchmen," such as the SSPX and their sympathizers, such as yourself.

"That's why we are Traditionalist."

You are a Protestant Traditionalist. You follow the "traditions" of the 16th-century Deformers, who refused to be obedient and eventually slipped into heresy too.

"So, a council can take the Church in any direction it wishes? I think you know better than that. I think you know that any Council must be in accordance with the Deposit of Faith, infallible definitions."

That's correct, and the Holy Spirit prevents either (1) the Council Fathers from going against the Deposit or (2) the pope from ratifying the Council Fathers' writings. And so we have complete assurance that there is no religious error in the Vatican II documents. Catholics are required to assent to their teachings with adherence of mind and will and to submit humbly to their disciplinary directives.

"Being a dogmatic Council, we are certain [Vatican I] was guided by the Holy Ghost. Therefore we are assured it was absolutely free from doctrinal error and in full accordance with the Deposit of Faith. ... A pastoral Council [like Vatican II] does not enjoy the same certainty of the Holy Ghost's guidence that a Dogmatic council does."

First, as has been pointed out many times, Vatican II was both a pastoral and doctrinal Council.
Second, saying that Vatican II did "not enjoy the same certainty of the Holy [Spirit's] guidance" is pure bunk and the mere invention of people who are too proud to assent to some of its teachings. Nowhere can such a silly idea [a supposed distinction between the reliability of dogmatic and pastoral councils] be found in the Church's 2,000 years of teachings.

God bless you.
John
PS: I'm not sure if I will ever get back to that other thread where you asked me (at least a week ago) to clarify some things I said in my last post. I started to write you a reply, but it took me hours to reach just the 1/3-complete stage. It occurred to me then that I was making improper use of my time, given that (1) you weren't going to believe anything I say anyway (!) and (2) I really should instead be trying to help people that I don't consider banned from the forum (!). Ah, well. Here I am talking to you anyway. I hope you get to see the thread on which I have been battling with Dave Bowerman, a fallen-away Catholic. Yesterday I explained why I have been so hard on him for 3.5 years -- and it occurred to me that much of what I told him pertains to you (and your ex-Catholic colleagues). If you read what I told Dave, you'll begin to understand why I have been so vehement in replying to you in the past.
In case you've been wondering ... I have been toughest on you, of all the schismo-heretics here, because you were and are an instigator -- the person who led your whole family into error and a person who continues to try to lead others into error at this forum. I see that, after being almost completely silent for many months, you are now Emerald's replacement, and that is a very sad thing indeed. The good Lord would like for you to go back into "retirement," because he doesn't want this forum to be in constant turmoil over the same errors -- the ones to which you and others cling. I think that I have to join Kiwi in asking the moderator to ban you without delay.

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

Could I be banned, too?

I mean...y'know. While you're at it.

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

John, you REALLY need to do some research about what you are talking about, especially when speaking of the Magisterium, the pope, the Mass (illicit or not), and who celebrates the Mass (under approval of the local bishop or not).

If you had done some simple research, you would know that the priests of the SSPX are not subject to the local bishops; they are subject to their bishop in their order. This is not new. These are old facts which you should have known before speaking on this matter. The "head" bishop of the SSPX is DIRECTLY answerable and subject to the pope himself, and the pope recognizes that bishop and that bishop's authority over the other SSPX bishops and priests, and the pope acknowledges that none of them are in schism. Therfore, the local bishops do not have the authority to tell the SSPX priests what they can or can't do; including whether or not they can say the Tridentine Mass.

By the way, the pope is about to publish another decree . . . this one re-affirming to the bishops of the world that the Tridentine Mass is lawful and always has been, and that no bishop has the authority to deny any priest, subject to him or not, the right to say the Tridentine Mass, and that they (the bishops) must accomodate the desires of the priests and lay people to celebrate and attend Tridentine Masses (usage of local Church property, etc). Thought this might interest you. Discussion of this upcoming announcement is going on all over the internet now. With this knowledge, how can you continue to condemn the Tridentine Mass or those who celebrate or attend it?

I already gave you this web address before, but you really do need to go read it before you keep talking about the Magesterium, because it is you, my friend, who are moving dangerously close to speaking heresy out of ignorance. Go to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm and please, for the love of God and the love of your own soul, read it, and ask the Holy Ghost to guide your mind to understanding while doing so.

Your idea of the pope as ultimate in power, able to negate old truths and come up with new ones, is incorrect also, as I'm sure the pope himself would be quick to tell you. Regina(?) is correct is asserting that there are rules and laws which must be followed . . . essentially, the pope can not excommuniunicate without a serious matter and serious justification. Your idea of the pope is frighteningly close to considering him all-powerful, i.e.,God on earth, which he isn't. Please be careful.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 02, 2003.

Regina,

Posting everything about Vatican II in one post is a rather tall order! How about if we break it down decree by decree and cover it that way?

Frank

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

Trad company
Till the day I die Hey, gee: I think you should run that by someone we both know.

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

Hi, John. I owe you an apology. When I first saw the beginning of your post to me, I assumed it would be chock full of the usual accusations of me doing Satan’s work (intentionally or otherwise) and all that other malarkey. I was not going to give a reply. I was happy to discover that while most of your points were completely wrong, that your post was overall very respectful, and I appreciate that. So I apologize for making unkind assumptions about you.

Here we go… I said "You never explained what I've done which was an act of 'leaving.'"

You replied: Heck, it's so obvious, I saw no need for Frank to "explain" it, and you shouldn't have either. You "left" by the willful choice to attend illicitly celebrated Masses, forbidden by your bishop.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law comes to our rescue, however, in the law I quoted to Frank that says it permissible for the faithful to request the Sacraments from an excommunicated priest (my priest was never excommunicated, btw).

Furthermore, if all priests are given the necessary jusidiction in the cases where there is danger of physical death, how much more serious is the danger of spiritual death!

Think about what you’re asking me or telling me to do. You are saying that it’s better for me and my family to return to our NO parish (or any of them in/around our diocese) where priests are known for their heresy from their pulpits, where the Real Presence of Our Lord is doubtful due to the abuses of the priests, where the Mass itself isn’t clear about the doctrines it claims to express. We should rather do this, than go where we know the Sacraments are valid, the reverence is beautiful and the doctrine both preached from the pulpit and in the prayers themselves are correct and crystal clear? Sorry. I have my family’s souls, as well as my own, to think about.

You may suggest we, instead, take advantage of the Indult. What Indult? The one offered one Sunday a month, in a high-crime city, at 9 o’clock in the evening? Forget it.

and you made the "leaving" still more formal (in my opinion going into heresy) by failing to assent to some of the Church's teachings, including at least one dogma.

Which dogma would that be, John?

I said: "Maybe you could help me understand what Vatican II requires of me. Was there something new that had come about at Vatican II which the faithful (me included) were not required to obey previously?"

You replied: You should know, rather than have to ask. Read the documents and find out.

I’m asking Frank, just as I asked you in the other thread, for help in understanding. Is there something new I need to obey, that I didn’t have to obey before? It would be a daunting task to go through it decree by decree (but I can if you wish) so even just one or two examples of a new requirement of obedience would be fine for now.

No, you cannot tie the pope's hands. The pope is the supreme legislator of the Church. He can add or delete a canon at will, permanently or temporarily. He can excommunicate for reasons that are not spelled out in Canon Law -- and he can do it with justice and fairness if the guilty party is warned of the need to stop or to avoid a certain behavior.

A Pope who helps to build up the Church must approve of those who are also helping to build It during a time of crisis. If a Pope should unfortunately be opposed to those (Traditional Priests) who are building up the Church, they nonetheless remain united to the 260 Popes who have come before him, and are already united to those who will come after.

On to the CPA - Wow! You don't understand that situation at all. As the pope has no trouble discerning, the CPA doesn't really "support" the sick government. It just pretends to do so in order to survive.

I expect more from you than this nonsense above. So they outwardly tell their “faithful” that the Pope has no authority, and that Communism and abortion are ok, but the “faithful’ know the real deal? And the Pope approves of this? C’mon, John. That’s laughable. The very idea that the Pope allows people to masquarade as heretics, schismatics, and apostates believing it’s better for the faithful! I wouldn’t believe someone would actually make this claim, if I didn’t read it with my own eyes.

In 1994 the CPA “bishops” issued a “pastoral letter” in which they endorsed China’s population control policy which includes forced abortions on women who have one child already, and it calls upon Chinese Catholics to support this horror. But yet the Pope knows the real deal. My God!

But let’s say for a moment that you are correct. The Holy Father knows the CPA and its claims of loyalty to that hellish government, rejection of the Pope, and its autonomy from Rome, are just a ruse for survival of Catholicism. What then of the faithful who attend this sham? The one’s who don’t know of the “real deal?” That would mean that the Holy Father is allowing people to endorse abortion and Communism, without a thought to those who don’t know it’s just “pretend.” Think about it, John. Think about what you are proposing the Holy Father would really be guilty of! I may believe the Pope to be weak in several areas of his job, but if you really believe what you’ve said about this “pretending” nonsense, may God forgive you for insulting the Holy Father so violently!

Let’s stop pretending now, and talk about reality in regard to the CPA and Rome. While Cardinal Etchegaray was in China, attending a “mass” of the CPA in a church stolen from the real Catholic Church, an 82 year old Catholic priest in the “underground” Catholic Church (read: the one which declares its loyalty to Rome and opposes the Chinese Government’s hideous abortion requirements), was beaten into a coma and carted off to jail by “security” police. In obedience to Ostpolitik, the Vatican has issued no protest over the arrest, imprisionment and torture of loyal Catholic priests, bishops and faithful by the Communist government! That’s the reality, John: Ecumenical visits to a truly schismatic and apostate organization calling itself Catholic, but silence with regard to blatant torture and persecution of real, or, as you would say, orthodox Catholics.

Contrast that with the Lefebvrite mind-set, wherein a body of Catholics -- under no governmental pressure at all (much less life- and-death) -- freely chooses to go into schism and undergo excommunication. How pathetic!

Let me fix that for you. Contrast that with the Roman Catholic mind- set, wherein a body of Catholics –in serious spiritual danger of losing their faith because of heresy or implicit heresy all over their pulpits and watered-down doctrine surrounding irreverently celebrated, and perhaps in many cases invalid Masses– freely choose sound doctrine from the pulpits and doctrinally sound, reverent and undoubtfully valid Masses in strict adherence to the teachings of the perennial Magisterium. How heroic! I asked "How does my Catholicism oppose the will of the Magisterium? By believing that Vatican II documents contain error?"

You answered: Failing to assent to the teachings of Vatican II comprise one part of your rebellion against the Church's teaching authority (magisterium).

Again, just once of example of my alledged disobedience to Vatican II teachings, which according to you is required of me, would suffice.

I said:"The Church will remain whole and undefiled until the end of time as promised by Our Lord."

You answered: A good reason for you to re-enter her.

Let me fix that, too. It should read, “A good reason for you to remain in Her.”

First, as has been pointed out many times, Vatican II was both a pastoral and doctrinal Council.

You sure about that? According to the Council’s own document, the Preliminary Note to Lumen Gentium, it says clearly: ”In view of the conciliar practice and pastoral purpose to the present Council, the sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” No matters of faith and morals were defined as “binding on the Church” concerning the new “ecumenical orientation,” neither were any of the other novel “pastoral” formulations in the language of the conciliar documents.

Here are the words of a Council Father, Bishop Thomas Morris,: ”I was relieved when we were told that this council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and liable to be reformed.”

Pope Paul VI himself said, “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary matter, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”

So, as I’ve been saying, unlike a dogmatic Council such as Vatican I, Vatican II does not demand an unqualified assent of faith. The Council’s ambiguous documents are not on par with the doctrinal pronouncements of past councils. The novelties of Vatican II are not unconditionally binding on the faithful. What’s more the Council itself never said they were.

PS: I'm not sure if I will ever get back to that other thread where you asked me (at least a week ago) to clarify some things I said in my last post.

That’s ok.

It occurred to me then that I was making improper use of my time, given that (1) you weren't going to believe anything I say anyway (!)

I was asking you sincerely for your help in understanding why you believe I’ve left the Church. I was fully prepared to listen, to think about what you said. In fact I said as much in my post to you in that thread.

I see that, after being almost completely silent for many months, you are now Emerald's replacement,

Don’t compare me to Emerald. I don’t deserve such a compliment.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 02, 2003.

Emerald? Come on, he's the guy who can't make a logical syllogism stand up on its own, and goes on to tell Joe that he knows so much more than him... and so much better.

I liked him until I started reading his non-funny stories.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), October 02, 2003.

Jmj
Phew! Finally back to this thread after three days away. It's hard to keep up with so much activity at the forum, too much of it instigated by trouble-makers. I'd like to keep my responses here brief, but I don't know if it will be possible. Let's see ...

Starting at the bottom ... Thanks, Catherine Ann, for your insightful comment.

Jumping back to the top ... in response to Jake's words ("Could I be banned, too?") ... Oh, absolutely. Consider it done. Do it to yourself, even. I mean, obviously, there never was a valid reason to un-ban you after the first time you were banned (in 2002).

"Psyche," "Psyche," "Psyche!" I don't know who has fewer facts at the forum these days, you, Estelle, or Regina. This is getting pretty tiresome.

You wrote: "John, you REALLY need to do some research about what you are talking about [etc.]."
[I have already done the necessary fact-gathering. But you are living in a dream world, mis-educated by some schismatic or heretical guru.]

You continued: "If you had done some simple research, you would know that the priests of the SSPX are not subject to the local bishops; they are subject to their bishop in their order. [etc.]"

[Cool it with this "do-your-research" horse-bleep! What a "broken record" you make of yourself! You just shoot yourself in the foot when you try to put me down. The SSPX doesn't have a Catholic "order." Only the pope can approve an "order," and he has not approved any SSPX order, because the SSPX is in schism. But I won't waste any time arguing the whole goofy point you were trying to make, because I never said anything about the SSPX in the first place!!!

"Psyche," I was correcting Regina, so you should have kept your ignorant schnozz out of this. The illicit celebrations of the Mass that Regina attends are by a non-SSPX priest. He lacks the local bishop's permission to set up a quasi-parish and celebrate the older rite of the Mass.

You wrote: "By the way, the pope is about to publish another decree ... this one re-affirming to the bishops of the world that the Tridentine Mass is lawful and always has been, and that no bishop has the authority to deny any priest [blah-blah-blah]"

[I already knew about this supposed decree. My three opinions about it:
1. Unless and until it is published, everything being done now is illicit, disobedient, and sinful. For everything to have been done with liceity, such a document would have had to be issued first -- not now and under pressure from lawbreakers.
2. If such a decree were to lead to the reconciliation of the schismatic SSPX with the Church, all members of that group (plus quasi-SSPX folks like Regina and her disobedient priest) should have to approach their bishop and perform an act of confession and penitence in order to be absolved and reinstated in communion with the Catholic Church.
3. I believe that such a decree will either not be issued at all or will take a much different form from what you described -- i.e., without such a blanket permission for the older rite. That is the impression I got from comments made a few weeks ago when Cardinal Ratzinger was interviewed by EWTN. In other words, what you all heard/read is probably an unfounded rumor.]

You asked: "... how can you continue to condemn the Tridentine Mass ...?"
[Don't ask this dumb question unless you have seen the older rite of the Mass "condemn[ed]" by me. Not only have I not condemned it, but NO Catholic at this forum condemns it or even criticizes it. You are a johnny-come-lately to this (unfortunately) long-lived debate, so you don't know that I used to be an altar boy for the older rite of the Mass (beginning around 1961). Orthodox Catholics at this forum have no mission to bad-mouth the older rite, but rather to get others to obey the pope and their local bishop and to stop bad-mouthing the newer rite, which has been called an "abomination" by several.]

You continued foolishly: "Your idea [John] of the pope as ultimate in power, able to negate old truths and come up with new ones, is incorrect also, as I'm sure the pope himself would be quick to tell you."
[A papal "ab[ility] to negate old truths and come up with new ones" is NOT my "idea." You must be short on gray cells to read such a thing into what I have written. I feel sorry for your inability to read and understand English.]
[Hey, I just realized something. You've been here before, haven't you -- in late 2001 or early 2002? You're that silly chick from an SSPX school in Missouri or a nearly state, aren't you? Disguised yourself this time, didn't you? But just as obnoxious as the original. Though the forum started in January 1998, it was spared the presence of any persistent schismato-heretics until you came around, more than three years later. You were sort of a pioneer pest here, an early ambassador from the Republic of Hell. Well, if you really aren't she, you are as bad as an identical twin.]

To "gee(I@won.der)" ... your asinine poem proves that you too have donated your soul to the father of lies. It was easy to stop reading after two lines.

Regina, you wrote (concerning one of my statements last time):
"The 1917 Code of Canon Law comes to our rescue, however, in the law I quoted to Frank that says it permissible for the faithful to request the Sacraments from an excommunicated priest (my priest was never excommunicated, btw)."
[Get serious, Regina. The 1917 Code of Canon Law has been suppressed by the 1983 Code. Moreover, the 1917 Code, which was far more restrictive than the new one, certainly did not give Catholics "blanket" permission to receive sacraments from excommunicated or suspended priests, whenever and wherever they wished. Such an open permission does not even exist in the new Code, much less the old one. As I said, though, that is purely academic anyway, with the 1983 Code in force.]

You also wrote: "Think about what you’re asking me or telling me to do. You are saying that it’s better for me and my family to return to our NO parish (or any of them in/around our diocese) where priests are known for their heresy from their pulpits, where the Real Presence of Our Lord is doubtful due to the abuses of the priests, where the Mass itself isn’t clear about the doctrines it claims to express. We should rather do this, than go where we know the Sacraments are valid, the reverence is beautiful and the doctrine both preached from the pulpit and in the prayers themselves are correct and crystal clear? Sorry. I have my family’s souls, as well as my own, to think about."

[You are obviously not "think[ing] about" your soul rightly, because it is in far worse trouble from your mortal sins of gross, blatant disobedience and bad example (to your husband and the kids and all the people reading your words here) than it would be if exposed to the things you described as being done in licitly erected parishes. You won't catch me defending any of the bad things you described (even though I'm certain that you are hysterically exagerrating). [PS: There is no such thing as a "NO parish."] Over the course of almost 20 years, I have seen and/or read about nearly every imaginable abuse and false teaching, including some of it in my hometown diocese and in other places to which I have traveled. I know how irritating, even maddening it can be. You have a duty to stay and fight for things to change. If you fail, then you have a duty to hang in there and obediently bear the resultant cross with Jesus -- just as certain saintly people accepted being unfairely silenced by the Church. But you did not fight enough for your rights, and then you ran from the cross that was placed on your shoulders. It is a deadly sin for you to both run and be disobedient in doing so.]

[Let me amend that a bit ... While things may be very bad at your local parish, you are not necessarily being asked to attend Mass precisely there. If you are physically able to travel (even a long distance) to attend a properly celebrated Mass (with orthodox teaching) elsewhere in your diocese or in a neighboring diocese, then God is calling you to do that. If you are not so able to travel, then you need to go to the best place possible (not necessarily your "territorial parish") that is within practical distance. But going where you are going now is simply not a viable option, because it is sinful. Don't give me any lip about how beautiful it is, because your sin is disobedience. That's all there is to it. You cannot rationalize your way out of it.]

Replying to my statement that you have slipped into heresy by disbelieving a dogma, you asked, "Which dogma would that be, John?"
[It's this one: "Extra Ecclesiam, nulla salus" (understood as the Church really means it). You reject the proper meaning, resulting in an heretical and unjust theology of salvation. Please don't try to convince me that I'm wrong about the meaning of this dogma, because I've seen every argument a dozen times, and they don't faze me. In fact, your error on this is argument enough for you to "bite the bullet" and attend Mass in any church where a bishop permits its celebration, since you are apparently being taught heresy on this dogma where you are now attending Mass illicitly.]

You continued, referring to the documents of Vatican II: "Is there something new I need to obey, that I didn’t have to obey before?"
[Your question doesn't make sense, because whatever Vatican II teaches or commands is something that you have been obliged to believe and obey your entire life. The Council was held before you were born. Therefore you can't speak about something "that [you] didn't have to obey before." The Council documents have always obliged you to believe what they teach and obey what they command. To believe and obey them, of course, you have to read them and understand them.]

Last time, I mentioned that the pope "can excommunicate for reasons that are not spelled out in Canon Law -- and he can do it with justice and fairness if the guilty party is warned of the need to stop or to avoid a certain behavior." You replied (in part):
"If a Pope should unfortunately be opposed to those (Traditional Priests) who are building up the Church, they nonetheless remain united to the 260 Popes who have come before him, and are already united to those who will come after."

[You'll never learn, will you? The "priests" you mention are NOT "Traditional," because they are disobedient to the successor of Peter, which makes them violators of the Catholic tradition and disobeyers of Jesus himself. They aer not "building up the [Catholic] Church," but tearing part of her down -- by luring people out of her. By the same token, you are neither Catholic, traditional, nor traditionalist -- but simply schismatic (or protestant, if you are also heretical, as I believe you to be).]

[No priest or lay person of our time can pull off the bogus fast one that you mentioned -- trying to unite himself with past and future popes. I've rarely read anything so ridiculous in my life. John Paul II is our pope. We obey him unless he commands an obvious sin (which he has never done yet and is a one-in-a-million shot to ever do). That's the end of it!]

On the Chinese Patriotic Association, you wrote: "So they outwardly tell their 'faithful' that the Pope has no authority, and that Communism and abortion are ok, but the 'faithful' know the real deal? And the Pope approves of this? C’mon, John. That’s laughable. The very idea that the Pope allows people to masquerade as heretics, schismatics, and apostates believing it’s better for the faithful! I wouldn’t believe someone would actually make this claim, if I didn’t read it with my own eyes."
[You've sunk to new lows, Regina. Somethings you go bananas with some off-the-wall junk, I must say. The CPA pray for the pope in the Roman Canon. Everyone knows that he is the visible head of the Church. They don't teach the people that communism and abortion are OK. (I don't believe what you said about a 1994 pastoral letter. You must have misunderstood the facts or read a false report in some off-the-wall, non-Catholic publication. If it were true, it wouldn't have taken me nine years to hear about it.) When did I ever say that "the pope approves of," or that "the pope allows" everything that is happening in China? I'm sure that he doesn't like certain things that are happening. Whenever you try to put words in my mouth, they are the wrong words, ones I would never say. So stop doing it!]

You continued: "But let’s say for a moment that you are correct. ... What then of the faithful who attend this sham? The one’s who don’t know of the 'real deal?'"
[When did I say that they "don't know of the 'real deal'"? Again you let your imagination run wild, and then follow it with all kinds of bizarre criticisms of me -- for things I never said or beleived! This is a terrible habit of yours. This "Ostpolitik" thing you mentioned is a myth. The Chinese laity know everything. Many practice the Faith in secret (with the underground Church) when they can -- and in the CPA when they are forced to go above ground. The situation is what's called an "open secret."]

Going even beyond previous outrageous errors, you wrote: "... the Vatican has issued no protest over the arrest, imprisionment and torture of loyal Catholic priests, bishops and faithful by the Communist government! ... silence with regard to blatant torture and persecution of real, or, as you would say, orthodox Catholics."
[I don't even want to dignify this lunacy with a comment. Man, you must read some real horse-bleep to be so thoroughly brainwashed. You're even worse off than I thought. It's no wonder that nobody at forum has ever been able to "break" the bucking bronco in you. How can I have any hope of getting through your opaque blinders, when you actually believe that the Vatican fails to protest such things in China? You're as prejudiced against the Vatican as any Jack-Chik-style Fundy! Truly pathetic! The things you are saying here really vindicate my giving you such a hard time in the past.]

Last time, I wrote: "Failing to assent to the teachings of Vatican II comprise one part of your rebellion against the Church's teaching authority (magisterium)." To this, you responded: "Again, just one example of my alleged disobedience to Vatican II teachings, which according to you is required of me, would suffice."
[What is this about "disobedience to ... teachings"? We don't "disobey" "teachings." We either believe them or reject them. I believe them all. You reject some. For example, you reject at least part of the content of "Lumen gentium #14, #22, and especially #25. I know this because of some things you've written in the past. All of your gang reject these things, and this rejection is one of the biggest contributors to your remaining non-Catholics.]

When I reminded you that "Vatican II was both a pastoral and doctrinal Council," you responded by quoting from the Prelim Note to "Lumen gentium." But you didn't understand the very words you quoted: "In view of the conciliar practice and pastoral purpose to the present Council, the sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so."
Clearly the words are saying that some teachings to be presented are going to be binding! It is not difficult for a faith-filled Catholic to see which teachings they are. They are of the kind I mentioned above (e.g., in LG 25), which are "openly declare[d]."]

You said: "Pope Paul VI himself said, 'Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary matter, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.'"
[I don't know why you mention this irrelevant matter to me. I called Vatican II pastoral and "doctrinal," not "dogmatic" (in the sense of defining new dogmas). I know what I am doing, ma'am. I used the word "doctrinal" on purpose. The Council did "teach" (impart doctrines) and reminded us that we have to assent to all those doctrines -- even though (to quote the pope) they are not declared as "dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility."]

You continued: "... unlike a dogmatic Council such as Vatican I, Vatican II does not demand an unqualified assent of faith. The Council’s ambiguous documents are not on par with the doctrinal pronouncements of past councils. The novelties of Vatican II are not unconditionally binding on the faithful. What’s more the Council itself never said they were."
[Absolutely wrong! Absolutely wrong! This shows that you have never read the documents -- at least not attentively. Just like a protestant, you are trying to saying that you can reject ANYTHING in ANY Vatican II document -- but an orthodox Catholic will never let you get away with such a grave error. The real truth is this ... Wherever Vatican II reiterates a dogma (as it sometimes does), a solemn assent of faith is demanded. And wherever Vatican II presents a teaching -- even if not so formally declared as a dogma -- we must "adhere to it with a religious assent," a " religious submmission of mind and will." That means NO DISSENT, inward or outward ... NO ANATEUR EVALUATING/JUDGING as right or wrong ... NO DISRESPECT ... but only humble acceptance.
I believe that this is the single most unknown (or known, but ignored) Catholic obligation of all -- and you are one of many who fail to meet this obligation.]

When I said that "you are now Emerald's replacement," you replied that you "don’t deserve such a compliment."
[Now I know you've gone off the deep end! The only thing Emerald ever did that can be complimented is that he asked to be banned. I wouldn't merely say that you "don't deserve such a compliment." I'm afraid that, after having spent a couple of hours demolishing your comments, I can't seem to think of anything for which you deserve a compliment! (Well, I'll grant that it's good that you are a pro-lifer -- not having lost all your marbles.)]

God bless you.
John

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

in response to Jake's words ("Could I be banned, too?") ... Oh, absolutely. Consider it done.

I couldn't "consider it done" unless it came (explicitly and in clear terms) from the Moderator. You ain't no moderator, despite your obvious and long-held desire for the job. If I am banned by Paul (the current Moderator), I will disappear, just to demonstrate my willingness to display obedience to legitemate authority. Having you (whom I consider to be here illigitimately) wish me away carries almost the same weight with me as my Archbishop having told me I'm obligated to go to the Novus Ordo, which is obviously null and void. Am I obligated to feed my children arsenic, too, if someone in authority tells me it's good for them?

there never was a valid reason to un-ban you after the first time you were banned (in 2002).

The Moderator at the time thought there was, and so here I am; despite all your many (overly)dramatic calls, pleas, exhortations, begging, whining, and imploring. I stand un-banned and just as free to post as anyone else willing to observe the rules (which one of the previous Moderators exposed you for having broken). 3 Moderators (just since I've been here), and they've all been more willing to listen to me than to you, even telling me explicitly that I'm free to post here, as recently as a couple of monts ago.

I know what it is to be underappreciated. Good news is, humiliation can be quite a foundation to building a great deal of virtue and acquiring many graces, if you're willing to be generous with God.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 05, 2003.

Whatever your status may be here, and/or your freedom; you can't say you're a practicing Catholic, Jake. The Mass of Trent is orthodox and beautiful, but so is the Novus Ordo liturgy. By rejecting it, you separate yourself from your brethren, and you spite the Popes of our day.

I'm perfectly aware you'll come back with graceless one- line replies; and I have no defense against your impudence. Just do it.

All your argument against the Novus Ordo is pointless. You may not want to face it, but Our Lord is present in every Mass and sanctifies it daily. We are faithful to Him and His Church. You aren't, whatever lip service you might give Him. You're a dissident and a noxious influence where ever you go. You're teaching PRIDE by example.

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

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, Gene.

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

Jmj

Gene, perhaps I should let you have the last (and wisest word), but I just don't want to let people get away with telling untruths about me -- especially not someone who has a mean streak that would be the envy of Attila the Hun.

Jake writes: "You ain't no moderator, despite your obvious and long-held desire for the job."

I have never expressed a desire to be moderator, and I've never wanted the job. I don't have sufficient free time to do the work involved. Jake = wrong, as usual.

He writes: "I stand un-banned and just as free to post as anyone else willing to observe the rules (which one of the previous Moderators exposed you for having broken)."

What gall! A heretic who cares nothing for the rules and has broken them at least one hundred times has the nerve to whine that a previous moderator "exposed [me] for having broken" the rules one time in thousands of posts. [And no such "exposure" took place anyway!]

One last item:
Jake writes: "The Moderator at the time thought there was [a valid reason to un-ban me after the first time I was banned (in 2002)], and so here I am; despite all your many (overly-)dramatic calls, pleas, exhortations, begging, whining, and imploring.

That "moderator at the time" had a "brain cramp" and did the forum "regulars" a grave injustice by letting you (and others banned) off the hook, even though you had all failed to withdraw your insult against the newer rite of the Mass (which you called an "abomination"). That moderator had become an admirer of the older rite, and this clearly caused him to have a very foolish sympathy for Jake et al. He decided to give the three of them a second chance, even though they had not apologized. And the forum has suffered an incredible amount from their presence since then, as a result. A competent moderator would never have caved in like that.

Jake criticized my "calls, pleas, exhortations, etc.". But his behavior has proved me right, again and again -- and never more so than in the past week, during which he intentionally tried to irk me by trashing saints-of-the-day threads five times. Fortunately, his attempts were foiled via post-deletion. Several weeks ago, he trashed a saints' thread, again in an attempt to irritate me. Somehow, a grace from God got through to him then, enough to cause him to apologize and ask the moderator to delete the garbage he had posted there. But now we have seen that he is a big-time "recidivist" -- attempting to trash saints' threads five times in one week. It has never been more clear that he deserves to be banned.

St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

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

Dear John:
Let Christ lead you as always, in the path of quiet strength and trust in our Father's comfort.

He prepareth a table for me in the presence of mine enemies; my cup runneth over,'' (KJV, superb!)

Because we deserve nothing, we ought to accept the meanest treatment. Our Lord comes in majesty to judge the living and the dead. We will look after our own faults; He will trouble others about their faults. Meanwhile, we offer him praise and thanksgiving!

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

Jake = wrong, as usual.

Thank You, Jesus.

attempting to trash saints' threads five times in one week.

I posted what I thought was a beautiful prayer, pertinent to asking the intercession of the Saints. Oh, well. One man's "trash..."

It has never been more clear that he deserves to be banned.

Again, I will gladly accept this and comply fully if it comes from the Moderator.

Viva Christo Rey!

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

John, you wrote:

Wow! You don't understand that situation at all. As the pope has no trouble discerning, the CPA doesn't really "support" the sick government. It just pretends to do so in order to survive.

Before I comment on that statement directly, let me just say......Talk about blindness!!!! Your complete refusal to admit the possibility of and automatic denial of facts that Regina posted is not the least bit astonishing. Sad, though. You had to resort to calling Regina names again, all because you cannot refute the facts she posted. Or maybe its because you don't want to admit them, because if you did, it would blow your obnoxious belief that those in the Vatican always make good decisions right out of the water. Pathetic, really.

As to the comment itself, besides what Regina said, you have done something unbelievable. By making that statement, and making it sound like that is OK behaviour (either out of the Pope or the CPA bishops) you have just spit on 2000 years of Catholic history. When did anyone ever get elevated to sainthood because of a "pretend" rejection of the Catholic Church just to survive? Is life so important that we should "pretend" to reject His Church? Is this the example Christ's martyrs have given us? I cannot think of one.

But I can think of many who would rather die, than be guilty of even a pretend rejection just for the sake of survival. St. Peter. St. Paul. All the rest of the apostles excepting St. John. St. Philomena. St. Agnes. St. Thomas More. St. Edmund Campion. And this is to name just a few. Shame on those who would delay (if not risk losing)everlasting life, and all those that support them, just for the sake of more time on earth. Persecution of the Church is a sad thing, but the Church has only grown stronger by the blood of Its martyrs. Not by the spirit of the cowards.

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

Isabel,

I think that I understand what you meant, but it kind of comes off sounding like St. John the Apostle would NOT rather die than be guilty of even a pretend rejection just for the sake of survival. It is true that he did not die a martyr's death like the other apostles, he was exiled to an island, but I don't think that had anything to do with what he would rather do or not do.

God's blessings!

Carolyn

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), October 06, 2003.

John, I wondered where you had gone off to after withdrawing from our infallibility discussion! And what am I met with when I find you here, but even more ad hominem attacks than your last major post to me (the one right before your apology) which I didn't think would be possible.

And I find that you are not confining the use of ad hominem attacks to me. They are your primary means of survival in this forum, are they not?

Your response to the fact that I am female rather than male as you assumed is mainly the reason why I declined from revealing my gender beforehand; for immediately after finding out that I am female, you call me a "silly chick", accuse me of being here before, accuse me of disguising myself, imply that I am obnoxious, and imply that I am a "pioneer pest". You also accuse me of having gone to an SSPX school, which, along with all your other flip accusations, is false.

A man is less than a man if he resorts to putting down a woman for being female. Shame on your arguments and accusations. Our Blessed Lady is most probably less than pleased with such attempts to discredit a woman because she is female, especially coming from you, John, who styles himself as a defender of her Son's Church. I am sure you will have to answer to Our Lady for this.

"Riddle me this," John: Why did you think I was a man in the first place? Because you believe that a woman can not reason as well as I can?

You can't hack it against me, John, and that means that you can't hack it against A WOMAN. Does that bother you? Apparently it does, since you immediately took the "Coward's Way Out" by attacking, and attempting to belittle me, since I am female.

When you thought I was male, you thought I had probably graduated from a Jesuit University. When you find out I am female, you immediately downgrade your opinion of my education to a "SSPX school".

When a man fights a woman by this method he insults not only the woman but all women, including the Blessed Virgin Mary; and when a man insults the Blessed Virgin Mary, he insults her Son.

You have never given one shred of evidence to me to support anything you have said in our discussions. You have never given me a link, or a web address, or a quote from a Papal Bull. All you say comes out of your own mouth, and you use nothing of the Church to back it up. Some of what you say is true, but the majority is false. Perhaps you are afraid to actually start digging into Church documents because you don't want to find out that I and several other people arguing with you are correct. Or perhaps it is just the fact that you don't want to admit defeat to a WOMAN . . . for defeat is what has happened here. You withdrew from our discussion on infallibility, having in the end resorted to using ad hominem attacks almost exclusively, having never produced once shred of documentable proof for any of your arguments, having thrown an argumentative temper tantrum when I wasn't giving you the cookie of telling you my gender, and having thrown around accusations of heresy and schism with enthusiasm and abandon.

Then, after having lost by withdrawal, you begin to attack me in THIS thread. More ad homs, more "heretic" and "schismatic", and now, "silly little chick". *sigh* When will you (and most other men I've met) realize that women (for example, this woman) have the ability to reason and use logic as well as, and sometimes better than, men?

Through your words, poor John, you have shown that you just can't stand it that you lost a theological debate to a woman!

Produce evidence for your claims, John. Produce proof that the Tridentine Mass is illicit. I assure you, you will be able to find none if you search for it.

The Society of Saint Pius X was an established order before this pope was even pope. Your statement,

"Cool it with this "do-your-research" horse-bleep! . . . You just shoot yourself in the foot when you try to put me down. The SSPX doesn't have a Catholic "order." Only the pope can approve an "order," and he has not approved any SSPX order, because the SSPX is in schism."

-- obviously shows that you do no research whatsoever. Here is a quote I found after having done three minutes of searching:

"The Archbishop expected to wait a long time before the second canonical step, the approval of Rome, was effected. Only four months elapse until February 18, 1971, when Cardinal Wright, prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, officially approves and encourages the Society. The Roman document recognizes the Society’s international character and the fact that many bishops from the world praise and approve it. The Cardinal is happy that the Society will contribute to the distribution of the Catholic clergy in the world.

"Much to the surprise of our founder, his small work of faith receives a further encouragement. When a few priests from the outside wish to join him in the Society’s work, the Archbishop submits the case to Rome, and the Roman Curia, anticipating his desires, detaches totally these priests from their bishops and even from their religious orders to make them depend exclusively from the Society of Saint Pius X. This official act of Rome recognizes the right of the Society of Saint Pius X to incardinate its members."

-- quote from "A Short History of the Society of Saint Pius X", by Fr. Ramon Angles, web address: http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm

So there you have it, John. The SSPX is a long-established, legitimate, Rome-recognized Order, whose head is answerable to the pope himself, which (SSPX) has never separated from the pope to cause a schism, and which is not and has never been in schism; whose bishops are answerable to the head of the Order; whose priests are answerable only to their bishops within the Order, and NOT any local bishops; whose priests' right to legitimately and licitly celebrate the Tridentine Mass wherever they happen to be, no matter what the local bishop says, can not be denied. What say you to this?

As for priests who are not under the authority of the local bishops and who are not members of an order (such as the SSPX), who may be called "renegade priests", who say the Tridentine Mass without specific permission of the local bishop, I refer you again to the infallible Papal Bull "Quo Primum", which clearly states,

"We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or possessed of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals . . . and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal."

Also, " . . .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 . . ."

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."

A web address for Quo Primum: http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/quoprim.txt

Notice this infallible Bull causes the Tridentine Mass to be the one and only legitimate, licit Mass, by force of law IN PERPETUITY. Therefore, unless a priest has been de-frocked and no longer is a priest, he may celebrate the Tridentine Mass. If his bishop tells him to celebrate a different Mass, that bishop is in disobedience to the Magisterium of the Church unless that bishop has specific “indult” permission to allow his priests to say a different Mass. It is not the priest who is illicit or the Tridentine Mass, but the bishop, and the other Mass, unless there is specific permission for such. Now, to clarify this, John, you should go study Quo Primum, because it does allow "indult Masses" under other rites. What this means is that the Tridentine Mass is the legitimate Mass of the Catholic Church always and forever; and all other Masses, including the Novus Ordo Missae, are the "indults" for which special permission must be granted before celebration, under pain of grave disobedience (perhaps even excommunication -- go read Quo Primum). Kinda turns your world upside-down, eh, John?

Oh, and by the way, I did know that you were not speaking specifically about the SSPX to Regina, but when Novus Ordo Catholics use the term "schismatic" or "schism" in a present-day context, it is obviously realized that the SSPX is one of the largest examples of an alleged "schismatic group" out there, and that the SSPX has the most negative hoopla made out of it (far and above any other so- called schismatic group or persons) in Novus Ordo, anti-Tradition circles.

Also, I would remind you that what you say on this forum, to anyone, can legitimately be responded to by anyone. Do not attack me for replying to fallacies you brought up in a public discussion forum, even while addressed to another poster; for accusations against the legitimacy or licit-ness of the Tridentine Mass are things which should be responded to by anyone able to draw breath (or in this case, type).

Until next time, John.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 06, 2003.

but it kind of comes off sounding like St. John the Apostle would NOT rather die than be guilty of even a pretend rejection just for the sake of survival.

You are absolutely right! Upon re-reading it, I see how that did not come off sounding like I meant it to. Excuse me, St. John, I meant no disservice to you. I only meant as you said, Carolyn, that although I am sure he would have rather died than "pretend" to leave God's Church, he is the only one of the Apostles that did not die a martyr's death.

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

I was pretty sure that's what you meant, but for clarity I thought that I would check to make sure.

Have a great day!

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), October 06, 2003.

Psyche,

So there you have it, John. The SSPX is a long-established, legitimate, Rome-recognized Order, whose head is answerable to the pope himself, which (SSPX) has never separated from the pope to cause a schism, and which is not and has never been in schism;

You know, quoting the sspx on why they are not schismatic is the same as quoting a Mormon site on why they are the true church. If I can show you that Mormons believe they are the true church will you AGREE with them and become a Mormon? If you are a Catholic and want to hear the Truth, look to the Pope and church councils, not some schismatic group!

Better you should read Ecclesia Dei and see that LeFebvre and his organization are excommunicated. Your soul will thank you.

Frank

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

oh and

Notice this infallible Bull causes the Tridentine Mass to be the one and only legitimate, licit Mass, by force of law IN PERPETUITY

This is just wrong. It wasn't even true on the day Quo Primum was written! Read ALL of Quo Primum, and not just the sections the sspx quotes and you'll see what I mean.

Frank

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

Frank, I did not quote the SSPX or it's website to prove it was not schismatic. I quoted it's website to show when it was recognized by Rome.

Go to http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/quoprim.txt and read Quo Primum for yourself. It would be a good idea for you to read the commentary that comes after it on that website, too.

I look to the pope and the councils, ALL the popes and ALL the councils which have ever been, for ALL the Truths they have defined, (and I have read Ecclesia Dei too), not just this particular pope and the latest council as you apparently do, as do so many hundreds of thousands of other terribly confused Novus Ordo Catholics.

What you do not apparently know is that the Church can never contradict itself in Truth. If Ecclesia Dei were infallible, it would contradict Quo Primum. However, we know that since Quo Primum infallibly defined matters concerning the Tridentine Mass IN PERPETUITY, it is unable to be revoked, rescinded, negated, or counter-indicated. Any document which attempts to over-turn or over- rule what is set forth in Quo Primum (or any other infallible document) is full of error and probably written by men who do not even understand the rubrics of the Catholic Faith. Ecclesia Dei is not infallible and therefore not binding. It is nothing more than oppinion.

Although I do not take the pope's or the Vatican's oppinion lightly, when the pope's or the Vatican's oppinion is contradicted by Church doctrine or dogma as set forth infallibly, I go with the infallible Truth over the oppinion of the man who is pope, or of the men of the Vatican. This is how it should be. Oppinion matters far less, matter not at all, as compared to infallible Truths.

As for Ecclesia Dei, the pope, as a human, should have been more careful in expressing his oppinion. For the pope does not have the guidance of the Holy Ghost unless he speaks infallibly, which (I'm pretty sure) this particular pope has never done. Again, I'm not quite sure about that . . . must do more research.

But can you now see the difference between oppinion and infallible doctrine or dogma? Between Quo Primum and Ecclesia Dei?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 06, 2003.

Jmj

In response to a comment of mine ("Jake = wrong, as usual."), Rev. Jake replied, "Thank You, Jesus."
Besides the fact that his words are an eerie repetition of what Jimmy Swaggart used to say, they are misplaced coming from Rev. Jake. As I just mentioned on another thread, schismo-hereticals like Rev. Jake delude themselves into believing that those who correct them (such as us orthodox Catholics) are actually persecuting them and that they are doing the work of the Lord. Thus the utterly misplaced words, "Thank you, Jesus."

When I accurately accused Rev. Jake of "attempting to trash saints' threads five times in one week," he claimed that he had "posted what [he] thought was a beautiful prayer, pertinent to asking the intercession of the Saints."
Rarely has mankind ever witnessed such hypocrisy as that which is found in Rev. Jake's deceitful words! He posted the same pro-SSPX, anti-orthodox-Catholic litany five times on four different saints'-of-the-day threads. The litany was irrelevant to the topic of those threads. It was obvious that it was being posted to cause me distress, to promote the SSPX errors, and to criticize the Catholic Church against which the protestant Rev. Jake is battling.

Hello, "Isabel."
I thought -- that is, I hoped -- that you had wisely left the forum. Sorry to witness your return. I won't bother to respond to you at length, because you have nothing worthwhile to say, and what you do say is ridiculous.

Her-icane "Isabel," you've just added yourself to the list (with Jake/Regina/Psyche) of those who have recently put false words in my mouth. You are yet another who is apparently incapable of reading English properly, so you end up claiming that I've said something that I actually haven't said. [Here is your whopper: "When did anyone ever get elevated to sainthood because of a 'pretend' rejection of the Catholic Church just to survive?" I never said that the CPA "reject[s]" or feigns a "rejection of the Catholic Church." When I spoke of the CPA "pretending" to support the government, I was referring to a feigned support that is exhibited through a silent suffering. I was not referring to a pretended vocal support.]

I have already given thought, through the years, about the subject of martyrdom that you superciliously tried to clobber me with (as though I had overlooked it -- tsk, tsk). As the pope himself would tell you, the situation in China is not right for tens of millions of Catholic people to rise up and be mowed down by the government -- just as Pius XII did not endanger the tens of millions of Catholics across Europe by calling on them to rise up and be mowed down by Hitler. There is a time for martyrdom -- e.g., when a dictatorship totally forbids the practice of the faith or tries to force conversion to non-Catholicism -- and there is a time for action that is short of martyrdom (such as 1940 and now).

"Izzy," when you and the others post here, it is a total waste of your time -- and it seems to be nothing but a big ego trip [seeing your words "in print"], since none of you ever makes a valid, unrefuted point.

"Psyche," I kept my remarks to Isabel brief, but my remarks to you will be almost invisible, because attempting communication with one as doltish as you is a complete waste of time. All I have to do is tell you a single fact, and you will realize that your entire long-winded, hot-air, radical-feminist rant [only the first 10% of which I bothered to read] was based on a foolish, false assumption of yours. Read carefully:
I did not even read that revelation of yours -- that you are female -- until after I had posted the above message to you.
It was as I was nearly finished posting my message [to the shapeless, sexless heretic that you were at that point] that I suddenly remembered an SSPX woman from 2001 [Magdalen may have been her name], and that's why I referred to you as (possibly ) "that silly chick" in my closing words to you. Up to the moment of writing those words, I had believed that you were a man (as you well know).

So, "Psyche," just as I said to "Isabel," I tell you that your time posting here is completely wasted -- and exercise in egotism and nothing more. You have nothing whatsoever to offer the forum. If I were the moderator, you would be banned in the twinkling of an eye.

May God bless you and lead you all to a reversion to Catholicism.
St. James, pray for us.
John

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

Rarely has mankind ever witnessed such hypocrisy as that which is found in Rev. Jake's deceitful words!

Thank you, Jesus.

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

In regard to my attending Mass at a Traditional chapel

[You are obviously not "think[ing] about" your soul rightly, because it is in far worse trouble from your mortal sins of gross, blatant disobedience and bad example

Exposing my children to error (at a NO parish) and having them watch me obey a bad law would be a mortal sin for me and a scandal to their souls. Preferring that my children be fed sound doctrine and a respect for the Real Presence of Our Lord cannot constitute sin. Anyone who would act as a hindrance to those two essential things is at fault. Not me.

I know how irritating, even maddening it can be. You have a duty to stay and fight for things to change.

Who do I ask? Who do I try to arrange “changes” with? The priest guilty of the abuses? Fat chance he’ll listen. Maybe the bishop who allows the abuses to continue? Yeah, right. Wait. Why not the priest who, with the order of the Bishop put the abuse(s) into place? You’re nuts.

If you fail, then you have a duty to hang in there and obediently bear the resultant cross with Jesus -- just as certain saintly people accepted being unfairely silenced by the Church.

It borders on blasphemy to suggest that Our Lord would want His Mass to be regarded as a Cross to bear by anyone. That He would want my children to be fed erroneous teachings, thus poisoning their faith and their souls, as a means of valuable suffering. If one of His Shepherds is putting obstacles between my family and the proper and most reverent celebration of the Mass, the fault lies with the Shepard – not me for avoiding the obstacles. “Better to obey God before man.”

It’s like saying, “I like to watch television, but right now, there’s nothing on but sinful junk. I’ll settle for the junk and just offer it up.” No. You turn off the T.V. and do something else which won’t lead you into sin and/or error. You spend your time wisely. Maybe read an account of a Saint’s life, or perhaps attentively read St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

In regard to my so-called “heresy.”

"Extra Ecclesiam, nulla salus" (understood as the Church really means it). You reject the proper meaning, resulting in an heretical and unjust theology of salvation.

I cling to the clearly worded, thrice defined dogma as the Church Herself defined it. If you have a problem with this thrice defined dogma, perhaps you should regard the “speck in your eye” first.

In regard to Vatican II and obedience

I asked "Is there something new I need to obey, that I didn’t have to obey before?"

You replied [Your question doesn't make sense, because whatever Vatican II teaches or commands is something that you have been obliged to believe and obey your entire life. The Council was held before you were born.

Right. But, in case you couldn’t figure it out, when I speak of “me” (a Catholic) with regard to the Church before Vatican II, I am asking what did the Council ask Catholics to believe in or “obey” that they never had to obey before. You didn’t answer. Now that you understand that I’m talking about Catholics as a whole, and not just me personally, I look forward to your answer to this question: What do Catholics have to believe and/or obey now in the aftermath of the Council which they didn’t have to believe/obey before the Council?

Therefore you can't speak about something "that [you] didn't have to obey before."

I can if I study Church history. As a baptized Catholic, I have a claim on the Church as a whole, not just the portion of Her history I was born into and will live my life in. I am obligated to follow Her laws and Her teachings even if those laws were created before my birth.

The Council documents have always obliged you to believe what they teach and obey what they command.

Ok then. What do they command me to do? What parts of your Catholicism have had to change as a result of the Council?

In regard to the CPA

You've sunk to new lows, Regina. Somethings you go bananas with some off-the-wall junk, I must say. The CPA pray for the pope in the Roman Canon.

If that’s good enough for you, I’ve got a royal newsflash for you: Both my priest and priests of the SSPX pray for the Holy Father in the Canon as well.

But that’s irrelevant right now.

The CPA was formed in the 1950’s to replace the Catholic Church after Chairman Mao declared the Catholic Church illegal in Red China. Chinese Catholics wishing to practice their “religion” are forced to join this “church.” Their constitution explicitly rejects submission to the Pope.

Your absurd claim of “pretending for survival” echoes the Vatican II idea that man has a right not adhere to and not to follow the Truth in order to oblige civil governments. This is formally opposed to the teaching of Pope Pius VI against the Jansenists of the Council of Pistoia.

CPA and the SSPX

The “bishops” of the pro-abortion CPA have consecrated over 100 bishops without papal mandate and declare their autonomy from Rome. Declaration of “schism” or “excommunication” from Rome? Nope. Just a pleasant “ecumenical” visit between Cardinal Etchegaray with these illicit and truly schismatic “bishops.”

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without papal mandate for the sole purpose of preserving traditional Catholic practice and belief, and consistently declaring their loyalty to the Pope. The Vatican’s response? “Schismatics who are excommunicated!”

Enlighten me. Why this disparity of treatment?

More on Vatican II, Lumen Gentium #14, etc.

This portion of Lumen Gentium teaches “a true union in the Holy Spirit” with heretical sects. Then in Unitatis Redintegratio, #3, with regard to heretical sects, “a certain, though imperfect communion…”

This contradicts the Encyclical Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII which teaches: Jesus did not found a Church made up of a number of communities that were generically similar, yet separate and without those bonds of unity which make the Church one and indivisible. It’s also contrary to the Encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII which condemns the idea of reducing to a vague formula the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church.

Collegiality

In an effort to undermine both the unity of government and the hierachical structure of the Church, Lumen Gentium imposes a doctrine of a double supreme of authority between the bishops and the Pope that the College of Bishops united with the Pope, has an equal possession of the supreme authority in the Church in a habitual and constant manner. This is contrary to the teaching and practice of the Magisterium of the Church, especially in Vatican I, and in the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitium. The Pope alone has supreme authority which he can communicate, in the measure which he judges expedient and in extraordinary circumstances.

The Council did "teach" (impart doctrines) and reminded us that we have to assent to all those doctrines -- even though (to quote the pope) they are not declared as "dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility."

Which means, Genius, they are subject to human error.

The real truth is this ... Wherever Vatican II reiterates a dogma (as it sometimes does), a solemn assent of faith is demanded.

If the Council repeated what the Church has always believed I give It solemn assent of faith.

And wherever Vatican II presents a teaching -- even if not so formally declared as a dogma -- we must "adhere to it with a religious assent,

And what has Vatican II “taught” which requires my adherence?

." I'm afraid that, after having spent a couple of hours demolishing your comments, I can't seem to think of anything for which you deserve a compliment!

Don’t compliment me. If I thought for one moment that I’d gained your approval or respect or won favor with you in any way, I’d start re- thinking my whole position.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 06, 2003.

Psyche,

If Ecclesia Dei were infallible, it would contradict Quo Primum.

How do you figure? Disobedience to Papal authority is not decreed acceptable in quo primum.

It also shows a big fault that schismatics in general have in interpretting quo primum. The sspx quotes PART of it, but assidiously does NOT quote others, for example:

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.

Now if the Tridentine was to be the ONLY rite of mass, why would Pius V have allowed other rites greater than 200 years old to continue to be said "in perpetuity" (as he never says they have to stop)? Remember, he was speaking with Christ's authority, if he WANTED to order everyone to use this rite AND NO OTHER he could have. If he felt that the Tridentine was the epitome of all possible masses, why would he let anyone continue using anything else? Wouldn't he be allowing them to attend "less" of a mass than this one? What would the point of that be?

The point is, even when he declared the Tridentine as the current rite, he also allowed that other established rites were equally acceptable to the faithful too, or he would have disallowed their use. He therefore could NOT have meant that the Tridentine was the *only acceptable* mass, if he did, he wouldn't have approved the use of other rites as well. I've tried to say that in several ways, hopefully you can understand that.

This next part is more important, really:

We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force ***notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See***, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.

Do you understand what this means? He says that this mass is to be used REGARDLESS of what was decided in previous councils and "notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See"! Now if he had the authority to cancel out the edicts of prior councils and Popes, this would also mean that a future council or Pope had the right to replace this missal with a new one, if it saw fit. No one Pope has MORE authority than any other. Nowhere does quo primum state that future Popes couldn't REPLACE this rite if they saw fit, only that it could continue to be used.

On a whole separate tangent, as I understand it, a Pope can declare something infallibly only regarding an issue of faith or morals, is a specific rite of mass an issue of "faith or morals"?

Regina,

Preferring that my children be fed sound doctrine and a respect for the Real Presence of Our Lord cannot constitute sin.

Teaching them to call a licit, approved mass an "abomination" is NOT something in their best interests.

It borders on blasphemy to suggest that Our Lord would want His Mass to be regarded as a Cross to bear by anyone

It also borders on blashpemy to suggest to someone that the best Catholic mass is said by an excommunicated cleric who is not suppposed to be performing the sacraments at all.

What do Catholics have to believe and/or obey now in the aftermath of the Council which they didn’t have to believe/obey before the Council?

Regina, you've said this a couple of times. I've never seen anywhere that there were church councils one HAD to obey, and others one did NOT have to obey if they didn't feel like it. Can you point me to the infallible statement to this effect? If you cannot, perhaps you should go by Pius' oath in Vatican I to obey ALL church councils.

What parts of your Catholicism have had to change as a result of the Council?

I asked you earlier in the thread if you wanted to go through Vatican II decree by decree, and don't think you saw it as it got buried. Do you wish to do this? It is unbelievable you'd ask someone to summarize vatican II in one post BTW.

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without papal mandate

No, he did it when specifically ordered NOT TO.

The Vatican’s response? “Schismatics who are excommunicated!”

At least you FINALLY admit that the SSPX clerics are EXCOMMUNICATED! Since you clearly understand this, you will be held accountable to this level of understanding. Now read up on what that means for a priest to be excommunicated, especially as regards to saying mass, and the sacrements of pennance or marriage. How many tears do the saints shed when they continue to act like priests when they aren't supposed to? Man, I can't count that high. Terrible.

This contradicts the Encyclical Satis Cognitum

No it doesn't. But that's not your problem, so don't worry about it. Your FIRST problem is the need to return to the church, and accepting Vatican II, an official church council, is the first step.

The real truth is this ... Wherever Vatican II reiterates a dogma (as it sometimes does), a solemn assent of faith is demanded.

If the Council repeated what the Church has always believed I give It solemn assent of faith.

This is another "big lie" of the schismatics. There is NO "new" truth, everything that is true, always was. If you start calling the mass an "abomination", obviously you are no longer a Catholic, no Catholic COULD say that! The mass is the center of our worship!

Frank

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

Bravo, Frank! The Pope is still in charge; the Creed is intact and binding on the faithful; the Church is not Neo Catholic in the least; she is traditional; with the Mass in vernacular celebrated only by duly ordained Catholic priests. The Mass of Trent is holy and without any other equal except the Novus Ordo Missal. So speaks the Pontiff, the Church and the Holy Spirit. This is our faith.

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

Teaching them to call a licit, approved mass an "abomination" is NOT something in their best interests.

They call the Novus Ordo "Silly Mass," a term they came up with all on their own. Until they can understand words like "intrinsically evil," their terminology is not only cute; but accurate!

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

We are not divided, Emerald. We are constant because we have Christ in our midst. That's why it's true, we're traditional. ''Trads'' do not wish to unite. They have more faith in schism than in tradition, IMHO.

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

"Trads do not wish to unite."

Speak for yourself tatto.

-- - (.@...), October 06, 2003.

I won't bother to respond to you at length, because you have nothing worthwhile to say, and what you do say is ridiculous.

LOL! I do need more humility, that's not a lie, but it sure won't come from the likes of you. You really shouldn't say such things, because things like this coming from you only add to my ego. Common sense, you know.

you've just added yourself to the list (with Jake/Regina/Psyche) of those who have recently put false words in my mouth. You are yet another who is apparently incapable of reading English properly, so you end up claiming that I've said something that I actually haven't said.

I think it's more of the fact that you don't make your 'declarations' in proper English. Because you say something (as I did above about St. John) that can be taken in more than one way, and when others take it in a way 'not intended' you automatically find the fault witht he reader and not with yourself. (Either that or your backpeddling.) Try using clear, precise, unambiguous language that could only be taken one way. Like they do in infallible declarations.

And here's your whopper: I never said that the CPA "reject[s]" or feigns a "rejection of the Catholic Church." When I spoke of the CPA "pretending" to support the government, I was referring to a feigned support that is exhibited through a silent suffering. I was not referring to a pretended vocal support.

You either know nothing of the facts, or your trying really hard to keep your head above water here. Oh, and believe me, it is possible that you have 'gone nine years without hearing of this'. Especially when it's something you don't want to hear about. It's called selective hearing. My kids have it.

Anyway, can you explain to me how it's better to "feign support" for this evil government versus "feigning rejection" of the Church, when really the first would amount to the second? By "feigning support" for such an evil government, they are in fact "feigning rejection" of the Church. It goes hand in hand. (Pull out that bicycle and start backpeddling again.) And they are just as guilty either way. And it's not 'silent suffering' either. You really need to read more. The Church should vocally make a stand against this government, like they used to do in days of old. But it seems as if definite condemnations of government, people, and actions that deserve condemnations is a thing of the past.

As the pope himself would tell you, the situation in China is not right for tens of millions of Catholic people to rise up and be mowed down by the government

I never said anything about rising up against the government. (Although, that's not a bad idea.) It seems as if you are having a problem reading English, as well. What I did say, was that they shouldn't give an inch of their faith for the sake of survival. The Church only grows stronger when the faithful are willing to suffer for Her. Under the reign of Elizabeth I, true Catholicism was outlawed like it is in China, but the Catholic Church managed to survive in England. How? Underground. Priests going to and fro in disguise, saying Masses and hearing confessions in people's homes. It was these faithful who made up the Catholic Church, not the ones who caved in and went to the government approved 'Masses'. During these dark days for the Catholics in England, there were many who were captured and martyred (St. Edmund Campion), and there were many who gave in and went to the Church of England services, just so they wouldn't lose their lands or be taxed excessively. Who is in Heaven now? So, you see, it has nothing to do with rising against the government, and everything to do with not giving in, when it comes to the faith, even if it means death.

There is a time for martyrdom -- e.g., when a dictatorship totally forbids the practice of the faith

Such as under Elizabeth I or in Red China, right?

or tries to force conversion to non-Catholicism

Such as under Elizabeth I or in Red China, right?

-- and there is a time for action that is short of martyrdom (such as 1940 and now).

No one should ever go looking for maryrdom, for God will only give it to those truly worthy. But what Catholics must do is stand strong and firm, and not let a communist government impose a religion that is less than Catholic on them. Because if you believe the evil government is China is really going to tolerate the true Catholic Church then you need to take your blinders off. And if you think the true Catholic Church would allow itself to be called CPA.....well.......you really need to take your blinders off.

"Izzy," when you and the others post here, it is a total waste of your time

But I wonder.....wouldn't it follow then that your responses are a complete waste of your time. You'll have to answer for that one day.....wasting time, you know.

since none of you ever makes a valid, unrefuted point.

If you call your ad-hominen attacks refutation against Church documents and facts.....well......

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

Jake,

They call the Novus Ordo "Silly Mass," a term they came up with all on their own. Until they can understand words like "intrinsically evil," their terminology is not only cute; but accurate!

Maybe you are forgetting what a mass is, but calling Christ's sacrifice for us "intrinically evil" is without a doubt one of the biggest things YOU'LL have to answer for in your life! I understand you like the old Tridentine rite, etc. but Jake, how could you even THINK something like that?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 07, 2003.

Remember a while back when I posted a picture of what I thought was a Catholic priest ofering Mass on a beach, and it turned out he was actually a Protestant minister? I still maintain that there's no way, without the website url, anyone could have told the difference between that service and your typical Novus Ordo silliness. Nonetheless, I never apologized for my error.

Well, for the record, I apologize. I honestly thought it was a picture of a "Catholic Mass."

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 07, 2003.

LOL!

Well, we all get the chance to make our beds, don't complain when you have to lay in yours!

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 07, 2003.

Frank,

Even a rudimentary scan shows that Quo Primum and Ecclesia Dei are contradictory. Therefore, only one can be true as concerns what is contradicted.

You wrote: “Disobedience to Papal authority is not decreed acceptable in quo primum.“

Frank, this came out of your mouth (keyboard? Fingers?) like a Frisbee out of a ham sandwich. In other words, I have no idea where it came from. I never advocated disobedience to Papal authority. I advocated OBEDIENCE to Papal authority in as far as that authority extends, and I mentioned that most of you terribly confused Novus Ordo Catholics do not know where that authority begins or ends, and I said that the pope, as a human, makes mistakes; unless he is speaking/writing ex cathedra, we are not bound to believe one iota of what he says because it is simply OPPINION. On the other hand, like I also said, the pope’s opinion should not be taken lightly; only when it contradicts previous INFALLIBLE declarations should it be expressly disobeyed. At that point in time, you would not be disobeying Papal authority; you would be disobeying wrong directives from an error-prone human, since the Papacy can never lend it’s authority to wrong directives.

You wrote: “It also shows a big fault that schismatics in general have in interpretting quo primum. The sspx quotes PART of it, but assidiously does NOT quote others, for example: This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.”

Frank, I do not know what the SSPX quotes. I am not SSPX and I do my own research. Please show your research which “proves” the SSPX quotes are incomplete and assiduous.

Frank, that quote you gave simply says that an indult is given in order to say Masses pre-existing the Tridentine by 200 years or more. Since the Novus Ordo Missae did not pre-exist the Tridentine, this quote does not apply to this situation.

You wrote: “Now if the Tridentine was to be the ONLY rite of mass, why would Pius V have allowed other rites greater than 200 years old to continue to be said "in perpetuity" (as he never says they have to stop)?”

Frank, he was granting an indult, because he was being reasonable. He would have risked (possibly) losing many set-in-their-ways communities of Catholics who used other Masses, unless he granted them an indult to continue saying their preferred Mass if they wished. The Pope was being realistic and kind. How can you question this?

You wrote: “Remember, he was speaking with Christ's authority, if he WANTED to order everyone to use this rite AND NO OTHER he could have.”

Frank, yes, he could have, if he had made it infallible. Don’t forget that most important condition.

You wrote: “If he felt that the Tridentine was the epitome of all possible masses, why would he let anyone continue using anything else? Wouldn't he be allowing them to attend "less" of a mass than this one? What would the point of that be?”

Frank, because he was kind, reasonable, and realistic he granted indults for the celebration of previously approved rites. As long as the Mass has certain parts to it, and as long as the Consecration takes place validly, the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. There is no “more” or “less” while standing at the foot of the Cross on Calvary. There is only “everything.”

You wrote: “The point is, even when he declared the Tridentine as the current rite, he also allowed that other established rites were equally acceptable to the faithful too, or he would have disallowed their use. He therefore could NOT have meant that the Tridentine was the *only acceptable* mass, if he did, he wouldn't have approved the use of other rites as well.”

Frank, please understand the timeline here. There were many valid rites of Mass at the time Quo Primum was declared. At the instant Quo Primum was declared, it became unlawful to say any other rite of the Mass but the Tridentine, ULNESS A DISPENSATION WAS GRANTED. The pope expressly granted dispensations to those where a different, previously approved, rite had been in use for over 200 years. The pope also declared that IN PERPETUITY no changes were to be made to the Tridentine Mass, ever, and that “ . . . 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,” except as given permission by indult. Can you still argue with this? Be careful!

You wrote: “Do you understand what this means? (We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force ***notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See***, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing. )” – my insertion of quote

Frank, when Quo Primum speaks of “previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See” it is not speaking of INFALLIBLE constitutions and decrees, but merely OPPINIONS of previous popes. Quo Primum, being a Papal Bull, is infallible, therefore can never be contradicted, rescinded, negated, or counter-indicated in the present time or future. Ecclesia Dei, for example, is NOT infallible; therefore it is merely papal opinion; therefore, it is the opinion of a human; therefore, it is fallible, prone to error, etc, and no Catholic is bound to believe it or obey it.

You wrote: “ . . . authority to cancel out the edicts of prior councils and Popes, this would also mean that a future council or Pope had the right to replace this missal with a new one, if it saw fit.”

Frank, it seems you are not hearing or believing or understanding the truth about infallibility. Any pope has the authority to cancel out the non-infallible edicts of prior councils and popes. A future (now past) council (specifically Vat II) had/has no right to replace the Tridentine Mass with a new one because it is the Mass for all time as set forth in the INFALLIBLE Quo Primum. Get it? Infallibe = may NOT be changed. Non-infallibe = merely opinion, can be changed. Big difference.

You wrote: “No one Pope has MORE authority than any other. Nowhere does quo primum state that future Popes couldn't REPLACE this rite if they saw fit, only that it could continue to be used.”

Frank, you are correct in saying that no Pope has more authority than any other. However, some documents/teachings DO have more authority than others. Differentiate between INFALLIBLE and non- infallible, please. However, you are incorrect in saying that the Tridentine Mass could be replaced. Quo Primum says, “ . . . it is altogether fitting that there should be in the Church only one appropriate manner of Psalmody and one sole rite of celebrating Mass,” designating the Tridentine Mass for this purpose; “ . . . thus restored the Missal itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers,” why would anyone, Frank, want to change the Mass or write a new one (Novus Ordo Missae) which did not take part in the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers? “ . . . that priests may know what prayers to use, and what rites and ceremonies they are to observe henceforward in the celebration of Masses,” notice the HENCEFORWARD, Frank, “ . . . 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,” notice the HENCEFORTH AND FOREVER, Frank. Can you still argue with this? If you deny one Truth as set forth infallibly by Holy Mother Church, you are not Catholic, so be careful.

You wrote: “On a whole separate tangent, as I understand it, a Pope can declare something infallibly only regarding an issue of faith or morals, is a specific rite of mass an issue of "faith or morals"?”

Frank, ANYTHING concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an issue of Faith. The Mass is an integral part of our religion . . . in fact, the Blessed Sacrament is the CENTER of our whole Faith. Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is what separates Catholics from everyone else. We believe in the Real Presence; the Mass is how we worship Christ in the Blessed Sacrament; do you not think how we worship is an issue of Faith or morals?

Until next time, Frank.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

John,

By ignoring or refusing to read the ¡§meat¡¨ of my last post to you, you hide your eyes from the truth. This is no longer Invincible Ignorance, it is Chosen Ignorance on your part. Be careful, John; I fear your soul is in danger.

You wrote: " . . . attempting communication with one as doltish as you is a complete waste of time.¡¨

Yet another ad hominem attack. Do you have nothing left in your arsenal?

You wrote: ¡§All I have to do is tell you a single fact, and you will realize that your entire long-winded, hot-air, radical-feminist rant [only the first 10% of which I bothered to read]¡¨

John, how can you know what my entire post was about if you only read the first 10% of it? You¡¦ve got to do better than this, John. For your convenience, I am re-posting the part of my last post to you which you say you did not read. (After I finish replying to this one.)

You wrote: ¡§I did not even read that revelation of yours -- that you are female -- until after I had posted the above message to you.¡¨

John, you have been so volatile in your posts for the last week or two that I have come to doubt the veracity of everything you write. In any case, it doesn¡¦t matter. You still attacked me (and that other person you accused me of being) with ad hominem attacks BASED ON OUR GENDER. Did your mother never teach you better than that?

You wrote: ¡§ your time posting here is completely wasted -- and exercise in egotism and nothing more. You have nothing whatsoever to offer the forum. If I were the moderator, you would be banned in the twinkling of an eye.¡¨

Poor John. My posts may be wasted against the closed wall of your mind/reason/soul, but my ¡§exercise¡¨ in this forum is something which God apparently wants me to do. If I wasn¡¦t supposed to be here, I wouldn¡¦t be having such a hard time here. ƒº I do have a modicum of the Truth to offer the forum, whether you believe it or not . . . and besides, the purpose of the forum is DISCUSSION. If everyone agreed on everything, how would any discussion ever happen? John, I will only say ¡§Thank God you are not the moderator.¡¨

John, you have never given one shred of evidence to me to support anything you have said in our discussions. You have never given me a link, or a web address, or a quote from a Papal Bull. All you say comes out of your own mouth, and you use nothing of the Church to back it up. Some of what you say is true, but the majority is false. Perhaps you are afraid to actually start digging into Church documents because you don't want to find out that I and several other people arguing with you are correct. Or perhaps it is just the fact that you don't want to admit defeat to a WOMAN . . . for defeat is what has happened here. You withdrew from our discussion on infallibility, having in the end resorted to using ad hominem attacks almost exclusively, having never produced once shred of documentable proof for any of your arguments, having thrown an argumentative temper tantrum when I wasn't giving you the cookie of telling you my gender, and having thrown around accusations of heresy and schism with enthusiasm and abandon.

Then, after having lost by withdrawal, you begin to attack me in THIS thread. More ad homs, more "heretic" and "schismatic", and now, "silly little chick". *sigh* When will you (and most other men I've met) realize that women (for example, this woman) have the ability to reason and use logic as well as, and sometimes better than, men?

Produce evidence for your claims, John. Produce proof that the Tridentine Mass is illicit. I assure you, you will be able to find none if you search for it.

The Society of Saint Pius X was an established order before this pope was even pope. Your statement,

"Cool it with this "do-your-research" horse-bleep! . . . You just shoot yourself in the foot when you try to put me down. The SSPX doesn't have a Catholic "order." Only the pope can approve an "order," and he has not approved any SSPX order, because the SSPX is in schism."

-- obviously shows that you do no research whatsoever. Here is a quote I found after having done three minutes of searching: "The Archbishop expected to wait a long time before the second canonical step, the approval of Rome, was effected. Only four months elapse until February 18, 1971, when Cardinal Wright, prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, officially approves and encourages the Society. The Roman document recognizes the Society¡¦s international character and the fact that many bishops from the world praise and approve it. The Cardinal is happy that the Society will contribute to the distribution of the Catholic clergy in the world.

"Much to the surprise of our founder, his small work of faith receives a further encouragement. When a few priests from the outside wish to join him in the Society¡¦s work, the Archbishop submits the case to Rome, and the Roman Curia, anticipating his desires, detaches totally these priests from their bishops and even from their religious orders to make them depend exclusively from the Society of Saint Pius X. This official act of Rome recognizes the right of the Society of Saint Pius X to incardinate its members." -- quote from "A Short History of the Society of Saint Pius X", by Fr. Ramon Angles, web address: http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm

So there you have it, John. The SSPX is a long-established, legitimate, Rome-recognized Order, whose head is answerable to the pope himself, which (SSPX) has never separated from the pope to cause a schism, and which is not and has never been in schism; whose bishops are answerable to the head of the Order; whose priests are answerable only to their bishops within the Order, and NOT any local bishops; whose priests' right to legitimately and licitly celebrate the Tridentine Mass wherever they happen to be, no matter what the local bishop says, can not be denied. What say you to this?

As for priests who are not under the authority of the local bishops and who are not members of an order (such as the SSPX), who may be called "renegade priests", who say the Tridentine Mass without specific permission of the local bishop, I refer you again to the infallible Papal Bull "Quo Primum", which clearly states, "We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or possessed of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals . . . and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal." Also, " . . .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 . . ." 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." A web address for Quo Primum: http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/quoprim.txt

Notice this infallible Bull causes the Tridentine Mass to be the one and only legitimate, licit Mass, by force of law IN PERPETUITY. Therefore, unless a priest has been de-frocked and no longer is a priest, he may celebrate the Tridentine Mass. If his bishop tells him to celebrate a different Mass, that bishop is in disobedience to the Magisterium of the Church unless that bishop has specific ¡§indult¡¨ permission to allow his priests to say a different Mass. It is not the priest who is illicit or the Tridentine Mass, but the bishop, and the other Mass, unless there is specific permission for such. Now, to clarify this, John, you should go study Quo Primum, because it does allow "indult Masses" under other rites. What this means is that the Tridentine Mass is the legitimate Mass of the Catholic Church always and forever; and all other Masses, including the Novus Ordo Missae, are the "indults" for which special permission must be granted before celebration, under pain of grave disobedience (perhaps even excommunication -- go read Quo Primum). Kinda turns your world upside-down, eh, John?

Oh, and by the way, I did know that you were not speaking specifically about the SSPX to Regina, but when Novus Ordo Catholics use the term "schismatic" or "schism" in a present-day context, it is obviously realized that the SSPX is one of the largest examples of an alleged "schismatic group" out there, and that the SSPX has the most negative hoopla made out of it (far and above any other so- called schismatic group or persons) in Novus Ordo, anti-Tradition circles.

Also, I would remind you that what you say on this forum, to anyone, can legitimately be responded to by anyone. Do not attack me for replying to fallacies you brought up in a public discussion forum, even while addressed to another poster; for accusations against the legitimacy or licit-ness of the Tridentine Mass are things which should be responded to by anyone able to draw breath (or in this case, type).

Until next time, John.

Veritas Vos Liberabit!

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

What one Pope can grant in perpetuity, another Pope can surpress, or change. It's the language used in lots of Papal Bulls. Secondly, the Tridentine Mass only applies to those Catholics who belong to the Latin Rite, not to those who belong in the other 7 rites which have always been considered equally "Catholic". The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this clear.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

calling Christ's sacrifice for us "intrinically evil" is without a doubt one of the biggest things YOU'LL have to answer for in your life!

The very definition of evil is a failure to render a due good. If the shoe fits...

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 07, 2003.

Hi, Frank.

Teaching them to call a licit, approved mass an "abomination" is NOT something in their best interests.

I pray they will be able to spot watered-down doctrine and irreverance (if they should, God forbid, ever have the misfortune of witnessing it), and will be bold enough to call it what it is.

It also borders on blashpemy to suggest to someone that the best Catholic mass is said by an excommunicated cleric who is not suppposed to be performing the sacraments at all.

Our priest was never "excommunicated." But if we're strictly speaking about the SSPX, we've already been through the argument that the "excommunication" of the SSPX is erroneous.

Regina, you've said this a couple of times. I've never seen anywhere that there were church councils one HAD to obey, and others one did NOT have to obey if they didn't feel like it.

I'm sure I've never said that we could "pick and chose" what we have to obey. I've argued that if the doctrines of a council don't measure up with what the Church has always taught, than the teaching is contrary to Tradition, therefore, anyone is free to voice opposition to things which cannot soundly and accurately measure up against what the Church has always taught.

I asked: What parts of your Catholicism have had to change as a result of the Council?

You replied: I asked you earlier in the thread if you wanted to go through Vatican II decree by decree, and don't think you saw it as it got buried. Do you wish to do this? It is unbelievable you'd ask someone to summarize vatican II in one post BTW.

I'm sorry. I meant to get back to you.

Yes, it would be a daunting task to go through all the decrees of the council. We could if you wanted to, but for now how about one example? One example demonstrating how the Council has imposed itself on the faithful in a way the Church never did before. A way that Catholics before the Council never had to adhere to.

At least you FINALLY admit that the SSPX clerics are EXCOMMUNICATED!

Frank, I've never denied the existance of the decree of "schism and excommunication." I've argued that this decree was erroneous.

How many tears do the saints shed when they continue to act like priests when they aren't supposed to? Man, I can't count that high. Terrible.

I don't think the sorrow of the Saints has anything to do with good men and the faithful sticking strickly to Traditional belief and practice. I think if there is sorrow in Heaven it is due to Churchmen trying to rob Holy Mother Church of beliefs and practices which many of those weeping Saints died for.

Your FIRST problem is the need to return to the church, and accepting Vatican II, an official church council, is the first step.

Look, it's very simple. I just want one example of the Council which you obey, which you believe I don't obey.

I said: If the Council repeated what the Church has always believed I give It solemn assent of faith.

You replied: This is another "big lie" of the schismatics. There is NO "new" truth, everything that is true, always was.

Ok. Then I should have no problem finding "dialogue" "ecumenism (as it is understood and practiced today)" "a certain though imperfect communion" with regard to heretical sects, "Eucharistic hospitality (which allows non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion)" talked about favorably in past (pre-Vatican II) Church documents/teachings/Councils. The problem is that when I try to find them in these, I come up empty as though they never existed favorably before Vatican II. Hmmmm...Isn't that strange?

The mass is the center of our worship!

All the more reason you should join me in resisting and opposing all which strives toward watering down its doctrine, practicing irrevence, and undermining the Real Presense of Our Lord in His Tabernacle which is pushed off to the side or hidden in another room reducing Him to a mere relic which subtely implies that He is supposed to be reverenced privately.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 07, 2003.

There is the official ecumenism - carefully led dialogue by theologians and bishops with their counterparts. And then there is the unofficial ecumenism which most Traditionalists rant about, which is held by unofficial representatives of Catholicism - and which often times comes close to or IS religious relativism.

If you want to see how this happens look at the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles: God inspires one thing, and the Devil either attacks it frontally or he apes it - immitates it or makes a fake and faulty "alternative" version which confuses the faithful and sucks the unwary away from the truth.

Thus we had the Apostles...but also we hear St Paul and St John warning the FIRST GENERATION of Christians about so-called "super apostles" who were leading people astray.

In the 1200's we had Franciscan poverty...but also super-franciscans who practically equated material poverty with holiness and rejected the Church root and branch because of material wealth.

We had the real Crusade called for by Pope Urban II, and we had the immediate rise of the fake Crusade of peasants led by Peter the Hermit, which resulted in the pogroms against Jews and others across Europe. It wasn't the Papally led Christian armies which hunted down and killed jews...it was the unofficial, non-officially sanctioned mobs who thought they were doing God's work that committed the outrages.

There is a place for ecumenism - but it was clearly and concisely spelled out in the Papal documents of Paul VI, and John Paul II, and councillar documents as to what it is and IS NOT.

Our Traditionalist friends however pay more attention to what the rebels say than what the Magisterium teaches... they ASSUME that the rebels and the Magisterium are the same when in fact, they are not.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

There is the official ecumenism - carefully led dialogue by theologians and bishops with their counterparts. And then there is the unofficial ecumenism which most Traditionalists rant about

How do you tell the difference? Seriously, this is an honest inquiry. Ecumenism is arguably the biggest postcondciliar buzzword ever (after, perhaps, "Lefebvrist"). How do you people sift through it all to determine what's "good ecumenism" and "bad ecumenism (if there's such a thing)?"

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 07, 2003.

There is the official ecumenism - carefully led dialogue by theologians and bishops with their counterparts.

And does this "carefully led dialogue" seek to bring non-Catholics into the Church, or does it merely seek to find the few things Catholics and non-Catholics have in common? If it's the former, it's not working too well. If it's the latter, and by all accounts it is, what's the point of that?

And then there is the unofficial ecumenism which most Traditionalists rant about, which is held by unofficial representatives of Catholicism - and which often times comes close to or IS religious relativism.

Uh, I may be critical of some of the Holy Father's words and actions during his papacy, but I'd never go far as to call him an "unofficial representative of Catholicism." His organized prayer events such as Assisi smacked of religious relativism. Calling on people to call on their higher powers, believing that these prayers to these higher powers could help to obtain world peace is the epitome of religious relativism.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 07, 2003.

Good ecumenism focuses not on DOCTRINE or dogma, but on finding ways to cooperate socially and morally. For example good ecumenists start from the realization that Catholicism and Lutheranism are different and teach different things...but also that both are Christian.

Then they explore ways in which both communities can work together to help solve human misery in Africa or to shore up respect for life etc.

We don't poo-poo our real differences, but rather look to areas we CAN agree on and pool our resources.

Another sign of authentic ecumenism is it's officially sanctioned status: i.e. if delegated by the Holy See, and staffed by people with degrees in theology, then you can reasonably presume that what's going on is OK.

Now some such conferences have explored the past condemnations of Luther and the Church... yes, we know we disagreed, yes we know we're different, but to what degree was the dispute psychological and emotional and to what degree was it substantial and doctrinal?

It's a known historical fact that the Orthodox broke away from the Church in 1154 in large part because of the arrogant and high-handed personality of the Papal Legate (ambassador) who arrived to Constantinople demanding outrageous things from everyone involved... yes, they had doctrinal disagreements, but pride and human put- offness also contributed greatly to what happened.

Ecumenism that seeks to paper over real doctrinal and dogmatic differences is false and harmful.

Ecumenism that accepts the reality that churches differ on key areas, but which seeks harmony on the ones we agree on, is generally good.

Ecumenism that seeks to highlight ways all Christians can grow in holiness is good - but the kind that claims moral relativism as its a priori, is bad.

Lutherans and Catholics for example can both agree that murder and robbery is immoral. We disagree on core doctrines such as faith and justification and how Christians come to receive grace and how we are to order our lives... but we agree that Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Ecumenism thus can help us vis a vis the Muslims who don't agree that Jesus is divine. It can also help us Catholics raise the cultural alarm against those who would attack Jesus Christ - using his name as a curse in movie after movie with no one complaining about "insensitivity" or hate-crimes.

Whenever I hear of some "ecumenical" meeting, I always check to see who authorized it and what their goal is.

But my "governing legal authority" is Rome, not what a newspaper or magazine, or local arm-chair theologian or group has to opine about it.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

Psyche,

Even a rudimentary scan shows that Quo Primum and Ecclesia Dei are contradictory. Therefore, only one can be true as concerns what is contradicted

Another unsupported opinion. Useless.

Disobedience to Papal authority is not decreed acceptable in quo primum.“

Frank, this came out of your mouth (keyboard? Fingers?) like a Frisbee out of a ham sandwich. In other words, I have no idea where it came from

Sigh. There are several threads on Ecclesia Dei in the forum, do you really want to go through this again?

You wrote: “Now if the Tridentine was to be the ONLY rite of mass, why would Pius V have allowed other rites greater than 200 years old to continue to be said "in perpetuity" (as he never says they have to stop)?”

Frank, he was granting an indult, because he was being reasonable. He would have risked (possibly) losing many set-in-their-ways communities of Catholics who used other Masses, unless he granted them an indult to continue saying their preferred Mass if they wished. The Pope was being realistic and kind. How can you question this?

This is HILARIOUS! Over and over you guys come here waving quo primum like a Condfederate flag saying how it's infallibly pronounced that you can keep saying the Tridentine, and NOW you are saying that the Pope was being "political" when he used Christ's own Authority to pronounce something? How did it go Psyche, did he say something like: "well, this is what is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, but since people won't like it, I'll let them keep doing what they're doing..." You make the Pope sound like a politician, not a man speaking FOR CHRIST.

You wrote: “Remember, he was speaking with Christ's authority, if he WANTED to order everyone to use this rite AND NO OTHER he could have.”

Frank, yes, he could have, if he had made it infallible. Don’t forget that most important condition

So are you NOW saying that Quo Primum was NOT infallible?

Frank, because he was kind, reasonable, and realistic he granted indults for the celebration of previously approved rites. As long as the Mass has certain parts to it, and as long as the Consecration takes place validly, the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. There is no “more” or “less” while standing at the foot of the Cross on Calvary. There is only “everything.”

Careful Psyche, your buddies will throw you out of their club, LOL. Again, if he felt that he had made the best of all possible masses, and as he was using Christ's authority, he could and should have made it the mass for all. OTOH, if he was making A correct mass to counteract abuses of the times he wouldn't need to. The part of your post I like best is this:

and as long as the Consecration takes place validly, the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. There is no “more” or “less” while standing at the foot of the Cross on Calvary. There is only “everything.”

Because it shows you have absolutely NO problem with endorsing the current rite of mass, the Novus Ordo. After all, the mass is the mass. Thank you, and I'm glad we have some common ground at least.

At the instant Quo Primum was declared, it became unlawful to say any other rite of the Mass but the Tridentine, ULNESS A DISPENSATION WAS GRANTED. The pope expressly granted dispensations to those where a different, previously approved, rite had been in use for over 200 years.

Exactly, but a different way to say this is EVERY other rite of mass over 200 years old was approved, and no one practicing them EVER had to quit, nor did any of their descendents, or converts. There were therefore several rites acceptable then, and continue to be acceptable now.

. . . 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,” except as given permission by indult. Can you still argue with this? Be careful!

Psyche, you are being like the Protestant who takes one line out of Scripture and bases a false belief on it. Read the next part:

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass

You'll note he says that clerics can't alter the mass, ever, **even if they are cardinals**. He specifically does NOT say that the Pope and Magesterium can't offically change the rite of mass, they can and have. Can a priest still SAY a Tridentine mass, yes. Can the church using her authority authorize a new rite of mass? Of course! How could you doubt this? God had the Jews perform dietary restrictions, God in Jesus took these away. Did God then contradict Himself? Of course not! But the same authority that authorizes one thing can authorize another.

Frank, when Quo Primum speaks of “previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See” it is not speaking of INFALLIBLE constitutions and decrees, but merely OPPINIONS of previous popes.

Got proof?

Frank, it seems you are not hearing or believing or understanding the truth about infallibility. Any pope has the authority to cancel out the non-infallible edicts of prior councils and popes. A future (now past) council (specifically Vat II) had/has no right to replace the Tridentine Mass with a new one because it is the Mass for all time as set forth in the INFALLIBLE Quo Primum. Get it? Infallibe = may NOT be changed. Non-infallibe = merely opinion, can be changed. Big difference.

See the above. Quo primum said that someone can't on their own change the mass, it never says that the Magesterium can't officially change the rite of mass. Try thinking of it this way Psyche, if Christ Himself came down and said, "o.k., you guys are getting off track with the Tridentine, although it was great in its day, and I want you to do it THIS way now", would you change? Hopefully. That is the SAME authority the Pope has, given by Christ. If a new rite of mass is needed, then it is made.

Frank, ANYTHING concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an issue of Faith.

I'm not sure on this, really. For example, the homilies are no longer said in Latin in the U.S., does this mean that all the Tridentine mass sayers are violating quo primum? If not, then NOT everything concerning the mass is *necessarily* an issue of faith. I'd like to hear a better answer from someone who understands this better than I (or you).

Regina,

I pray they will be able to spot watered-down doctrine and irreverance (if they should, God forbid, ever have the misfortune of witnessing it), and will be bold enough to call it what it is.

No problems here.

But if we're strictly speaking about the SSPX, we've already been through the argument that the "excommunication" of the SSPX is erroneous.

I understand that is your opinion, unfortunately it's not the church's.

Regina, you've said this a couple of times. I've never seen anywhere that there were church councils one HAD to obey, and others one did NOT have to obey if they didn't feel like it.

I'm sure I've never said that we could "pick and chose" what we have to obey. I've argued that if the doctrines of a council don't measure up with what the Church has always taught, than the teaching is contrary to Tradition, therefore, anyone is free to voice opposition to things which cannot soundly and accurately measure up against what the Church has always taught.

I understand what you're saying, but this places YOU as the Judge of what CHURCH COUNCIL is in accordance with Tradition and which isn't. That is Protastantism, a Catholic obeys the Pope and Magesterium.

Yes, it would be a daunting task to go through all the decrees of the council. We could if you wanted to, but for now how about one example?

O.k., this is kind of long, but I'm sure you'll get the idea ;-) A href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/ documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html"> link

The Church, then, is God's only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it:(16) for it serves all mankind through the Gospel of peace(17) as it makes its pilgrim way in hope toward the goal of the fatherland above.(18)

This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church, in Christ and through Christ, the Holy Spirit energizing its various functions. It is a mystery that finds its highest exemplar and source in the unity of the Persons of the Trinity: the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit, one God.

3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means 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 which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

I think if there is sorrow in Heaven it is due to Churchmen trying to rob Holy Mother Church of beliefs and practices which many of those weeping Saints died for.

Many of those saints died before the Tridentine was even instituted, and I'd bet I can find one in the early church who spoke on receiving communion in the hand. Perhaps you should quit insulting them then.

I just want one example of the Council which you obey, which you believe I don't obey.

I've posted it above.

Joe is covering ecumenism it seems, so I'll leave him to it. This is long enough already!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 07, 2003.

I'd bet I can find one in the early church who spoke on receiving communion in the hand.

If so, I'd like to see it.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 07, 2003.

Frank wrote: “Because it shows you have absolutely NO problem with endorsing the current rite of mass, the Novus Ordo. After all, the mass is the mass. Thank you, and I'm glad we have some common ground at least.”

Ah, Frank, here we get right down to it: I never said that the Novus Ordo Missae is actually a valid Mass, did I?

Your whole argument is accusing me of using bits and pieces of Quo Primum while ignoring the rest of it. However, this is exactly what YOU are doing, not me. You jump on the fact that the pope gave permission for indult Masses of other rites under specific conditions, but you ignore the fact that he stated “ . . . 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,”

I don’t see how much clearer that Papal Bull could have been. The fact that you fail, for whatever reason, to acknowledge what it declares as true, is a sign of the state of your soul, not a sign about Quo Primum, or about those who actually accept what it declares as part of the Catholic Faith.

You wrote: “Got proof?”

Yes, Frank. “Previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See” is not “Previous infallible constitutions and infallible decrees of the Holy See” or any such statement. Infallibility is so important that one can not assume a Papal Bull ( or a pope or anyone) is speaking of something infallible unless it is clearly stated. It is a simple matter of what is what, and which words have which definitions.

You wrote: “Quo primum said that someone can't on their own change the mass, it never says that the Magesterium can't officially change the rite of mass.”

Frank, yes it did. It said, “. . . 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,” Not “any Missal published in the future by Us”, but “this Missal published by Us,” i.e., this particular one, i.e., the Tridentine.

You wrote: “if Christ Himself came down and said, "o.k., you guys are getting off track with the Tridentine, although it was great in its day, and I want you to do it THIS way now", would you change? Hopefully. That is the SAME authority the Pope has, given by Christ. If a new rite of mass is needed, then it is made.”

Christ will never contradict the infallible Truths of His Church; it is an impossibility grounded in the fact that the Truths of the Church come straight from God Himself; and God does not lie, mislead, or change His Truths. Customs, yes; Truths, no. Dietary habits, yes; Infallible Truths, no. The pope does not have the authority to contradict these infallible Truths either. There was no need to change the Mass, there never will be any need to change the Mass, and the Mass, i.e., the Tridentine Mass, will always and forever be the one and true lawful Mass. The pope and the Vatican and the councils can write new liturgies all day long; that does not make those liturgies lawful or Catholic. Remember what the word “Catholic” means: universal. Universal as in for everyone, as in universally true Truths, as in universally defined dogma, doctrine, Faith, morals, Sacraments, and Mass (except of course for specific indults).

You wrote: “For example, the homilies are no longer said in Latin in the U.S., does this mean that all the Tridentine mass sayers are violating quo primum? If not, then NOT everything concerning the mass is *necessarily* an issue of faith. I'd like to hear a better answer from someone who understands this better than I (or you).”

Uh, Frank . . . the “homilies” or sermons are not a part of the Mass. I don’t know if this is done in the Novus Ordo Missae, but in the Tridentine Mass the priest takes off the maniple (I believe the term is) from his left arm and sets it across the Missal on the Altar before beginning the sermon, to signify taking off of all the vesture of Mass in order to instruct the congregation. Let me repeat, sermons are not a part of the Mass. The Mass is what is contained in the Missal; the sermon you will no doubt know, is not contained in the Missal.

How come you didn’t know this?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

Jake,

I'd bet I can find one in the early church who spoke on receiving communion in the hand.

If so, I'd like to see it.

If I print one here will you renounce your current schismatic position and embrace the Novus Ordo?

Ah, Frank, here we get right down to it: I never said that the Novus Ordo Missae is actually a valid Mass, did I?

O.k., you're a nut. I wish you would have started out with that, you would have saved me a lot of time. I don't think I'll waste more time on this though, but thank you for your effort to date.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 07, 2003.

Well, I do have one thing more to add: Revisions

"The use of the Roman Missal was decreed by universal law in 1570, and the Missal was revised in different ways by legislative acts of subsequent popes in 1604, 1634, 1888, 1920, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1965, and 1967"

Here's a link to some changes in 1604:link

In quo primum Pius said:

We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

So tell me, are you practicing the Tridentine rite of 1570 without any amendments as stated in Quo Primum, or are you practicing an amended version? Since even the sspx was using the pre-Vat II rite, they are violating quo primum as well... unless you accept the authority of the Pope to alter the rite. Of course if you DO accept the authority of the Church to alter the rite, you don't really have any grounds to be a schismatic, do you?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 07, 2003.

Let's see ... communion in the hand in the early Church ... how about this: "And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take ye, and eat. This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) Can't get much earlier than that.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 07, 2003.

Let's see ... communion in the hand in the early Church ... how about this: "And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take ye, and eat. This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) Can't get much earlier than that.

Um, Paul? At the Last Supper, Our Lord instituted the sacrament of Holy Orders, making His Apostles the first priests. Since all priests "*take* and eat" Our Lord's Flesh and Blood themselves, Christ's use of the word take serves as an instruction for Priests, not an argument to support Communion in the hand for the faithful.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 08, 2003.

Ah, Frank, here we get right down to it: I never said that the Novus Ordo Missae is actually a valid Mass, did I?

"O.k., you're a nut. I wish you would have started out with that, you would have saved me a lot of time. I don't think I'll waste more time on this though, but thank you for your effort to date. "

See, Frank, you are jumping to conclusions. I never said that the Novus Ordo Missae is NOT actually a valid Mass, either, did I? NO! The point is, I have not said what I believe either way, and here you are assuming things all over the place . . . and YOU are the one who complains about people not being able to read English and taking your statements out of context, etc.?

Straighten up, Frank.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 08, 2003.

Psyche,

Actually, I did think of that at the time, but didn't think anyone would be playing that kind of games with their faith (and therefore their soul).

What do you have to say about the quo primum post above? I always thought the new missals were changing the ENGLISH parts, but actually the rite itself was being changed. The missal of Pius V hasn't been used unchanged since 1604. Obviously this means that the Magesterium HAS the authority to edit it right?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 08, 2003.

Hi, Frank.

I haven't forgotten your post. I'm researching and working on a reply.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 08, 2003.

If I print one here will you renounce your current schismatic position and embrace the Novus Ordo?

First, not "embracing the Novus Ordo" does not constitute "schism." I think at this point, it's a fargone conclusion that you have not, do ant, and never will understand the meaning of that term.

Second, know that I would rather die than return to the awful Novus Ordo pseudo-religion. Notwithstanding, if you can post a credible reference to a saint or Church Father speaking favorably on Communion in the hand, I will leave this forum and never return. You have my solemn word, which I understand is not worth much to you, so let's knock off the semantics.

You post that information, with a link to a credible source, and I'm outta here. Permanently.

Happy Googling!

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 08, 2003.

It's very well-known Christians of 1st cenury A.D. were given communion in the hand. The same with the Viaticum.

You're setting up a straw man; as if you had positive proof it never was done. I'm surprised at your chutzpa.

I recall being taught in Catholic school long ago; the communicant came forward and received the sacred host on a clean handkerchief over their palm. This was common at Masses celebrated in the Roman catacombs.

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

The disciples on the road to Emmaus weren't apostles...yet they received Jesus "in the breaking of the bread".

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 08, 2003.

I said:

if you can post a credible reference to a saint or Church Father speaking favorably on Communion in the hand, I will leave this forum and never return

I realize how much you want me gone, but "It is well known fact that..." and "I remember hearing once that..." or "a priest told me..." don't cut it as credible sources w/ refrences.

Keep trying! I have my bags packed & I'm waiting by the exit!

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 08, 2003.

We don't necessarily want you gone, Jake. We want you to wise up.

The burden of proof is totally yours, to show a saint or anybody else who supported your opinion.

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

Would you like the list alphabetically, chronologically, or in order of severity?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 08, 2003.

Jake,

Is St. Basil the Great good enough for you? Link

It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life." And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.

Now Jake, I know you'll sit there, look at the text you posted, and try and weasel out of your pledge, and *I* can see an easy way to do it, but don't. Just pack your bags and go, and pretend your schismatic buddies know more than the Magesterium about the church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 08, 2003.

Jake,

One other thing, I now disagree with this too:

First, not "embracing the Novus Ordo" does not constitute "schism."

You see, I had always thought that the Tridentine rite itself was unchanged, but now that we both know it was only unchanged from the time of Pius V in 1570 to the time of Clement I in 1604 when the first of many alterations to it was made. There is NO WAY you can say that quo primum means you can't change the rite of mass, as Quo primum says the rite can't even be EDITed. Since the rite WAS edited on multiple occasions subsequently (and without argument), it's quite clear that they have the the Pope and Magesterium have the legitimate authority to do this, although individual clerics do not.

If Quo Primum then does NOT mean that there is an unalterable mass no matter what, and that the mass CAN be changed officially when necessary, you have no grounds to deny the validity of the new mass, or to "disrespect" it. Refusing to do so IMO makes you a follower of the Lefebvrist schism, hence schismatic.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 08, 2003.

"It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence

You think this sounds favorable to the practice of receiving Communion in the hand?! Note the following:

"in times of persecution", i.e., when the Faith was not allowed to be publicly practiced; an unusual, extraordinary (danger of death) circumstances.

"compelled">, i.e., forced, given no other alternative

"without the presence of a priest or minister", i.e., the presence of a priest or minister is normally necessary, as the priest's hands are consecrated and allowed to handle the sacred species.

"not a serious offense", i.e., it is a minor offense.

As far as I can see, calling something a minor offense does not exactly go a long way toward speaking favorably about the practice.

Valiant effort, though! I have not unpacked my bags. In fact, I still have my hat on.

Now Jake, I know you'll sit there, look at the text you posted, and try and weasel out of your pledge, and *I* can see an easy way to do it, but don't. Just pack your bags and go

No. Unless Paul bans me, or you come through with the goods on Communion in the hand, you're stuck with me. If one or both of those two things happen, color me gone.

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

you have no grounds to deny the validity of the new mass, or to "disrespect" it. Refusing to do so IMO makes you a follower of the Lefebvrist schism, hence schismatic.

There is no "Lefebvrist schism" for me to be a part of. I told you you didn't know what it meant, now stop it.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 08, 2003.

Frank, I'm not playing games with my Faith. I know what I believe . . . some of my beliefs I have not specified to this forum, that's all.

I'm just trying to get you to think about things. I suppose you could say I'm "playing games" with you, but that is not what I would call it.

About the changing of the Tridentine Missal: (all quotes from Quo Primum)

"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."

-- No individual is allowed to change the Mass!! And if the current pope of any era does decide to make(infallibly declare!) changes in the Missal, he has plenty of hoops to jump through before he can. This still does not give permission to throw out the Tridentine alltogether and write a new Missal, OR to change the Tridentine beyond all recognition, which is the same as throwing it out. But there is a huge difference between the pre-Vat II Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae, if that is what you are insinuating. Are you saying the Novus Ordo Missae is actually the same Mass, with changes, as the Tridentine Mass?

" . . .and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal."

-- everyone is prohibited from “ad libbing”. No one is allowed to change the Mass away from the Missal. This includes the pope himself . . . unless he is (from the Chair of Peter) changing it for everyone. Also, like I said, since this is an utmost serious matter, many hoops must be jumped through before it can be done. One of the hoops, typically in issues of this type, is that whatever is being changed must correct an error or circumvent a potential error. Not just "I like the vernacular better," or "These prayers are too old-fashioned," or such silly ideas.

"We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal . . ."

-- Implying that it is permissible to alter it given the correct conditions are followed, like I was saying above. No bishop can "force" his priests to change the Tridentine Mass. The pope can not "force" his bishops, cardinals, or priests to change it either . . . unless he (from the Chair of Peter) jumps through all those hoops first. The whole point is to protect the Mass from error . . .

" . . . the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors . . ."

Like Quo Primum just said, guarding against defects and errors.

So, like I have been saying all along, no one can change the Mass. A priest, bishop, cardinal, or the pope himself saying the Mass can not just start ad-libbing. Cannot change ONE WORD in any prayer in the whole Mass. Cannot shuffle the prayers around. Cannot change any of the blessings . . . or anything! (I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand, Frank. Is it because ad-libbing happens so, so often when the Novus Ordo Missae is being said?) There are strident conditions for the magisterium being allowed to change even one iota of the Mass; but until it is official -- i.e. declared infallibly! -- no one may change the Mass.

Are you saying that the Novus Ordo Missae is actually a changed Tridentine? Because it seems that's what you're saying. Either that, or that what you call the magisterium (not sure you have the correct idea of what the magisterium is) threw out the Tridentine (which is a totally different issue than changing it) and replaced it with the Novus Ordo. What are you saying? Either of these? Somethig else entirely?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 08, 2003.

Jake,

You are so pathetic, it's pathetic.

It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence

You seemed not to notice the "WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF A PRIEST" part! People could obtain communion WITHOUT A PRIEST without this being a serious offence. Get it now? Now try reading the italicized part later in the epistle again:

And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.

I figured you'd welch out though. Why don't you redeem yourself to some degree and leave now?

Psyche,

. This still does not give permission to throw out the Tridentine alltogether and write a new Missal, OR to change the Tridentine beyond all recognition, which is the same as throwing it out. But there is a huge difference between the pre-Vat II Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae, if that is what you are insinuating. Are you saying the Novus Ordo Missae is actually the same Mass, with changes, as the Tridentine Mass?

Sorry, it doesn't wash. Quo Primum says NO additions, subtractions, or edits, NOT "only edits that future people think are o.k." Therefore there are only two possibilities: 1. that NO pope can change the Tridentine at all (in which case no masses have been said since 1604) or 2. The Pope and Magesterium can change the mass when and how they see fit. YOU can't make up rules on how much change is acceptable!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 08, 2003.

Hello, I have stumbled into this site and am enjoying the debate. I cant help but notice the vigor, and conviction with which most of you speak, and I compliment you. Jake, I will enjoy seeing how people continue to respond to your challenge. Though I must say, by placing the burden of proof on your opponents, you have not completely justified your complete educated opinion of which I am curious. I pray that we on this forum may avoid the dangerous sin of pride when discussing our thoughts and studies. That we may respect all of God’s children, restraining ourselves from judging others, and ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our pursuit of understanding. Humbly yours in Christ, Augustine

-- Augustine (AugustineALieb@hotmail.com), October 08, 2003.

and Jake still stops reading before the meat of the paragraph where it talks of the ordinary, go to church part:

And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.

No words about "times of persecution" here. And you still aren't living up to it. Yeah, Jake, it's good to have things out in the open, and let people see who we really are.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 08, 2003.

Jake makes light of another soul's conviction; and with not the least scruples. If he isn't banned, there's no justice in our forum. When I read Bogus Ordo in his post I knew finally: Jake will not concede, he's lost his conscience and all decency. Yesterday he was pretending a litany of humility. But his demon won out over Jake today. Humility is for inferiors, says his demon. He's an Elite once more!

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

Frank wrote: "Quo Primum says NO additions, subtractions, or edits, NOT "only edits that future people think are o.k." Therefore there are only two possibilities: 1. that NO pope can change the Tridentine at all (in which case no masses have been said since 1604) or 2. The Pope and Magesterium can change the mass when and how they see fit."

Frank, Quo Primum is not talking about the Pope speaking from the Chair of Peter, or the Magisterium, not being able to make changes! Quo Primum is talking about everyone else under all other circumstances, especially priests & bishops, because historically at that time it was they who were causing the confusion & unrest in the Church by changing around the Missals on their own whims. I don't see why you are having such a hard time understanding this.

All the same, it seems to me that you are implying that since the Tridentine Mass can/could be changed with the proper authority (pope, chair of Peter, etc) that therefore the Novus Ordo Missae is legitimate.

The Novus Ordo Missae is a totally different Mass than the Tridentine. The writing of it involved THROWING OUT the Tridentine (which is why so many Traditional Catholics invoke Quo Primum to Novus Ordo Catholics), not "changing" it. There were no legitimate causes to throw out (or change) the Tridentine; the Novus Ordo Missae should never have been written. The entire reason for it was to promote Catholicism as a religion of the people rather than a religion of God, and to promote ecumenism between Catholicism and other religions, specifically the Protestant religions. Good gracious, man, Protestant ministers were invited to help write the Novus Ordo Missae, which they did! How could Vat-II legitimately 1) throw out the Tridentine Mass when Quo Primum forbids doing so, and 2)have Protestant ministers assist in writing the New Order Mass?? What IS the Novus Ordo Church? Protestant or Catholic?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 09, 2003.

If he isn't banned, there's no justice in our forum.

You're in no position to make that assertion. "Justice" is whatever the Moderator deems it to be.

When I read Bogus Ordo in his post I knew finally: Jake will not concede

You're learning this now?

Frank,

Sorry. St. Basil was not speaking favorably on the practice of Communion in the hand, merely acknowledging that, under certain extraordinary circumstances, it happened because it had to. You see, in extraordinary times / circumstances, Church laws can be suspended, or not apply. The salvation of souls is the highest law. That's the basic principle of Canon Law. The Church is in the business of saving souls. All other laws are subject to that principle. I'm still here, but I have'nt unpacked my bags.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 09, 2003.

In fact, as Moderator, I see no reason to allow you to continue bashing the Church of God. There are Trad sites where you can air your misguided notions. A Catholic site is not an appropriate place for the posting of such material. Your attacks on the Mass, the Holy Father, and the Holy Catholic Church have become more blatant and unreasonable in recent weeks, and if this continues, I will have no choice but to ban you from the Catholic Forum.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2003.

and if this continues, I will have no choice but to ban you from the Catholic Forum.

While we don't agree on what constitutes "bashing of the Church," etc., I respect your position and will comply fully should you decide to ban me.

You've been more than gracious, and I thank you.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 09, 2003.

Frank,

I'm almost ready to continue our debate with regard to Lumen Gentium vs. past teachings. This thread, as you know, is very lengthy and has splintered off into other discussions. Would you like (me? you?) to start a new thread? Continue it here? Suspend the debate til another time (if you'd rather involve yourself in other discussions for now)?

I leave it up to you. :-)

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 09, 2003.

20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good. Trust not the judgment to thy bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ.

21. In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, "Amen." So then after having carefully hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Wilt thou not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

22. Then after thou hast partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence, "Amen," hallow thyself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touch it with thine hands, and hallow thine eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hath accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries.

23. Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offence. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries. And the God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: To whom be glory and honour and might, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

From Catechetical Lecture XXIII of St. Cyril, Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, Father of the Church, Doctor of the Church, writing c. 350 A.D.

-- (Q.@E.D.), October 09, 2003.

Psyche,

Frank, Quo Primum is not talking about the Pope speaking from the Chair of Peter, or the Magisterium, not being able to make changes!

That's the trouble Catholics have in dealing with Protestants, every Protestant has their own interpretation of everything. Protestants here have most definitely said that quo primum means "no change at all". I'm glad you recognize that the legitimate authority CAN change the mass as it sees fit, and that quo primum doesn't inhibit this.

The part you seem to have trouble with is saying that that SAME authority can institute a new rite of mass. I don't see why. If you can understand that when quo primum says NO CHANGES are to me made to this missal that in fact the church can and did change the missal (for the first time in 1604), the same authority allows the church to start an entirely new rite of mass whenever it sees fit. If you don't like that, I understand. That's the way it is though.

How could Vat-II legitimately 1) throw out the Tridentine Mass when Quo Primum forbids doing so, and 2)have Protestant ministers assist in writing the New Order Mass?? What IS the Novus Ordo Church? Protestant or Catholic?

It's a Catholic mass. Here's a question for you: If Protestant churches are TOTALLY without truth, why does the Catholic Church recognize their baptisms if done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Jake,

Sorry. St. Basil was not speaking favorably on the practice of Communion in the hand, merely acknowledging that, under certain extraordinary circumstances

Baloney. The part YOU tried saying was representative was an extraordinary circumstance, but where he talks of "in the mass", that's EVERY DAY slim. Why are you still here, weren't you supposed to leave for good? Oh, and BTW, please show me a church father before oh, a.d. 400 that describes favorably the rite of communion as it occurs in the Tridentine rite. It will make for a good comparison.

Regina,

Thanks, but don't bother. Responding to both Psyche and Jake here made me realize you guys don't even believe the same things about the same things. If St. Basil isn't good enough for you, you aren't willing to hear. What's the point of going through VatII if you've already rejected it and won't change your mind anyway?

QED,

Thanks,

You might also be interested in the Synod of Trullo, btw.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 09, 2003.

Bravo! Excellent answer and quote from the early Church fathers and councils! Quo Primum (from the beginning) is so frequently misused and misread it's amazing. Our Lord clearly gave Peter the power to bind and loosen - and there's no reason or precedent to think what one Pope binds another can't loosen.

Unfortunately people confuse dogma with doctrine and doctrine with discipline all the time. It's a human thing as much as anything else. We like what is known and comfortable - change of ingrained and comfortable habit is always unsettling, especially in prayer and worship.

That's why councils don't happen all the time...

Another amazing thing is that while Vatican II called for lay Catholics to actively pursue holiness and evangelize their culture, both the enemies of the Pope (liberal catholics and anti-Catholics) and the so-called Traditionalist catholics have the ghetto model as perfect: stay "catholic" but don't mess with anyone else! The former sees "progress" in watering down all differences, while the latter sees "success" in just keeping the lights on.

One blows out their candle lest the light offend anyone, while the other keeps their light "safe" by keeping it under a bushel.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 09, 2003.

Regarding communion in the hand, here's an interesting article I found in the Franciscan archives:

Following your editor's request for information, here are some patristic and historical considerations on Communion on the hand, as well as an additional aspect.

Was it universal? The history of Communion in the hand is often presented in certain quarters as follows: From the Last Supper on, Holy Communion was, as the norm, continually given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy after the peace of Constantine in 313 A.D. And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century.

Thus for over half of the life of the Church it was the norm. An argument for the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem's fifth Mystagogic Catechesis (21f), which he preached to neophytes in 348 A.D., in which he counsels the faithful to "place your left hand as the throne of your right one, which is to receive the King [in Holy Communion]" (apudL'Osservatore Romano. English edition of June 14, 1973, p. 6). This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any Fragments which might remain on one's hands.

According to some critics' version of history, popular in certain quarters, Communion on the tongue became the universal norm in this way:

During the Middle Ages certain distortions in the faith and/or in approaches to it gradually developed. These included an excessive fear of God and an over-concern about sin, judgment and punishment, as well as an over-emphasis on Christ's divinity-- so emphasized as to down-play His sacred humanity or virtually deny it; also an over- emphasis on the priest's role in the sacred liturgy, and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact,is. In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoring Christ in the Holy Eucharist and an over-strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered enough to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, in certain critics' minds the elevation, exposition and benediction of the Blessed Sacrament find their origins during the 'unfortunate' Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well-- so they think-- to rid ourselves of.) It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances, they argue, that the practice of Communion in the hand began to be restricted.

The practice of the priest placing the consecrated Bread directly into the mouth of the communicant thus developed and, they think, was unwisely imposed.

The conclusion is rather clear: We should get rid of this custom. We should forbid or at least discourage the Communion-on-the-tongue practice whereby the faithful are not allowed to "take and eat," and should return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and Apostles, namely, Communion in the hand. It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.

The sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom whereby only the priest-celebrant gives Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receive It from him, is an Apostolic tradition.

A more rigorous study of available evidence from Church history and from writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue. Rather, facts seem to point to a different conclusion:

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith." (2)

The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well established thing.

A century and a half later Pope St. Gregory the Great (died in 604) is another witness. In his dialogues he relates how Pope St. Agapitus performed a miracle during Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone's mouth.

We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the faithful receive by their own hands. But under what conditions did this happen? It does seem that from very early times on, it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However, during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when the faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves by their own hand. Rather than be totally deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert, where they would not have the services of a priest and would not want to give up the practice of daily holy Communion.

St. Basil the Great (330-379) indicates that reception of Communion by one's own hand was permitted precisely because of persecution, or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give It. (3)

In his article on "Communion" in the Dictionaire d'Archeologiae Chretienne, Leclerq declares that the peace of Constantine in 313 A.D. served toward bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end.

After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of Communion in the hand persisted here and there. Church authority apparently judged that it invited abuse and deemed it contrary to the custom of the Apostles.

Thus the Synod of Rouen, France, in about 878 directed: "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but only in their mouths"

A non-ecumenical Council of Constantinople known as "In Trullo" in 692 A.D. prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of communicants), and decreed a censure against those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon. Promoters of Communion in the hand generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward, but do make constant use of the text attributed above to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the time of St. Basil. But scholars dispute the authenticity of the St. Cyril text, according to Jungmann-Brunner, op. cit., p. 191, n.25.

It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. This John was of suspect orthodoxy, as we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else receiving Communion, not even a priest, could receive It in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest were assisting at Mass (and not celebarating) and if he wished to receive Holy Communion, he did not do so by his own hand; he received on the tongue from another priest. The same would be true of a Bishop or even a Pope.

When Pope St. Pius X was on his deathbed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand. He received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

This confirms a basic point: Out of reverence it seems better that there be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not needful to make each man, woman and child into his own 'eucharistic minister' and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of Fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly. As for the present situation, in those countries where the indult for Communion in the hand has been granted by the Holy See, an individual bishop may forbid the practice; but no Bishop has authority to forbid the traditional way of receiving Our Lord on the tongue.

But surely the Apostles received Communion in the hand at the Last Supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the Apostles were themselves priests, or even Bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional custom of middle-eastern hospitality which was in practice in Jesus' time and which is still the case; that is, one feeds his guests with one's own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have this text of St. John's Gospel (13:26-30): "Jesus answered, 'It is he to whom I shall give this Morsel when I have dipped It.' So when He had dipped the Morsel, He gave It to Judas... So, after receiving the Morsel, he [Judas] immediately went out..."

Did Our Lord place this wet Morsel into Judas' hand? That would be rather messy. Did He not perhaps extend to the one whom He addressed later in the garden as "friend" the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, "giving Himself by His own Hand"? -- CANADA. Fr. Paul McDonald

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 09, 2003.

The part YOU tried saying was representative was an extraordinary circumstance, but where he talks of "in the mass", that's EVERY DAY slim.

No, it's not; and I'm not slim, at least not as slim as I'd like to be.

Why are you still here, weren't you supposed to leave for good?

That's still up to you (or Paul) to determine.

Oh, and BTW, please show me a church father before oh, a.d. 400 that describes favorably the rite of communion as it occurs in the Tridentine rite. It will make for a good comparison.

I'm beginning to think that you just plain don't like me.

I don't know that there is anything from the Fathers in the first 400 years of Church history that will speak favorably on any method of receiving Communion, but I'm not going to look. You said that you could find evidence for your position. To date, you have not.

Chin up, Frank. With any luck, Paul will ban me before you have to fumble any further.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 09, 2003.

Regina,

That is the CLASSIC biased and distorted article. Mainly because they:

1. only note the part of St. Basil's eptistle dealing with "extraordinary circumstances" while conveniently overlooking the other parts dealing with the descriptions of what happened "in the church". A half-truth with the opposite meaning has the same INTENT as an outright lie, and is worse because it is more likely to be believed, since they are "quoting" something.

2. do a similar distortion with the Council of Trullo (you can read the whole thing here) Link and see what YOU come up with.

3. Claim the St. Cyril text is a fake. "Some scholars" say this. What does the Vatican say? That's what's important. "some scholars" think a lot of things. Either way it doesn't really mean much though, several other church fathers say the same thing in the same time period and THEY aren't accused of faking anything, of course those church fathers aren't mentioned in this article, which makes this similarly deliberately misleading.

4. When Pope St. Pius X was on his deathbed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand. He received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

This is completely irrelavent to their point, and thus misleading. We aren't talking about the church of 1914, we are talking about the church of A.D 100-400. The church LATER decided you couldn't have communion in the hand, so Pius was right not to take it that way, as it wasn't approved *in his time*. If however Pius had lived in A.D. 200 or A.D. 2000, he could have. Simple really, a Catholic does what the church says is good for them.

Well, that concludes the "why this is a very biased article" part. but some other comments:

5. Out of reverence it seems better that there be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not needful to make each man, woman and child into his own 'eucharistic minister' and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of Fragments.

We should be very reverent of Christ's body, no question, or argument here. What though IS appropriate reverence? Did Christ when he was on Earth have so much reverence for His flesh that He floated around touching nothing? No, he walked around in the dirt, touched lepers, got pressed by the crowds, etc. Clearly He didn't think His flesh was above touching others, the fact that He shares it with us is proof enough of that! If Christ was still alive as a man, and walked up next to you, would you refuse to shake His hand claiming you were TOO REVERENT to do so? No (at least I hope not). You might be *afraid* to, or feel that you were unworthy (and that is natural) but GOD tells us from Genesis through the Gospels NOT to be afraid! It is a false reverence that makes you "too holy" to touch Christ with your hands, but accept Him on your tongue.

My point is that we should have reverence, and have the kind of reverence that the Christians who were closest to Christ had. The earliest Christians did NOT have a faith where they sat silent and watched, approached the altar and left, but were involved with their God and with their neighbors. That is what you should apsire to, IMO. If communion in the mouth does that for you FINE! Go with God. OTOH, if you feel much more a part of the Human nature of Christ by taking communion in the hand, do THAT. But to foolishly mock faithful Christians who wish to do what the Earliest Christians did before the church in the middle ages decided they shouldn't, is very wrong. I think that some part of you knows this too, or you wouldn't still be here.

But surely the Apostles received Communion in the hand at the Last Supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the Apostles were themselves priests, or even Bishops

This is really a horrible argument on their part. Christ was reclining at table with them, and gave them His Body and Blood. They weren't there purifying themselves for an hour prior to receiving it, like a priest does in mass. I think Isabel in your group even posited they didn't even UNDERSTAND what they were getting at the time. The last supper bears far less resemblance to a Tridentine mass than it does to communion in the hand.

Finally Regina, people a lot of times get very stuck on things for no good reason. We all do. It's the Devil that says "once you've gone beyond this line, you can't go back" though. No matter WHAT we've done, or WHAT we believe, if we ask for forgiveness, Christ will take us back and most importantly, not hold our transgressions against us. Think about it for awhile. If you ever decide to return to Catholicism, find a faithful parish, and try attending. I think you'll be amazed at how Christian it is! (and hopefully you've guessed by now to be a TRUE Christian, is to be Catholic the way Christ intends us to be)

Best,

Frank

Jake,

I don't know that there is anything from the Fathers in the first 400 years of Church history that will speak favorably on any method of receiving Communion, but I'm not going to look.

Yeah, I didn't think you would. What you are ALSO saying here though, although you may not have intended to, is that you asked me to look for something you didn't think existed at all, so your earlier pledge to leave was just an empty vanity on your part. Considering that there aren't that many records from that time, it must have been a shocker to see there WERE some writings on the delivery of communion from that long ago though, huh? You are also more than welcome to return to the church, but judging by your writing here, I just am much less optimistic that you'll be able to make the leap of faith required. Who knows though, with Christ all things are possible.

F

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 09, 2003.

Frank wrote: "The part you seem to have trouble with is saying that that SAME authority can institute a new rite of mass."

Frank, I have a problem with the throwing out of the Tridentine Mass in favor of the Novus Ordo. Can someone please explain to me what was so terribly wrong with the Tridentine that after hundreds of years of use in virtually the same format (miniscule changes up to Vat-II), that suddenly it gets thrown out in the 1960's and ka-boom, a "whole 'nother" rite gets put in it's place?

There was NO legitimate reason for that to happen; it should never have happened; and THAT was exactly what Quo Primum was trying to protect against!! Unfortunately people have a lot of talent in weasel-ing their way out of things they don't like. You are saying I'm (and all Traditional Catholics -- not, BTW, "Traditionalists") trying to weasel out of Vat-II. I'm saying Vat-II tried to weasel out of all previous Church Councils. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Frank wrote: "If you can understand that when quo primum says NO CHANGES are to me made to this missal that in fact the church can and did change the missal"

Uh, Frank, this isn't the first time I've tried to 'splain this to you. Let me see if I can do a better job this time. Quo Primum said no changes are to be made to the missal by publishers, by individual priests and bishops ("prelates") certainly not by any other means than the proper authority of the Church. In fact, in part of Quo Primum there is defined a punishment for publishers who do not abide by the then-codified Tridentine Missal: 100 gold ducats and forfiture of all their books. There is a big difference between saying this, and saying that the Mass can never be changed by the proper authority. Do you understand now? It is well known and has always been understood (I thought so, anyway, until you popped up) that Quo Primum never said no changes were to be made by the proper Church authority; Quo Primum did, however, forbid changes being made by any other means, by any other person or group.

This has nothing to do with interpretation, although I am certainly no doctor of cannon law, and I will be the first to admit that I'm just doing my best here to stand up for the Truth of my Faith, and my reason and logic sometimes are not the best, as everyone else must admit, too; but since (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) there ARE no doctors of cannon law posting in this forum, then each of us just has to get along as well as we can in reading, researching, learning, and discussing what we can about our Catholic Faith, always submitting to the truths of the faith as taught and defined by Holy Mother the Church in the Deposit of Faith. But admittedly you believe the Church teaches one thing in some cases, while in those same cases I believe She teaches something else. So here we are back at the beginning. We each have faith that what we believe is true; but we believe different things. Both of us can not be true; but how are we to know whether one is correct and the other is incorrect, or if we are both incorrect and the truth lies elswhere entirely? If we follow this line of reasoning, soon we will come to the conclusion that we can know nothing anyway, so what's the point in arguing about it? So, you saying, "If you don't like that, I understand. That's the way it is though," doesn't help at all, becuase if both of our minds are not open to at least examining eachother's arguments, then what IS the point of talking about it?

Frank wrote: "It's a Catholic mass."

How do you know? Because it's being said at your parish Church? Because "everyone is doing it" even the pope? That's no reason. This Novus Ordo Missae is a baby compared to the Tridentine. It was introduced suddenly and without reason, and Protestant ministers helped to write it. How does any of that make it Catholic? Seems more like it makes it Protestant . . .

So I will re-ask my questions, which you failed to answer: How could Vat-II legitimately 1) throw out the Tridentine Mass when Quo Primum forbids doing so, and 2)have Protestant ministers assist in writing the New Order Mass?? Please answer this time.

Frank wrote: "Here's a question for you: If Protestant churches are TOTALLY without truth, why does the Catholic Church recognize their baptisms if done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? "

Protestant churches are not TOTALLY without truth!! They have quite a bit of the truth, actually . . . but no matter how close they get to having all of it, they still don't have it completely. A miss is as good as a mile, as the saying goes. This is why they are called Christians. They believe Christ is the Son of God, they make some attempt to follow His teachings, they have one or two (?) legitimate sacraments, and they are the closest religions in matching beliefs with the Catholic Faith. Remember the guy that started it all, Martin Luther, was at one time a Catholic priest; and he ran off with someone who used to be a Catholic nun. They garbled it up, re- wrote the Bible, disbelieved things like the Real Presence, celibacy of Priesthood, loyalty to the Pope, etc. I.e. they protested some of the Catholic beliefs, which is why they're called Protestants!

But they are not totally devoid of truth. I am curious as to why you would think like that.

Most religions have at least grains of truth. Even Satanism acknowledges that God and Satan exist!

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 09, 2003.

Ok. I conceed that the article was poorly written in that it didn't supply the proper information; naming names, who said what, who thought what, etc. You raised some vaild points with regard to it.

If Christ was still alive as a man, and walked up next to you, would you refuse to shake His hand claiming you were TOO REVERENT to do so? No (at least I hope not).

By the same token if Our Lord came walking up to you, would you fling your arm with a friendly whack of your *hand* on His Back, or would you fall on your knees and kiss His Feet with your lips?

You might be *afraid* to, or feel that you were unworthy (and that is natural) but GOD tells us from Genesis through the Gospels NOT to be afraid!

But what sort of "afraid" are we talking about? The fear one feels when experiencing something scary from which we should run, or the "afraid" which comes from being completely overwhelmed?

It is a false reverence that makes you "too holy" to touch Christ with your hands, but accept Him on your tongue.

No, it isn't, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think myself "holy." My position is this and nothing more: If What I receive at Holy Communion isn't ordinary food, I shouldn't behave as though it were. IMO, the posture (on the knees, receiving on the tongue) doesn't portray one who is "afraid" of a God Who is frightening and unapproachable, but a portrayal of one who pitifully attempts a gesture of humility before the Supreme King. If you would travel to England to meet the Queen, you'd be expected to bow. If you were to meet the Pope, you'd probably genuflect and kiss his ring. Why? As a show of respect. Certainly Our Lord is above a Queen and a Pope?

My point is that we should have reverence, and have the kind of reverence that the Christians who were closest to Christ had. The earliest Christians did NOT have a faith where they sat silent and watched, approached the altar and left, but were involved with their God and with their neighbors. That is what you should apsire to, IMO.

OK. But the argument here has always been, "The Holy Spirit guides us through all phases of Church history. And He led Vatican II and the creation of the new Mass!" Now if the Holy Ghost inspired both laity and clergy alike to a new, more solemn way of worship and reception of Our Lord through the past 2000 years of Her history, why do you wish to return to a time before we had the gift of further inspiration and guidence from the Holy Ghost?

That can be applied to Communion in the hand as well. Even if communion in the hand *was* the norm in the early Church, why was it stopped? Because of witchcraft, Satanic worship, sacrilege? Probably all of the above. So with that, have people *stopped* desecrating and defiling Our Lord in their vile "rituals?" Probably not. Perhaps the practice of communion in the hand stopped after a deeper awareness, respect and revenence of the Real Presence came into being. So why would anyone want to return to a time when perhaps the depth of the Real Presence wasn't truly recognized?

But to foolishly mock faithful Christians who wish to do what the Earliest Christians did before the church in the middle ages decided they shouldn't, is very wrong.

Frank, I don't believe I "mocked" anybody. If you're referring to the article I posted, I wasn't trying to "mock" anyone, I was just tossing it out there for the benefit of the discussion.

But surely the Apostles received Communion in the hand at the Last Supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the Apostles were themselves priests, or even Bishops

This is really a horrible argument on their part.

Why? If Christ instituted Holy Orders at the Last Supper, and the Last Supper was the very first Mass, it stands to reason that the Apostles were the first Priests, no? And if they were it makes perfect sense that they should "take and eat" just as priests of today do.

If you ever decide to return to Catholicism, find a faithful parish, and try attending. I think you'll be amazed at how Christian it is! (and hopefully you've guessed by now to be a TRUE Christian, is to be Catholic the way Christ intends us to be)

That's really unfair of you, Frank. You said just today that you're no longer interested in persuing our debate comparing Lumen Gentium to past Church teachings - those teachings which I cling to - so if you're not going to permit me to offer the comparison, to get to the heart of the matter, than it isn't fair for you to continue with this "return to the Church" baloney. Maybe it doesn't matter. Our Lord knows I haven't left His Church and that's all that counts.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 09, 2003.

Psyche,

Frank, I have a problem with the throwing out of the Tridentine Mass in favor of the Novus Ordo. Can someone please explain to me what was so terribly wrong with the Tridentine

There is nothing wrong with the Tridentine. The church in her wisdom decided that it was time for a new rite of mass. Your job as a Catholic isn't to leave the church because of it, but to assume she had her reasons and obey.

There was NO legitimate reason for that to happen; it should never have happened

This is the whole reason the Protestants got started, they thought it was THEIR right to decide things, and it isn't. It's NOT YOUR RIGHT to say what the church should do, it's the church's. NOT YOURS. Your job is to obey. To think YOU should decide makes you Protestant or schismatic, to think the church should decide makes you Cahtolic.

There is a big difference between saying this, and saying that the Mass can never be changed by the proper authority. Do you understand now? It is well known and has always been understood (I thought so, anyway, until you popped up) that Quo Primum never said no changes were to be made by the proper Church authority;

As I have explained earlier in this thread, the trouble is each of you people that disavows the church believes something different, so it's hard for me to know what "you" understand. If you poll some of the other schismatics, some of them WILL say that quo primum means "no changes", period. I understand that you don't believe this NOW, and did after the last time you posted it, so there was no reason to be insulting. I'm suprised though that after the previous "games" you were playing with saying/not saying you believed the Novus Ordo was a valid rite that you'd now complain that people don't understand your "real" beliefs. If you say what you really believe the first time, people will understand you. If you play games or hide your beliefs, YOU are the one that causes people not to understand you.

Both of us can not be true; but how are we to know whether one is correct and the other is incorrect, or if we are both incorrect and the truth lies elswhere entirely? If we follow this line of reasoning, soon we will come to the conclusion that we can know nothing anyway, so what's the point in arguing about it? So, you saying, "If you don't like that, I understand. That's the way it is though," doesn't help at all, becuase if both of our minds are not open to at least examining eachother's arguments, then what IS the point of talking about it?

There's actually a very EASY answer, just the Protestants and schismatics refuse to use it. You see, you are 100% correct. If there are two people arguing their *opinions*, neither is more valid than the other. How do you resolve it? ASK THE CHURCH! What does the legitimate authority of the church say is correct? That is the answer, and why you must respect the Novus Ordo. If you say "but that's not what *I* believe (or what some disgruntled "expert" believes), then YOU are the Protestant leaving the church. The church is the one with the authority to say what's true.

Frank wrote: "It's a Catholic mass."

How do you know?

Because that's what the church teaches! If you don't believe, you aren't Catholic, but a Protestant who likes a Catholic-style mass. Again, YOU aren't the authority to determine what is correct and what isn't the church is. You either obey or give up your claim of being Catholic.

So I will re-ask my questions, which you failed to answer: How could Vat-II legitimately 1) throw out the Tridentine Mass when Quo Primum forbids doing so, and 2)have Protestant ministers assist in writing the New Order Mass?? Please answer this time.

I've already answered, I'll do so again. 1. They Pope and Magesterium have the legitimate authority to alter the Tridentine or add a new rite of mass whenever they decide it's appropriate and beneficial to the faithful. Quo Primum does not prevent future Popes from doing this, but obviously an individual bishop couldn't. 2. Vatican I (which even the schismatics like) also invited the Eastern churches to attend. It had around 500 representitives, mainly from Europe. Vatican II had about 2500 representatives, from around the world, and much better represented the faithful. They also let Protestants in to give their opinions. Why not? You have just admitted that they share some of Christ's truth, we even accept their Baptisms as valid so they must be doing SOMETHING right (as opposed to your ad absurdum example of a Satanist). As long as the Pope and Bishops decided in the end what the mass would be, who voiced their opinion beforehand was unimportant. Remember Psyche, the church isn't for Catholics only, it's for the WORLD to make everyone Catholic. Our job is to spread the faith to everyone, not just keep people who already are Catholic in the faith.

but no matter how close they get to having all of it, they still don't have it completely. A miss is as good as a mile, as the saying goes.

This is not true. Do you really believe that a Baptized Christian such as a schismatic or Protestant is no better off than a Satanist? I hope not. Being a Catholic gives one the best chance of salvation, but the church recognizes even savages having the chance through natural law of receiving God's grace. Believing the Scriptures are the Word of God and attempting to live them should be of somewhat more benefit right? No, they don't have the fullness of the truth, but some is better than none, and they are that much closer to returning to the REAL church, the Cahtolic church.

celibacy of Priesthood, loyalty to the Pope

The first is not dogma, but discipline. The second is something schismatics like Lefebvre don't do even today, and get excommunicated for.

But they are not totally devoid of truth. I am curious as to why you would think like that.

Jake and Regina have previously (If I remember right) made a big deal about there being NO truth outside the Catholic church. That's what I mean about you guys being like Protestants, you each believe something different (and assume YOU are the correct one). I assumed you believed the same thing they did, as you share the same mistaken views on the rite of mass.

Return your faith to the church. What the church teaches is True.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 09, 2003.

Frank wrote: “There is nothing wrong with the Tridentine.”

Straight from the mouth of a Novus Ordo Catholic. Thank you, Frank. You are entirely correct in this matter.

Frank wrote: “The church in her wisdom decided that it was time for a new rite of mass.”

This is incorrect in several parts. 1) You are using a faulty definition of the church. 2) Wisdom could not have produced the Novus Ordo Missae. 3) It is never just “time for a new rite of mass,” unless there is something wrong with the old rite, which you yourself denied. This statement shows your lack of faith in required beliefs such as the meaning and value of infallibility. Catholics are required to believe ONLY infallible truths, which truths make up the Deposit of Faith. If a teaching is not infallible, it is not required belief. This is where you go wrong, and all you Novus Ordo “Catholics” out there. You place so much value on loyalty to the pope when loyalty to the Deposit of Faith is so much more important than that. If your father tells you to rob a bank or murder your sister or lie to a cop, you are bound (all things being equal) by obedience to God to disobey your father. If the pope tells you to disrespect the Blessed Sacrament or to disbelieve an article of the Deposit of Faith or to consort with and honor heretical sects (such as Buddhism and Voodoo, which the pope himself has done), you are bound by obedience to God to disobey the pope. This is also part of being Catholic: to differentiate between right and wrong and to obey the higher authority if the more direct authority is telling you to do something wrong. Who do you owe your life and your soul to? God. When you have to choose between 1) obeying the pope and sinning against God; and 2)disobeying the pope thereby causing certain people to call you schismatic, heretic, whatever, but while you obey God and Holy Mother the Church, which are Catholics bound under pain of sin to do? Obey God, disobey the pope, and let people call you names no matter how much pain it causes you.

Frank wrote: “Your job as a Catholic isn't to leave the church because of it, but to assume she had her reasons and obey.”

Your job as a Catholic is to be able to differentiate between right and wrong, even up to the level of the pope, and to obey the higher authority (God, and the Deposit of Faith) if the pope tells you to disrespect the Mass or the Blessed Sacrament, to disbelieve something which is infallible, or to give honor to or associate as spiritual brothers with members of false religions, or any other sinful act. If you do not believe this, you are heretically setting the pope up as an idol. “I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no false Gods before Me.” Obey God, then pope. It is the pope’s job to stay in line with God through the Deposit of Faith, holy Tradition, previous declarations and definitions of doctrine and dogma; if the pope fails in his job (which has happened before) then God help the pope and God help all Catholics, because chaos will ensue. Which kinda sounds like what we have right now, huh? Frank wrote: “This is the whole reason the Protestants got started, they thought it was THEIR right to decide things, and it isn't. It's NOT YOUR RIGHT to say what the church should do, it's the church's.”

Sorry, Frank, it is not the current clergy of the Church’s right to say what the Church should do. The Church must stay in line with everything dogmatic, doctrinal, Traditional, and Magisterial which has come before the present day (which Rome is not doing at this point). The Church has many rules to follow. Neither you nor I nor anyone short of an extremely learned doctor of cannon law can know what all of those rules are. The point is, the Church is not free to do whatever the Church wants to do. It is the job of every Catholic to not follow blindly in these confusing days, but to intelligently use the objectivity of right and wrong to catch the mistakes that the higher-ups in the Church are making, and to be sure not to make those same mistakes themselves.

On a more personal level, when you go to your parish Mass and you see/hear the priest preaching heresy, making a joke of the Mass, reading poetry for the sermon, or ad-libbing, maybe even to the point of changing the words of the Consecration, it is your job to AT LEAST kick up a fuss. If you make a fuss and nothing gets fixed, it is your job to protect your immortal soul and find a Mass which is beyond a doubt valid, and in which the Consecration is beyond a doubt taking place, so that your soul does not go without spiritual food; because if you do go without spiritual food for very long, your soul will die; and the longer you remain in that state, the harder it will be to come to life again.

Frank wrote: “Your job is to obey. To think YOU should decide makes you Protestant or schismatic, to think the church should decide makes you Cahtolic (sic).”

Frank, you are correct. It is my job to obey . . . to obey God: doctrine, dogma, Tradition, and all that the Magesterium of Holy Mother Church has passed down through the ages; and to obey the pope and Rome, but only to the extent that they are not demanding or forcing sins upon the flock (which at this point in time they are). If the pope wants me to go to a blasphemous, sacrilegious Mass at my local parish, I will refuse and I will know that it is my duty to disobey the pope and instead obey God.

It is not about me choosing or deciding what is right and wrong or what I want to believe. It is about objective truths. It is objectively true that God does not want his own children to believe heresy, to blaspheme against Him, or help others to by attending blasphemous Masses, to commit sacrileges, to be led into sin by their local parish priests and diocesan bishop. You can not argue with that objective truth.

Frank wrote: “each of you people that disavows the church believes something different,”

Obviously you do not know each of “us people” so you have no right to make such statements.

Frank wrote: “ so it's hard for me to know what "you" understand.”

In these days of confusion in the Catholic Church, is it not hard for everyone to understand what is going on?

Frank wrote: “. . . the other schismatics,”

I am not schismatic. Nor am I a heretic. I submit to all the doctrine, dogma, truths and teachings of Holy Mother the Church.

Frank wrote: “I'm suprised though that after the previous "games" you were playing with saying/not saying you believed the Novus Ordo was a valid rite that you'd now complain that people don't understand your "real" beliefs. If you say what you really believe the first time, people will understand you. If you play games or hide your beliefs, YOU are the one that causes people not to understand you.”

I submit to all the doctrine, dogma, truths and teachings of Holy Mother the Church. No games.

Frank wrote: “If there are two people arguing their *opinions*, neither is more valid than the other.”

Wrong. They can not know about the validity of their opinions; this would be why they are arguing. Unless YOU know the objective truth concerning their opinions, you can not know whether neither is more valid than the other, or if one of them is correct. If the Magisterium properly defined the answer to their question, then you would see if one of them was right, or if both of them were wrong.

Frank wrote: “How do you resolve it? ASK THE CHURCH! What does the legitimate authority of the church say is correct? That is the answer, and why you must respect the Novus Ordo. If you say "but that's not what *I* believe (or what some disgruntled "expert" believes), then YOU are the Protestant leaving the church. The church is the one with the authority to say what's true.”

You are operating under the false idea that the hierarchical clergy of the Church, including the pope, is the Church, and that whatever they say is correct. 1) The Church is much more than the sum of it’s members. 2) If all the clergy of the Church get together and say that a heresy is a truth, that does not make the heresy truth; it makes all the clergy of the Church heretics.

The problem, Frank, is that you (and most of the Novus Ordos I have met) have set the clergy of the Church up on a pedestal like an idol, which you believe you must obey under pain of excommunication. But, Frank, you can not be excommunicated by denouncing an idol. Remember, the Church is more than the sum if it’s clergy.

Frank wrote: "It's a Catholic mass . . . Because that's what the church teaches! If you don't believe, you aren't Catholic, but a Protestant who likes a Catholic-style mass.”

Sorry, Frank, you are wrong again. The Church does not teach that the Novus Ordo Missae is a Catholic Mass. What you mean is, the clergy of the Church teach that the Novus Ordo Missae is a Catholic Mass. And, all the name-calling and slandering you can do will not affect the truth.

Frank wrote: “Again, YOU aren't the authority to determine what is correct and what isn't the church is. You either obey or give up your claim of being Catholic. “

You are operating under your faulty definition of the Church. I do not obey when someone tells me to commit a sin, and that does not make me a non-Catholic.

Frank wrote: “Vatican II . . . also let Protestants in to give their opinions. Why not?”

Because this is the Catholic Church, not the Catholic-Protestant Church. Protestants have no business writing our Masses. That just makes the Mass a Protestant pseudo-mass. Catholics, especially popes and prelates, have no business showing honor to, or consorting with, heretics. Protestants are heretics. The pope was wrong to consort with and show honor to heretics, i.e. Protestants. By doing so, he allowed heretics to help write the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which Prots don’t even believe is necessary. How can you not see a problem here? How can you simply say, “Why not”?

Can you see the ridiculousness of allowing, even encouraging and inviting, heretics (Protestants) to put their two cents into the Mass? It is like inviting the wolf into the henhouse to ask and use his opinion on chicken coop architecture.

Frank wrote: “You have just admitted that they share some of Christ's truth, we even accept their Baptisms as valid so they must be doing SOMETHING right,”

Actually, more like they are not doing EVERYTHING wrong. It is pretty hard to do everything wrong. Even if truth is stumbled upon by accident, or is not thrown out with the rest of the babies in the bathwater, that does not give Prots any legitimate reason to help write the Catholic Mass.

Frank wrote: “As long as the Pope and Bishops decided in the end what the mass would be, who voiced their opinion beforehand was unimportant.”

Not “who voiced their opinion” Frank; who “helped write the Mass”. This is the Mass we are talking about here. Don’t you care about the wolves being invited into the sheep-fold? And if the pope and bishops thought the Prots’ opinions were so “unimportant” then why were they invited in the first place? Answer me that.

Frank wrote: “Remember Psyche, the church isn't for Catholics only, it's for the WORLD to make everyone Catholic. Our job is to spread the faith to everyone, not just keep people who already are Catholic in the faith.”

The Church IS for Catholics only. Outside the Church there is no salvation. Either become a Catholic, or thou art anathema. That is what the Church teaches. It is the intention for the whole world to become Catholic, yes; but that should not happen by the pope allowing in heretics and watering down our religion in order to make it acceptable to everyone. The Catholic Church is not supposed to be ecumenical (as in the present definition of collegiality between religions).

Frank wrote: “This is not true.(A miss is a good as a mile.) Do you really believe that a Baptized Christian such as a schismatic or Protestant is no better off than a Satanist? . . . Being a Catholic gives one the best chance of salvation, but the church recognizes even savages having the chance through natural law of receiving God's grace.”

It is true. Outside the Church there is no salvation. No one can receive sanctifying grace, the life of the soul, without Baptism, assuming the sacrament is performed properly and by the proper person . . . non-priests can not validly baptize except in case of dire necessity or imminent death. This includes Protestant ministers. By and large, Protestants are anabaptized because the ceremony they went through was 1) improperly performed, or 2) performed by a non-priest, or 3) both. So, yes; a heretical (not schismatic, by the way; schism is totally different) Protestant is probably no better off than a Satanist. Also, your contention that God’s (sanctifying) grace can received through the natural law, is incorrect. Sanctifying grace can only be given after baptism, i.e., Original Sin is cleansed from the soul. Savages having not been baptized can not possibly receive sanctifying grace until they are baptized. For this, I refer you to a Catechism; the Baltimore Catechism is easy to read and understand.

Frank wrote: “schismatics like Lefebvre don't do even today, and get excommunicated for. “

Lefebve was not schismatic nor excommunicated; he is also long dead ( doesn’t sound like you know that). No one can be schismatic or excommunicated by believing the doctrines and dogmas of Holy Mother Church.

Frank wrote: “you guys being like Protestants, you each believe something different (and assume YOU are the correct one).”

The only thing I can say for sure that all really Traditional Catholics believe are the infallible Truths of the Catholic Faith. All else is arguable, discussable, opinionable, since it has not been defined. So we may each have our own opinions. That is good, not bad, so do call us Protestants for it. You Novus Ordos all have your own opinions, too, in case you hadn’t noticed.

Frank wrote: “Return your faith to the church. What the church teaches is True. “

Amen. What the Church teaches is the Truth. If a member or members of the Church start teaching non-Truths, though, the Truth does not change; the members of the Church change . . . into non-members of the Church. Return my Faith to the Church, you say? I have always been here. The question is, where are YOU?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 09, 2003.

Psyche,

Frank wrote: “There is nothing wrong with the Tridentine.”

Straight from the mouth of a Novus Ordo Catholic. Thank you, Frank. You are entirely correct in this matter

I am NOT a "novus ordo" Catholic, I am a CATHOLIC. You may be a "Tridentine Schismatic", but a Catholic accepts as acceptable what the church does. Just a garden variety Catholic here. What do YOU call yourself?

This is incorrect in several parts. 1) You are using a faulty definition of the church. 2) Wisdom could not have produced the Novus Ordo Missae. 3) It is never just “time for a new rite of mass,” unless there is something wrong with the old rite, which you yourself denied

Look, these are just your opinions. You have the duty to obey the dicatates of the Magesterium even if they are not formally declared infallible UNLESS to have a serious reason not to. That's why they are there. Because I don't have enough knowledge of the church's decision to propose the new rite of mass is NO EXCUSE for you to disobey! There's no way around it Psyche, no matter how many words you type, it's just not your call to make.

This is where you go wrong, and all you Novus Ordo “Catholics” out there

There's no such thing as a "novus ordo "catholic"", you should know better than this.

Sorry, Frank, it is not the current clergy of the Church’s right to say what the Church should do. The Church must stay in line with everything dogmatic, doctrinal, Traditional, and Magisterial which has come before the present day (which Rome is not doing at this point).

It is ENTIRELY the job of the current hierarchy to guide the church, within the bounds of Sacred Tradition, the Scriptures, and especially with the CURRENT promised guidance of the Holy Spirit! That is what they have that you do not. Your baseless opinion may be that they are not, but that is YOUR opinion, and that of a few disgruntled people. It's NOT your call to make though, you keep forgetting that the Catholic's job is to obey. The Protestant's job is to keep shopping for churches until they find one they agree with, or to change theirs the way they like. Which camp are YOU falling into? To me you've fallen off into a Protastantism that claims to be Catholic, but misses the crucial part of obedience.

On a more personal level, when you go to your parish Mass and you see/hear the priest preaching heresy, making a joke of the Mass, reading poetry for the sermon, or ad-libbing, maybe even to the point of changing the words of the Consecration, it is your job to AT LEAST kick up a fuss.

I've never had this happen. If your Tridentine priests are doing this, you should do as you describe. (of course you should make sure you are really in a Catholic church first, and not a schismatic one)

Frank wrote: “each of you people that disavows the church believes something different,”

Obviously you do not know each of “us people” so you have no right to make such statements

This is exactly opposite of the truth. I used to think you guys shared a common belief, which is why I earlier posted what I did. It's your statements here that have shown me otherwise.

I am not schismatic. Nor am I a heretic. I submit to all the doctrine, dogma, truths and teachings of Holy Mother the Church.

In your opinion. How about an honest answer on the Novus Ordo finally? Is it the valid and licit current rite of mass, pleasing to God, or not *in your opinion*? That will answer this question.

The Church does not teach that the Novus Ordo Missae is a Catholic Mass.

Give it a rest already. You keep repeating this opinion of yours, which is contradictory to the teaching of the church. You are wrong. There are plenty of Protestants who will endlessly say THEY are right too, but they contradict the church, they are also wrong.

Can you see the ridiculousness of allowing, even encouraging and inviting, heretics (Protestants) to put their two cents into the Mass?

If you had a basic faith that the Holy Spirit was really and truly guiding the Church, this wouldn't be a problem for you. People who have a worldly bitterness and suspicion DO have a problem with this. It is the church who in the end wrote the rite, that is what's important, not who gave opinions beforehand.

Also, your contention that God’s (sanctifying) grace can received through the natural law, is incorrect. Sanctifying grace can only be given after baptism, i.e., Original Sin is cleansed from the soul. Savages having not been baptized can not possibly receive sanctifying grace until they are baptized.

If you really want to discuss this again start a new thread, this is way off topic here.

By and large, Protestants are anabaptized because the ceremony they went through was 1) improperly performed, or 2) performed by a non-priest, or 3) both. So, yes; a heretical (not schismatic, by the way; schism is totally different) Protestant is probably no better off than a Satanist.

This is foolish. The Catholic church does not re-baptize converts from protastantism, if their baptism was invalid they should, right? If you want to get into baptism *on a different thread*, start with what it means, and the benefit it confers.

Frank wrote: “schismatics like Lefebvre don't do even today, and get excommunicated for. “

Lefebve was not schismatic nor excommunicated; he is also long dead

This has also been discussed at length elsewhere. The pity is he died in a state of excommunication, and therefore died "as a gentile and a tax collector". Poor soul.

The only thing I can say for sure that all really Traditional Catholics believe are the infallible Truths of the Catholic Faith.

I agree with this. I am a Traditional Catholic because I try and obey the Lord and the church. Schismatics are not "traditional" anything as they do NOT obey the church, but obey themselves.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 10, 2003.

Regina,

I seem to have overlooked your response.

By the same token if Our Lord came walking up to you, would you fling your arm with a friendly whack of your *hand* on His Back, or would you fall on your knees and kiss His Feet with your lips?

Probably the latter, if I had the courage to do that! BUT, the main question is does Christ WANT you grovelling at His feet?

the posture (on the knees, receiving on the tongue) doesn't portray one who is "afraid" of a God Who is frightening and unapproachable, but a portrayal of one who pitifully attempts a gesture of humility before the Supreme King.

Like I said, I have no problem with this approach, so long as YOU have no problem with people who's relationship with Christ asks them to receive communion in the hand.

Now if the Holy Ghost inspired both laity and clergy alike to a new, more solemn way of worship and reception of Our Lord through the past 2000 years of Her history, why do you wish to return to a time before we had the gift of further inspiration and guidence from the Holy Ghost?

I trust the Holy Spirit to guide the church. I can't say WHY this is the time to change the mass any more than I can say WHY 2000 years ago was the time for Christ's birth on Earth! I have faith in God's plan. You could think of it this way: we now have MORE knowledge than the middle ages people did which is why the church is returning to communion on the hand, and ask yourself why you'd want to go back to the more limited knowledge of the middle ages practice of communion on the tongue. I'm sure some of the Jews in Christ's time said, "yeah, but why NOW? I can't believe God would do this". They were wrong, and if you deny the church, so are you.

But to foolishly mock faithful Christians who wish to do what the Earliest Christians did before the church in the middle ages decided they shouldn't, is very wrong.

Frank, I don't believe I "mocked" anybody. If you're referring to the article I posted, I wasn't trying to "mock" anyone, I was just tossing it out there for the benefit of the discussion.

Mocked was the wrong word here, as I was not refering to the article at all, but the general contempt "you" people show for the current *rite of mass*, which I find offensive, and this tends to spill into my responses.

Why? If Christ instituted Holy Orders at the Last Supper, and the Last Supper was the very first Mass, it stands to reason that the Apostles were the first Priests, no? And if they were it makes perfect sense that they should "take and eat" just as priests of today do.

So a priest today should just recline at table, and at some point just consecrate the host and partake without purifying himself first? I'm suprised you didn't shudder writing that.

If you ever decide to return to Catholicism, find a faithful parish, and try attending. I think you'll be amazed at how Christian it is! (and hopefully you've guessed by now to be a TRUE Christian, is to be Catholic the way Christ intends us to be)

That's really unfair of you, Frank. You said just today that you're no longer interested in persuing our debate comparing Lumen Gentium to past Church teachings - those teachings which I cling to - so if you're not going to permit me to offer the comparison, to get to the heart of the matter, than it isn't fair for you to continue with this "return to the Church" baloney

Fair enough, the door's always open for your return though.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 10, 2003.

HI Psyche + AMDG!

I just wanted to let you know how much I've enjoyed reading your posts/rebuttals in this thread (and Regina's, of course - but she already knows that!).

You are such a well informed traditional Catholic and its great to see someone like you defending the Faith of the ages with such sound arguments and love for the Faith. And most importantly, doing so in a charitable manner (i.e., not resorting to slanderous name calling and false accusations towards your fellow Catholic and non-Catholic brothers).

I love the part you said about how we have a duty as Catholics to obey God before man. How true. As you said in one of your latest posts: "to obey the doctrines, dogma, Tradition, the Magesterium of Holy Mother Church as it was passed down to us through the ages, the Pope and Rome - but only to the extent that they are not demanding or forcing sins upon the flock."

In fact, we have St. Peter's example of disobedience to bad human laws and lawful resistance to corrupt hierarchies; when he was forbidden by the apostate jews to Preach the testimony of Christ: But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

I recently read a great article called "Loyal Catholic resistance". The article talks about how St. Peter himself was publicly resisted to his face by St. Paul because he endangered the truth of the gospel. St. Peter, although superior in authority to St. Paul, was admonished. The Fathers of the Church explained that the incident shows us the correctness, at certain times, of resisting wayward ecclesiastics, even popes. The great Scripture commentator Cornelius a Lapide (1637) wrote: "Superiors may be admonished by their subordinates in all humility and charity so that truth may be defended." Cornelius' opinion was supported by St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas, and many others.

St. Gregory states: "Peter remained silent so that, being first in the hierarchy of the Apostles, he might equally be first in humility."

St. Augustine writes, "By showing that superiors admit that they may be rebuked by their subordinates, St. Peter gave posterity an example of saintliness more noteworthy that that given by St. Paul, although the latter showed, nonetheless, that it is possible for subordinates to have the boldness to resist their superiors without fear, when in all charity they speak out in the defence of truth." (Commentary Ad Gal., II, 11)

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the Scripture passage shows that a pope who errs from the Faith must be resisted openly and publicly because of the danger which exists for the faithful to be corrupted and led into error.

Various popes have told us that popes can err from the Faith and should then be resisted. Pope Innocent III (1216) said that a pope can "wither away into heresy" and "not believe". Pope Adrian VI (1523) stated that "it is beyond question" that a pope can "err in matters touching the Faith." He can "teach heresy" in decress. He also stated that "many Roman Ponitiffs were heretics" .

The saints and theologians have told us the same thing through the ages: we must not obey but rather resist wayward pontiffs and their corrupt hierarchies.

St. Vincent of Lerrins (445), Father of the Church, states: "What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once? Then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty."

St. Catherine of Sienna, rebuked Pope Gregory XI (1376) for his failure to return the Papacy to Rome and out of the pocket of corrupt french politicians. Her rebuke was another example that goes far to dismantle a popular pseudo conservative exaggeration of papal authority. The pope and the hierarchy can should be resisted at times, and I have found plenty of writings/quotes by Church Fathers to support this claim.

The situation in the Church today is deplorable. The House of God is saturated with heresy and scandal from top to the bottom. (Btw, I believe it is heretical, sinful, scandulous, all of the above etc... for anyone in the upper hierarchy to deny the God-given right of any Catholic priest to celebrate - or ever prevent the Faithful from attending the Mass of Trent (all time). It is simply not a lawful command that should be obeyed.

And a modern-day traditional Catholic is not "schismatic", or heretical or "out of the Church" for saying so. As that article I have been quoting from says: "We have a duty to resist the bad doctrine and example of certain members of the hierarchy and be loyal to the God-given truths of the perrenial and unchanging Catholic Faith."

-- Robert (robertp234@hotmail.com), October 10, 2003.

Probably the latter, if I had the courage to do that! BUT, the main question is does Christ WANT you grovelling at His feet?

How does a posture of adoration and awe at the sight of Our Lord equate to "groveling?" While in adoration, though, I would *beg and plead* for His Mercy which I certainly don't deserve.

Now, as to whether Christ would want me to assume this posture, I can only answer by saying if He wished to lift me up into an embrace, (what a wonderful thought!) that would be for Him to decide. He leads, I follow.

Like I said, I have no problem with this approach, so long as YOU have no problem with people who's relationship with Christ asks them to receive communion in the hand.

But what sort of "relationship" does Communion in the hand convey? To me it conveys a far too casual familiarity, an idea that the communicant fancies himself to be on equal footing with Christ. Now, I can't and won't say what is in the heart of the communicant who receives this way, but what *appearance* does it give? Does it really give witness to a deep faith in the Real Presense? Does it honestly demonstrate that we as Catholics don't belive we are taking ordinary food? And if we truly believe that each Fragment contains Our Lord in His entirety, wouldn't we want to ensure and protect Him from, for instance, falling to the floor?

Now, your rebuttal to this might be, "Regina, it seems you are concerned about how you look to others, that you are more interested in putting on a show to others." To that I must answer yes and no. Let me explain:

I, just as all Catholics, have an obligation to show good example. IMO, our outward appearances should resemble what our hearts truly believe. If we *appear* casual and indifferent, it would be a scandal to both Catholics and non-Catholics. Why? Because it gives the impression that our hearts are "casual and indifferent." We've all heard the Protestant argument, "If I really believed Jesus was really present at Mass, I'd walk on my knees before Him!" Well, that's what Catholics always *used* to do! Sure, they didn't walk into church on their knees, but they did spend the majority of their time at Mass on them in His Presense. Now, with the new Mass and communion in the hand, there is much confusion: When do I stand? When do I kneel? What's right? What's wrong? Can I bow before receiving? Genuflect? Will I be denied Communion if I get on my knees? All of this is completely unnessecary, and Catholics certainly had no trouble before the new Mass discerning what was and wasn't appropriate. They were in the presense of God and their more reverent posture confirmed that belief.

I have faith in God's plan.

That's assuming the new Mass *was* God's plan. I don't believe it was. Why not? Because if it were it wouldn't be necessary for this seemingly constant effort innovate further and to curb ever growing abuses, and keep the restless faithful interested. One can tell that the Mass before 1969 hand the Hand of God in it. How? Because it was so safeguarded, so finely tuned, so able to deliver the grace coming from it. It was so clear, both in defining our faith and recognizing that it wasn't the narration of a story, but an *action.*

You could think of it this way: we now have MORE knowledge than the middle ages people did which is why the church is returning to communion on the hand,

When there was *less* knowledge? That really doesn't make much sense.

and ask yourself why you'd want to go back to the more limited knowledge of the middle ages practice of communion on the tongue.

And why would you wish to return to a practice which made Our Lord more accessible to those who wished to use Him for diabolical purposes? Why do we wish to emulate heretics after the revolt who deliberately took their symbolic communion in the hand as a rejection of our belief in the Real Presence?

I'm sure some of the Jews in Christ's time said, "yeah, but why NOW? I can't believe God would do this". They were wrong, and if you deny the church, so are you.

Would God do something *anything* to jeopardize the soul of even one of His children? Try as you might to deny it, the creation of the new Mass and the resurgance of communion in the hand have been instrumental in causing confusion, indifference, and ignorance among the faithful. To paraphrase, we can tell a tree from its fruits.

Fair enough, the door's always open for your return though.

Ah, but according to some of the things you said to Psyche *and* Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, all faiths which acknowledge Christ (and even the Jewish faith which doesn't) are Salvific, therefore, why should I "return" to anything? Either I should "return", or I'm fine as I am. Which is it?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 10, 2003.

The Catholic church does not re-baptize converts from protastantism

The Church used to always rebaptize conditionally.........before Vatican II.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 10, 2003.

Hiya, Robert! It's so good to see you here!

I enjoyed the quotes you provided and the lessons and examples of some of our heroic Saints. You know what? Last night I was doing some reseach on a similar topic and I discovered that during the Arian crisis, St. Athanasius consecrated priests and bishops *without papal mandate* and against orders, for the proliferation of Tradition!

Sort of reminds you of someone we know and love...

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 10, 2003.

Frank said:

BUT, the main question is does Christ WANT you grovelling at His feet?

Our Lord Jesus Christ said:

And turning to the woman, He said unto Simon: Dost thou see this woman? I entered into thy house: thou gavest me no water for my feet. But she with tears hath washed my feet; and with her hairs hath wiped them.

Thou gavest me no kiss. But she, since she cane in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

My head with oil thou didst not anoint. But she with ointment hath anointed my feet.

Wherefore, I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less.

And He said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee.

And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves: Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

And he said to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe. Go in peace.

St. Luke 7:43-50

So Frank, when you go to the Judgement, you plan to extend your grubby hand & say "Put 'er there, Lord?" because that's what you're doing when you receive Communion in the hand.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 10, 2003.

HI Regina!

Yes, isn't that amazing! I have come to the same conclusion as you, after studying and researching this matter more in depth recently. I too have learned that St. Athanasius did indeed consecrate priests and bishops without a papal mandate and against orders, during the Arian crisis. The excomunication of St. Athanasius turned out to be a "wrong call" on the part of the Pope. He made a mistake.

I believe, (as other traditional Catholics such as you believe also, I think) that the same thing has happened in modern times regarding the so-called "excomminication" of the late Archbishop Lefebvre. There is no question that Archbishop Lefebvre acted in good conscience with no intention to separate himself from the authority of Rome or to set up his own parallel church (two ingredients for schism), before or after he performed the consecration. He even said so clearly on a number of occasions, including the very day of the consecration.

What Archbishop Lefebvre did do (his "crime?"), however, was act in defense of the traditional Catholic Faith. He felt he had a duty to uphold the Catholic Faith - as it had been passed on to him from Christ and the Apostles throughout the ages whole and undefiled and was now in danger of being destroyed! In my last post I showed, through the writings of past popes, saints, and Church Fathers, that a pope can err. He can make mistakes and can even preach heresy. A decree of excommunication is not infallible - especially if and when it contradicts Canon Law. I have the names of 9 Canon Lawyers who have gone on record stating that Archbishop Lefebvre was not excommunicated by his actions and that his decree of excommuncation contradicts Canon Law. If anyone wants me to dig up the names of those 9 Canon Lawyers who have gone on record stating this, I can provide this for them.

-- Robert (Robertp234@hotmail.com), October 10, 2003.

Dear Frank:
You and I are grubby; we ought to confess that. Not because the Elitist has said so; because to Jesus we were all lepers. We were; we're like that leper He took by the hand, --Matt 8 :3, hoping in Him; and He loved us.

There's love in His Sacred Heart for the grubby and unloved, as well as for the Pharisees.

I suppose on Judgment Day Jake will be unhappy to see the grubby Catholic who received the sacred host in his hand --with deepest love and joy; --Jake will be dismayed that a pig like that could be standing at the right hand of Our King. Well, Frank; we can take comfort. Jesus prophesied we pigs would be known as His disciples by the love we give one another. Not by what we rejected as impure, but by whom we loved as our brethren.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 10, 2003.

Id your conscience bothering you, Eugene?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 10, 2003.

Not for having ever received the holy body of Our lord in my grubby hand; it's not a cause for remorse. My other sins I've confessed, which relieves my conscience.

Would you tell us, Jake; do you fast from midnight the night previous to your Communion? We all did, before the 2nd Vatican Council. Many Catholics forget. I don't think you forgot, naturally. Be careful not to allow even a drop of water to accidently drip down your your throat. It would be forbidden to receive if that happened. Then your scruples might not give you peace. I speak from experience. I'll pray for you. I mean it sincerely.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 10, 2003.

Robert,

The situation in the Church today is deplorable. The House of God is saturated with heresy and scandal from top to the bottom

If you believe this, it's only because the church's RECENT history has been so good. Try looking around AD 1500 when the Latin rite was king and see what the times were like. Try looking into Pope Alexander VI (fathering at least 10 illigitimate children, poisoning, simony); the selling of indulgences for people already dead (for purgatory!) by Pope Sixtus IV, selling of indulgences for sins ***that weren't yet commited yet*** by Pope Leo X in a special Jubilee (who btw became a Cardinal at 13), rampant simony, etc. THEN come here and say things are worse now than ever. The practices of the past are far worse than the church's troubles today, and occured during the time of the Latin mass. Perhaps if the Novus Ordo was made then, they wouldn't have happened, we'll never know. The point is if you think the church is bad NOW, you haven't read the past.

But what sort of "relationship" does Communion in the hand convey? To me it conveys a far too casual familiarity

But it's not your call to make.

I have faith in God's plan.

That's assuming the new Mass *was* God's plan. I don't believe it was. Why not? Because if it were it wouldn't be necessary for this seemingly constant effort innovate further and to curb ever growing abuses

This has been discussed. It's a new rite. Liberal elements in the church have gone hog-wild and need to be reigned in. Give it time. At least no one in the current rite is selling positions to their associates or giving Cardinalships to their nephews like they did in the old church. Try and think with a long perspective of a century or two, and not with a NOW NOW NOW American approach.

You could think of it this way: we now have MORE knowledge than the middle ages people did which is why the church is returning to communion on the hand,

When there was *less* knowledge? That really doesn't make much sense.

You're not trying. You like the middle ages way because they had more undersanding than the early Christians, right? We NOW have more understanding than the middle ages, so you should go with the way our understanding says is best. Perhaps the church has new insight into old practices, or some other reason. In any event, your job is to obey the teachings of the church.

Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, all faiths which acknowledge Christ (and even the Jewish faith which doesn't) are Salvific, therefore, why should I "return" to anything? Either I should "return", or I'm fine as I am. Which is it?

Why not start a new thread on this?

Last night I was doing some reseach on a similar topic and I discovered that during the Arian crisis, St. Athanasius consecrated priests and bishops *without papal mandate* and against orders, for the proliferation of Tradition!

Sort of reminds you of someone we know and love...

Give me a break. Comparing the Arian heresy with Lefebvre's bellyaching over the rite of mass is like comparing the Civil War with Bill Clinton's troubles keeping his pants on.

Eugene,

It's true, that grubbiness. But if I'm permitted the grubbiest place at the Lord's table, It'll be more than I deserve.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 10, 2003.

Mark 14:20

He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me.

The apostles physically used their own hands at the last supper to eat Holy Communion. Jesus did not hand feed them. That is the same which we do today when we take communion by the hand.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 10, 2003.

Our Lord held a leper's hand. Our Lord was turned off by hypocrites; the scribes and the Pharisees, who called humble folk (the anawim) dogs, a rabble. Jesus loved the humble and disliked the proud. We can approach Him with confidence, not disrespectfully, but with joy; like children when they meet a great hero. He is our Hero!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 10, 2003.

Frank wrote: “I am NOT a "novus ordo" Catholic, I am a CATHOLIC. You may be a "Tridentine Schismatic", but a Catholic accepts as acceptable what the church does. Just a garden variety Catholic here.”

Labels, labels, labels. What do I call myself, what do you call yourself, what does the other person call us? Objectivity is what we need here. To be Catholic, you must 1) be baptized properly and 2) believe all the infallible Church teachings on Doctrine, Dogma, Faith, and morals. (It is not required to believe the un- infallible, or fallible, teachings of the Church.) So, Frank, if you pass those two requirements, you are Catholic, just as I am Catholic because I pass those requirements also. All arguable teachings are neither here nor there; your belief that one must believe and submit to ALL the CURRENT teachings of Rome, without differentiation between right or wrong, is actually a falsity which is incredibly dangerous to have faith in: witness the “obey”-addicts of most current parish Churches, who will submit to ANYTHING, even sacrilege, as long as their priest/bishop tells them it comes from Rome.

Frank wrote: “You have the duty to obey the dictates of the Magisterium even if they are not formally declared infallible UNLESS to have a serious reason not to.”

Yes, Frank! Yes! Exactly! UNLESS there is a serious reason not to! This is the contention of all Traditional Catholics that I have ever talked with. This is what I have been trying to tell you. I guess my use of words has not been the best, since it’s taken me so many tries to convey this to you.

Now, it seems that the only difference we have between us in our beliefs is the question of, “Is there a serious reason to disobey the current dictates of Rome?”

I obviously believe that there are many serious reasons to disobey Rome at this time. You obviously believe the opposite. I do understand why you believe the way you do: for many, many years the main thing preached from pulpits in Catholic churches around the world is obedience; blind obedience; so it is deeply ingrained in modern Novus Ordo Catholics’ consciences that obedience “covers a multitude of sins” so to speak, and that obedience to Rome, no matter what, is the ultimate sign of being Catholic. This is incorrect, though, as you yourself put so clearly: “. . . UNELSS you have a serious reason not to.” This is what most present-day Catholics forget. This is mainly what sets Traditional Catholics apart. Trads like me have acted upon this important principle. So, the question of “Is there a serious reason to disobey the current dictates of Rome?” I believe must be answered “Yes.” This is for many reasons, mainly (on the personal level) because of the common abuses propogated by Rome in the Novus Ordo Missae. In fact, the reason I began attending a Tridentine Mass back in the ‘80s was because my parish priest at St. Rose of Lima’s in Simi Valley, California, practically re-wrote the rubrics of the Mass to please his own artistic tastes. He wore a bunny-suit for the processional to the altar at Easter Morning Mass. He allowed female parishioners to distribute the Host as Communion at regular Sunday Masses, when obviously another minister of that type was not necessary, and when there were plenty of deacons and even a few other priests who could have stepped in. Even the Rome-OK’d Communion in the hand, which was common even back then at my parish, is sacrilegious. Priests have their fingers specially blessed and anointed in order to establish the privilege of handling the Eucharist. Nothing of the sort happens before Communion is placed in the hand of a normal parishioner. I believe there is a whole separate discussion about this particular subject going on in this thread, so I won’t say any more about it here, except that I CANNOT take part in a Mass in which the priest gives Communion in the hand, because I CANNOT in good conscience allow myself to participate (or even be present while others participate) in such a sacrilege.

Above the personal level, there are sound theological reasons to disobey Rome’s current directives concerning the Novus Ordo. I can get into these if you want me to; let me know. The difficulty there, though, is that I am not a cannon lawyer, and no one here that I know of is, either, so it just makes it that much more difficult to interpret cannon law without the proper guidance (which, unfortunately, Rome itself is not providing).

Frank wrote: “It is ENTIRELY the job of the current hierarchy to guide the church, within the bounds of Sacred Tradition, the Scriptures, and especially with the CURRENT promised guidance of the Holy Spirit!”

Frank, it seems to me that you do not believe a couple basic truths: 1) The guidance of the Holy Ghost is only promised as concerns infallible proclamations; this is what makes them infallible; there are formulas which must be followed through in order to make a teaching infallible, which the current regime does not follow; and everything outside of this sphere of infallibility can go either way, from truth to error, and belief in such teachings and documents is not required. 2) It is not only Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures which the current hierarchy must stay within the bounds of, but ALL infallible teachings, doctrines, and dogmas which have previously been declared, since the original Whit Sunday. The Church may not constantly re-invent itself or it’s teachings; the Church may only build on what has come before. This is where Rome has gone wrong in the last 50-60 years, including most of what was brought about through Vatican II.

Frank wrote: “I've never had this happen.” (abuses in the Mass)

Well, Frank, you are either very lucky and your parish priest is an extraordinarily Traditional-minded Novus Ordo, or you don’t know an abuse or a sacrilege when you see one. I tend to lean towards believing the latter.

Frank wrote: “If you had a basic faith that the Holy Spirit was really and truly guiding the Church, this wouldn't be a problem for you.” ( allowing Protestant ministers to help write the Norus Ordo Missae).

Here we go back to the issue of the Holy Ghost guiding the Church. This is only in matters of infallible doctrine and dogma. Not on who the pope allows to write a liturgy. And, Frank, Protestant ministers helped to write the Novus Ordo Missae, they didn’t just give their opinions. They helped to write it. Simply a crazy thing for the pope to encourage!!

Frank wrote: “The Catholic church does not re-baptize converts from protastantism, if their baptism was invalid they should, right?”.

In my experience, the Catholic church DOES baptize converts from Protestantism. It is called Conditional Baptism and it goes, “If you have not been baptized before, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” My husband, who is a convert, was baptized in this way (because no one, not even he or his own mother, remembered if he had been baptized before!! I understand that such bad record-keeping and apathy concerning baptism is the norm among Protestants).

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 10, 2003.

Robert,

Thank you for your encouraging comments! It always helps to strengthen my resolve when others like you and Regina chime in. You brought up some good examples of resisting popes when they teach errors, which I had not done enough research to know about. I’m saving your post as reference for examples in the future. I really don’t see how anyone can resist the Truth when confronted with such facts!

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 10, 2003.

Psche +AMDG; You are so easy to please. How are the ''facts'' which please you substantiated? And; in what manner are you and these other dissidents different from the reformers of the 1520's; Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, Knox, et al??? Were they faithful Catholics too, in the end? I really would like to know. I'm not baiting you; you must responsibly give an explanation.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 10, 2003.

Would you tell us, Jake; do you fast from midnight the night previous to your Communion?

Yes, except for taking medicine.

We all did, before the 2nd Vatican Council. Many Catholics forget. I don't think you forgot, naturally.

I couldn't have forgotten. I was not born until after the Council was over.

Be careful not to allow even a drop of water to accidently drip down your your throat. It would be forbidden to receive if that happened. Then your scruples might not give you peace. I speak from experience.

There were reasons for the pre-Communion fast. Good reasons. Maybe you can still remember one or two of them. Now, Thanks to the Council, you can stop at McDonald's on the way to Mass, scarf down an Egg McMuffin and coffee, and still have time to spare to make it in under the....what is it...one hour that's required of you now? You see this as progress. I see it as a subtle denial of the Real Presence, or at the very minimum, a chipping away at Its importance.

I'll pray for you. I mean it sincerely.

Thank you (and I mean that sincerely).I will pray for you as well.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 10, 2003.

We fast at least the one hour, and there's little reason to think it lowers Our Lord, since His anointed bishop makes that rule. It wouldn't even matter if we fasted a week before taking Holy Communion for ritual purposes; we would not be more deserving. The digestive tract is unimportant, it's our hearts God demands. Our love for Jesus is what brings us to receive Him, and He knows it.

Your fastidiousness is just another pharisaism. Go ahead and revel in it. Jesus would wonder what for, I think.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 10, 2003.

You see the question as a subtle denial of the Real Presence. Or something. You should have taken holy orders. Then we would have seen something.

I will never doubt the Real Presence if the sanctuary should burn down around me. Yet you think you are the only one who ever believed? ''Lord, I give thanks that I am not as other men; for instance that publican,'' --

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 10, 2003.

I read that back then in the Church of Corinth the Holy Communion was losing the intended meaning and sacred-ness. It seems that the emphasis was being placed on the socializing and "meal" aspects of communion rather than the true meaning. People were showing-up for the "meal" event and the late arrivals were left without the "meal". It was getting out of hand until Paul the Apostle put a stop to it. It became a requirement that all would "fast" before Holy Communion putting a stop to these social events and bringing the true meaning of the Holy Eucharist back to this church.

Now, I read this in a Baptist Doctrinal Study book. How much truth there is to this historical piece beats me. So, I await any and all corrective measure on this story, if any.

rod...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 10, 2003.

That's fine, Rod;
But we must keep in mind. Baptists deny a True Presence of Jesus Christ in the same Eucharist. It would mean so little, wouldn't it; if a faithful Christian fasted patiently just to be given bread and wine without the Body & Blood of Our Lord truly within? Keeping a fast has no significance unless we do it for Him personally.

Our elitist friend here, acts as if he would be sinning if he only kept an hour's fast before Communion. --This is altogether the other extreme, as far as God teaches us. He gave me & you the Church to be our only teacher in these matters. Not the Baptist church and not a reactionary elitist church, either. Only the Holy Catholic Church; with the Holy Spirit and our Holy Father the Pope.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 10, 2003.

Psyche,

I answered the earlier question you asked of me, why not return the courtesy and answer mine (from above):

I am not schismatic. Nor am I a heretic. I submit to all the doctrine, dogma, truths and teachings of Holy Mother the Church.

In your opinion. How about an honest answer on the Novus Ordo finally? Is it the valid and licit current rite of mass, pleasing to God, or not *in your opinion*? That will answer this question.

also

Frank wrote: “The Catholic church does not re-baptize converts from protastantism, if their baptism was invalid they should, right?”.

In my experience, the Catholic church DOES baptize converts from Protestantism. It is called Conditional Baptism and it goes, “If you have not been baptized before, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Hello? Did you read what you wrote? "if you have not been baptized before"... I said if someone HAD already been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... Protestants with this done aren't rebaptized, are they?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 10, 2003.

"In your opinion. How about an honest answer on the Novus Ordo finally? Is it the valid and licit current rite of mass, pleasing to God, or not *in your opinion*? That will answer this question."

How about let's be clear on who's doing the questioning and who's doing the answering.

Let's posit that you do the answering, as we traditionalists are not proposing anything different than what always has been.

By rights, we question, and you answer. Seriously. Traditional Catholics are the true heirs of Catholicism, and this ancient Catholicism will be revisited upon you eventually & ultimately. This current tyranny will end.

You've got deviations, you've got novelties. So, you answer the questions.

-- c (s@p.b), October 11, 2003.

"You've got deviations, you've got novelties. So, you answer the questions."

Didn't the Pharisees ask Our Lord the questions? Didn't Our Lord have novelties? Hmmm....

"We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed. We worship as you once worshiped. If you were right then, we are right now. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then."

I believe this was said by some Pharisees to St. Paul. I can't believe he caved in to the gentiles and made circumcision optional for male Christians. LOL!

-- (c@l.q.1), October 11, 2003.

"The apostles physically used their own hands at the last supper to eat Holy Communion. Jesus did not hand feed them. That is the same which we do today when we take communion by the hand."

-this argument is widely used -hmmm... it sounds good -- Good IF...

IF we the Laity are Apostles/Bishops/Priests... We are not.

There is a distinction AND there is purpose for the distinction -The distinction(s) if not practiced will erode away...

Could communion evolve into a buffet line?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 11, 2003.

You'd like to think that wouldn't you? Hey c@1.q.1.

-- c (s@p.b), October 11, 2003.

Could communion evolve into a buffet line?

Haven't you ever been to a "mass" that wa self-serve-file-by-the- table-and-help-yourself-to-a-wafer-and-a-sip-from-the-cup?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 11, 2003.

Just remember that while you guys think you're oh-so-clever in being snide and critical, what you are criticizing is THE HOLY MASS!

You'll have to answer for that.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 11, 2003.

Daniel and jake

Daniel said, this argument is widely used -hmmm... it sounds good - - Good IF... IF we the Laity are Apostles/Bishops/Priests... We are not.

The argument that the apostles hand fed themselves the Eucharist at the Last Supper still supports Holy Communion in the hand because the apostles were not fully empowered to carry out their priestly role until after the resurrection here...

John 20:19-23 "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." RSV

(This agrees with the book "Catholic and Christian" by Alan Schreck p.144)

We reread verse 21, "Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."

The footnotes of the New American Bible agree as well and say this about John 20:21...

"[21] By means of this sending, the Eleven were made apostles, that is, "those sent" (cf John 17:18), though John does not use the noun in reference to them (see the note on John 13:16). A solemn mission or "sending" is also the subject of the post-resurrection appearances to the Eleven in Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:47; Mark 16:15."

Notice the NAB says the Eleven were made Apostles only after the resurrection so they were not yet elevated to that level during the last supper. They were more like you and I. Actually they had even less empowerment than you an I because Pentecost had not happened, which is when the full gift of the Holy Spirit was given to all. You and I were given this extra grace, beyond our baptisms, during confirmation, putting an indelible mark on our souls, which the apostles didn't have at the last supper. And yet the apostles took Holy Communion in the hand then.

If the apostles had been fully ordained priests at the last supper than they could have consecrated the bread and given it to Jesus. Of course that is ridiculous and thus so is your argument.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 11, 2003.

This reminds me of the # of angels on the head of a pin argument.

It is silly. The last supper was a meal. Men do not feed other men at a meal, by putting the food in their mouths, unless they are incapacitated or slaves serving their masters.

It is a simple matter of reverence regarding what is transpiring.

And who cares when you consider what other stuff the Church is doing really badly. Gentlemen forget this silliness. What a dumb waste of time! To argue over Communion reception in the mouth or on the hand I am sure give Jesus a real chuckle.

If a Bishop tells you not to seek Communion directly into your mouth tell he to go chase himself, right to his face in public; and the same if he tells you you cannot accept it in your hand. It is high time people started holding their Bishop(s) accountable in public, in their face when they are arbitrary and capricious with the practice of their faith. If you do not like what is going on stop feeding the till. When enough do the hierarchy will listen...if enough care sufficiently to act.

Gee whiz!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 11, 2003.

Dear Jake,

NO, I have never been to such a Mass, and if I ever experience one I will report it to the Bishop the same day. Self-communication, at either a Latin Mass or a vernacular Mass, is strictly forbidden.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 11, 2003.

Paul,

Distribution: Consecrated Bread

Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words: "The Body of Christ", [to which the communicant responds, "Amen"].

The communicant makes a gesture of reverence (see below).

The communicant may choose whether to receive the consecrated bread in the hand or on the tongue. [Norms, 41]

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 11, 2003.

With all due respect to Mike H., there's absolutely no need to split hairs from the Bible to satisfy a few malcontents. If they do not wish to receive the sacred host in the hand, our priests are usually amenable to placing it on their tongue. It's done at every Mass I've attended here in California. The choice is the communicant's; except in a single case that came to my attention:

A young child; my own niece; was not allowed to stand before the pastor with her tongue stuck out awaiting communion. He asked her to hold out her hands and receive as all the other children were receiving. It confused the girl, and she abruptly said to the priest, No--! Her mother had expressly warned her NOT to take the host in her hand.

He informed my niece that a priest has final authority, and mothers have none. The child cried, and went back without communion. My sister-in-law was incensed; and complained about that pastor. My wife got wind of this ''scandal'', and asked me; did the child act rightly or wrongly? Because later the parents were informed by the academy, a child who disobeyed her pastor publicly placed herself in danger of expulsion. Of course, this alarmed my siiter-in-law!

I think my wife expected me to agree with her family on this. But I didn't; and I don't here, either. With all respect to Karl-- as well as any ''trads'' who are revlted by the story (ask me if I care), I strictly believe the pastor is in COMPLETE authority in the conduct of the Eucharistic celebration and every observance therein.

We never forget that our faith isn't social, political or even contemporary. Our faith gives precedence to hierarchical authority; we are ruled downward; From God, to our Prelates, to our Pastor and to us. We do not share authority, we accept authority. It's the way Christ governed His followers.

Many good Catholics become discouraged when confronted with this truth. They ought not be; God comes first. He gives the authority, not man.

We don't have to parse this argument, as if I mean we're to follow an errant or evil leader, or priests who do patently forbidden things. I'm referring to cases like the one of my niece. --No way was she free (even in a free country) to defy or disobey her pastor; not even when her own mother gave her an innocent motive. She didn't act maliciously, no one is suggesting that, but she was wrong. The Pastor rules over his flock, that's not NEWS!

If an unfortunate situation arises, the only recourse for us is to take the grievance to a higher authority. But reception of the sacred host by hand is duly authorised by our bishops; and objections are out of order. There can be no grievance. God will never judge us for obedience to His ordained minister whose works are just. And, repeating for the Jakes and Reginas; and their Elite: where Holy Communion is concerned, our priests are just. We have no cause against them. We will just ignore your false scruples here.

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

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 11, 2003.

Dear Jake:
Your side is always predictable. Who expected you to agree with me? In all our meetings here, we never stated anything derogatory about the Mass of Trent. It's your snobbery we disputed against. Once again, pride explodes in our faces, from your side. You've smeared the Catholic rite of my parish; you continue to blaspheme against it, and against Christ, who lives amidst us. Ban you??? No-- we'll pray for your lost soul, Jake.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 11, 2003.

Dear Mike,

I am aware of the various options avaialble for the licit reception of the Eucharist. What My last post referred to is self-communication, which means walking up to a container of consecrated hosts that is not held by anyone, reaching in and helping yourself to one. Or, walking up to a chalice of the Lord's Precious Blood sitting on the altar (or elsewhere), picking it up and drinking from it. This is not allowed to any lay person or religious. The sacred species must be ministered to the recipient, by an ordinary minister of the Eucharist when possible (a priest or deacon), or by an approved extraordinary Eucharistic minister when NECESSARY.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 11, 2003.

an approved extraordinary Eucharistic minister when NECESSARY

If they were never NECESSARY before the Council, why are they NECESSARY now? Are that many more people coming to church?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 11, 2003.

NO, I have never been to such a Mass, and if I ever experience one I will report it to the Bishop the same day. Self-communication, at either a Latin Mass or a vernacular Mass, is strictly forbidden.

I had a particular priest in mind, one I still know is around, but whom I haven't seen in years. He is (or at least was) also very fond of giving General Absolution on Christmas & Easter.

Also, perhaps of interest to you, Paul, He's also the director of the diaconate program for the diocese wherein I had the misfortune of growing up.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 11, 2003.

Gene,

You where wrong with the advice you gave your niece. You should of had the courage to get to the bottom of this, so it doesn't happen againn to another young lady.

Where does it say she must take the Holy Eucharist in her hand? I've never heard of this nonsense. You should of known that she is entitled to receive the Eucharist in her mouth if she choose to do so.

Priests are not infalliable, and sometimes they need to be shown there mistakes.

-- (David@excite.com), October 11, 2003.

I agree with you, David. (Great to see you, btw!)

When we were preparing for our first Holy Communion, the Monsignor of our parish didn't want a "pomp and circumstance production" made of the occasion. He believed it would be just as special if us kids just arrived in our "Sunday best", sat with our families and came forward first before the rest of the congregation to receive. We were taught to receive in the hand only and that we had to take from the cup, too.

My mom and a few of the other mothers were pretty upset about this and had a meeting with the Monsignor: No procession? No white dresses and veils for the girls? No suits for the boys? Nothing to demonstrate that first Holy Communion is the most special day in the life of a Catholic child? The Monsignor told mine and the rest of the mothers to "stop trying to live your life over again through your children!" The group of moms held firm to their position and, fortunately, in the end, Monsignor relented and our first Holy Communion was properly celebrated.

The point is, just because a priest (or bishop, etc.) makes some decision, doesn't mean it's a *good* decision. God didn't make us robots who are to simply smile and nod at everything that comes out of a clergyman's mouth. He gave us the ability to know right from wrong, and hopefully, the courage to act when we're confronted with something we know is wrong. I'm sorry for that child who was bullied by that priest to do something she wasn't even obligated to do. The shame belongs to the priest and to anyone who thinks he was right and deserved obedience.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 11, 2003.

The plain truth is, neither David nor Regina have the slightest judgment, knowledge or aptitude to make statements about priestly authority. --Rightly or not, the clergy can decide what's proper for their parishioners. They are acting for Christ. This is not something that extends outside the Church; but at Holy Mass, they lead & we follow. A pastor is the shepherd, the communicants sheep. It's absurd to suggest a pre-teen girl will dictate to the celebrant of the Mass what attitude is best at Holy Communion. Not even an adult Catholic will presume such an affront. You won't find a single saint in the history of our faith who challenged the pastor of a community over some external procedure. Name ONE. Please don't pretend to correct the Church. We leave that to her rivals and opponents.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 12, 2003.

Eugene,

I agree, but from a more simplistic point of view, which is: what was the end result of the mother's actions? The child was denied the Body of Christ. From this standpoint alone the mother was wrong. If she had "issues" with communion in the hand, she should have addressed them after mass with the priest, not put her *child* in such a position.

Mike H.,

That's a very good point!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 12, 2003.

The truth is, she & her husband asked my opinion; and when I gave it, they were humble enough to see the point I make here. Being a faithful Catholic is more important than sticking to your guns at some minor confrontation.

They see it so; the little girl knows now; because Our Holy Saviour gives them that grace and that great virtue, humility; real love & humility! It isn't being servile to have faith in one's priest in tricky circumstances. He is our father. He would not demand something unworthy of you & me; or of a faithful child.

It's precisely this point I tried to make to Jake and his camp: You surround the reception of the sacred host with unctuous humility. Jesus wasn't fond of preeners and mock religiosity. He calls MEN! Men with PANTS on, and devout women with interior love for Him; skip all the mock scruples, and RECEIVE YOUR LORD! He loves you !!!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 12, 2003.

Gene,

It doesn't matter who gave an opinion. The opinion of you and the Priest is WRONG!

The Catholic Church doesn't give the Priest a right to demand this from the child. The Priest was wrong and so are you to agree with him about this.The young Lady has a right to receive Holy Communion on her tongue and the Church gives her this right.

. you sadly contributed to one of the biggest blunders in this girls biggest day in her life, and you still try and find a way to make yurself look like you are right

Gene, is your niece from the Byzantine Catholics? I think a Catholic Priest here could demand that the child uses the spoon to receive the Holy Eucharist, but I don't read where you have hinted on the use of spoons as your "lame" excuse for not admitting when you are wrong!

Gene the young Lady was correct, and you and the priest were wrong? [Yes, you are entitled yo your opinion, but your opinion is wrong]

May God bless your niece.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 13, 2003.

"The child was denied the Body of Christ from the standpoint alone the mother was wrong."

I disagree! The Mother isn't at fault here. How can you blame this on the childs Mom? It sounds like to me that the Childs Mom knows what went on.

Blame it on the Mom because the Priest made a mistake, Frank?[And Gene was shown how wrong he is?]

We'll if you think that way than how can Isabel be wrong for taking her children to the Holy Mass to receive the Holy Eucharist? Isn't there rules here Frank? Or do they just suit you when you feel the need?

-- . (David@excite.com), October 13, 2003.

Eugene wrote: "How are the "facts" which please you substantiated?"

Through simple research involving Church-history and lives of the Saints texts. It doesn’t matter whether something pleases me or not, btw. It’s my goal to be objective.

Eugene wrote: "And; in what manner are you and these other dissidents different from the reformers of the 1520's; Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, Knox, et al???"

The "reformers" which you mention attempted to bring innovations to the Faith, thereby changing what they believed from Catholic to "something else". I, and many other Trad. Catholics, do exactly the opposite: we see that many of the innovations of Rome within the last 40-50 years are "something else" rather than improvements.

Eugene wrote: "Were they faithful Catholics too, in the end?"

Of course not. How can you ask a question like this, when it is obvious that there is a difference between faithful Catholics, and Lutherans/Calvinists/whatevers?

I mentioned the qualifications of being Catholic to Frank earlier on this thread: To be Catholic, you must 1) be baptized properly and 2) believe all the infallible Church teachings on Doctrine, Dogma, Faith, and morals. (It is not required to believe the un- infallible, or fallible, teachings of the Church.)

The difference is whether or not people are screwing around with the infallibilities. Most Novus Ordo Catholics I run into do not even have a clear sense or understanding of what infallibility is, or perhaps how serious it is; but it is the important thing.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 13, 2003.

Paul M What My last post referred to is self-communication, which means walking up to a container of consecrated hosts that is not held by anyone, reaching in and helping yourself to one. Or, walking up to a chalice of the Lord's Precious Blood sitting on the altar (or elsewhere), picking it up and drinking from it.

Paul (or anyone else who favors Communion in the hand), I have questions which I ask not in an argumentative way, but out of genunine curiosity. Before I ask, I'm going to point out the things I'm pretty sure we agree on. OK:

1. Only a priest's hands are consecrated. 2. Lay ministers of the Eucharist's (just as the hands of the laity) hands are not. 3. It is forbidden to "help yourself" to consecrated Bread and Wine contained in the sacred vessels left out on the altar.

Now, for my questions:

What is really the difference between "helping yourself" to the Bread and Wine left out on the altar and receiving the Host and Cup from someone else, into your own hand, and taking it yourself? In reality, wouldn't it be fair to say that if a person receives Communion in the hand, he/she becomes his/her own minister of the sacrament? How does the hand inside of which the Host is placed differ from the container which holds the Hosts?

Secondly, I'm assuming that during the NO Mass, the altar servers still assist the priest in cleansing his fingers just prior to the consecration. If this is true, why aren't both the lay ministers of the Eucharist, as well as any communicants who wish to receive by their own hands, required to do likewise? Either the cleasing of the fingers means something important, or it doesn't. If it does, why shouldn't the laity's hands be just as "clean" as the priest's before handling the Host? I mean, it's all the same Christ in His entirety, right? If it (the cleansing of the fingers) doesn't mean anything important, why does the priest do it at all? What I'm trying to get at is why are there special requirements for the priest's hands but none for the laity? And if the *consecration* of a priests hands means something, or it doesn't. If those consecrated hands sets him apart from the laity, why should the laity whose hands have not been consecrated be permitted to receive by hand?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 13, 2003.

Psyche,

This is my third request for you to answer a very simple question. I don't understand why you don't, since I have tried to answer yours. Here it is again in case you missed it accidentally:

How about an honest answer on the Novus Ordo finally? Is it the valid and licit current rite of mass, pleasing to God, or not *in your opinion*? That will answer this question.

As a new question you said:

I mentioned the qualifications of being Catholic to Frank earlier on this thread: To be Catholic, you must 1) be baptized properly and 2) believe all the infallible Church teachings on Doctrine, Dogma, Faith, and morals. (It is not required to believe the un- infallible, or fallible, teachings of the Church.)

What do you think your obligations are as far as obeying the church council - Vatican II?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 13, 2003.

Hi again, Frank. Sorry it’s taken me this long to reply; I took a break over the weekend. Frank wrote: I said if someone HAD already been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... Protestants with this done aren't rebaptized, are they? I think at this point we are arguing semantics on the baptism issue. I think we both agree that Protestants may or may not be baptized properly, and that if converting, they should be baptized conditionally no matter what. Correct? Frank wrote: How about an honest answer on the Novus Ordo finally? Is it the valid and licit current rite of mass, pleasing to God, or not *in your opinion*?

As to the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae: from my studies, I have learned that the bare necessities (under extreme circumstances) for a valid Mass is a priest and the valid consecration of the Body and the valid consecration of the Blood. I.e., as long as a validly ordained priest uses the proper words, “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” “For this is my Body” and “Hic est enim calyx sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum,” “For this is the cup of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant – the Mystery of Faith – which shall be shed for you and for many for forgiveness of sins,” then it is a valid Mass. Here is where the primary difficulty of any Mass said in the vernacular comes in: since Latin is a dead language, the meanings of the words do not change; but since the vernacular is a live language, the meanings of words do change; it is possible to translate the Latin of the Consecration into many different forms in English alone; what if a translation is faulty and thereby the priest, saying the Mass in the vernacular, does not say the words of the Consecration but of something similar to it? Unintentionally? Who knows?

Also, in these days of parish priests who change the Mass and the words of the Mass to their own liking, validity probably has to be established on a case-by-case basis.

So, more clearly speaking, I do not know if any particular New Order Mass said in the vernacular is valid, but as long as the words of the Consecrations of both Species are correct, and as long as the priest was validly ordained, I’m fairly sure the Mass would be valid.

As to the New Order Mass being licit: there are two different schools of thought in Traditional circles. One scholarly opinion of those (Traditional priests, mostly) who have obtained and studied a copy of the Novus Ordo Missae Altar Missal is that, said in it’s pure form exactly as it is in the Missal, it is both valid and licit. Another scholarly opinion held by many more of those who have studied the Missal and cannon law (priests again, mostly) is that the Novus Ordo Missae, even in it’s pure form exactly as it is in the Missal, is invalid, illicit, and sacrilegious.

For my part, I have been to sacrilegious New Order Masses which I know were staggeringly hurtful to God; I don’t know if I have had bad luck or what, but the last time I went to a local parish for Mass, with a Novus Ordo friend, shocked me and saddened me so that I have determined that I will never, ever go to a Novus Ordo Missae again as long as I live. I would rather die than again be a part of such mind-boggling insults toward Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Frank, I walked into that Catholic church that looked more like a high school auditorium, and I felt the vacuum of emptiness tug at my soul. If Christ is present in such Masses, then God help those priests and those who attend, and my heart weeps at the thought of Christ Crucified being demeaned and insulted all over again; if Christ is not present in those Masses, then all those Catholics are worshiping bread and wine. Which is preferable? I have no idea. I don’t want to choose. So I choose a Mass in which I know without a doubt that I receive my God in Communion, and where to the best of my ability to ascertain, Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is not being hurt.

Perhaps you can see now why I attend the Tridentine Mass exclusively and call my self “Traditional Catholic”?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 13, 2003.

Frank wrote: "What do you think your obligations are as far as obeying the church council - Vatican II?"

My obligation is to be wary. I have seen with my own eyes some of the abuses that go on with the New Order Mass, and the sacraments of Confession and Matrimony, not to speak of the other sacraments and what is taught from the pulpit, private conferences with priests, and parochial schools. "By their fruits you shall know them."

I do not have before my mind ALL the changes which Vatican II made in less inconsequential things such as how long to fast before Communion, whether women should still wear hats or veils in Church, codes of dress, codes of conduct such as genuflection . . . but I see that overall, Vatican II took away much of the reverence which was paid to the Blessed Sacrament, and instead devoted those energies to things like the kiss of peace during Mass, which is a homo-centric custom.

What I’m getting at is the whole philosophy behind Vatican II was man-centered rather than God-centered and that anything man-centered is intrinsically flawed. This is the reason so many sacrilegious abuses have morphed themselves into the Mass. And, anything which allows such abuses to be propagated should be eradicated immediately. So, at the very least, Rome should go back to the Vatican II documents and tighten things up drastically, negating many if not all of the looser regulations concerning the liturgy; and the Catechism should be re-written or thrown out, reverting to one of the older Catechisms for the sake of clarity.

I differentiate between the changeable stuff and that stuff which should possibly never be changed (and certainly not so quickly and with such lack of foresight). The Church year calendar, with the Feasts of the Saints changed around since Vatican II, is a changeable thing. How long to fast before Communion is changeable, as long as there is still a fast! Whether or not to eat meat on Fridays, and what to do instead of abstaining from meat, is changeable. How often one must go to Communion and/or Confession within a year under pain of sin, is changeable. Things like this, which have to do with customs risen out of the worldly culture, can be changed. (However I don’t think it was wise for Vatican II to change as much of these thing as it did, and so quickly. What possible reason could there have been? It seems the popes just wanted to give the whole religion an overhaul and facelift. . which it didn’t need.)

The non-changeable suff ( or nearly non-changeable) such as the words of Consecration, the form of the sacraments, and the rubrics of handling of the Sacred Species, is another matter. I do not have any obligations to obey Vatican II when it or it’s proponents tell me to sin or to receive a Host which may or may not be validly consecrated.

I hope this answers your question

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 13, 2003.

Frank, I have a question for you: What do you believe YOUR obligations are as far as obeying Vatican II and it's proponents?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 13, 2003.

Oh Ye of little faith! --There is no place for the Holy Spirit in your ''Church''. Who told you to demean the bishops and our Holy Father, accusing them and the Popes after Pius XII of becoming heretical? It is an enemy who hath done this!

How did YOU recently acquire the Holy Spirit? Just the same way, you must think, as the ''reformers'' have. By throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We dispute everything now which doesn't strike our fancy. After all, the Pope isn't ''necessarily'' infallible! To what depths will unfaithful Catholics sink?

______________________

The fingers of a priest are not consecrated as ''instruments'' for handling of the Blessed Sacrament. I hate to disappoint you. They are blessed in this way because the priest is who effects the miraculous change IN HIS HANDS, of bread and wine into the Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ.-- What we the faithful do, receiving in our CLEAN hands that same Sacrament, is simply convey it into our mouth; with all love and reverence! We don't abuse it, juggle it, or hurt it; HIM, I mean. There is not one thing cleaner or holier about our tongue than our hand.

In fact, the human mouth as an organ or member is where evil can come out of, as Jesus plainly said (Matt 15, :11). Our mouth, which some foolish Catholics believe is sacrosant, is usually full of bacteria. It has never been ritually consecrated, any more than our hands. We can wash & scrub our hands; but more importantly, we come to him in purity of soul.

In past years it seems almost sure, --Many souls have come forward to receive Holy Communion; in the hand-- from the consecrted fingers of a priest who was unworthy of his vows. The hand where Jesus went was holier than the hand which was consecrated! What a sad irony! But true.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

So I choose a Mass in which I know without a doubt that I receive my God in Communion, and where to the best of my ability to ascertain, Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is not being hurt.

Psyche, in one fell swoop you have defined the Traditionalist positiion in its entirety.

Think about it. We are accused of being "elitists" (as if we've ever declared ourselves to be holier or better than anyone else here or anywhere!) They oppose us because we want the very best given to Our Dear Lord. They say we are "disobedient" because we resist *abusive* authority and refuse to adhere to liberal (i.e. *sinful and contradictory*) theology. We are thought of as suffering from scrupolisty (sp?) because we want all humanly possible measures taken to protect Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament from insult and profanity. They say we are "anti-Catholic" because we promote all that *is* Catholic and oppose all that is *anti*-Catholic. They will admit liberals have gone hog-wild within the Church, but in the same breath, say we are "out of the Church" because we reject and oppose that spirit of liberalism which permeates the Church today. And, perhaps which boggles the mind the most, they supposedly beg and pray for our "return" to the Church but their much ballihooed Vatican II teaches that faiths "outside" the church are Salvific.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), October 13, 2003.

Dear Psyche, AMDG+, --etc.,

In what capacity of theological argument is:--''However I don’t think it was wise for Vatican II to change as much of these things as it did, and so quickly. What possible reason could there have been? It seems the popes just wanted to give the whole religion an overhaul and facelift. . which it didn’t need.'' --What divine gift did you bring to bear on the ''problems''; by which to make these deep judgments? You ask, ''What possible reason could there have been?''

Yes; a reason, that's what you demand now; not a Pope. You act better than the Pope I suppose; he's the ''sexist'' you spoke of before; wasn't it you two?

The next thing you'll be denying our Church ever had the protection of the Holy Spirit. After all, God might have been lying to us, right? Anyway, says Pysche et al, give me one good reason for a Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Regina: I'm sure Psche will think, ''Oh shucks, dear; it was nothing. But thanks!

''Psyche, in one fell swoop you have defined the Traditionalist positiion in its entirety. (In it's blasphemy, you mean?)

''Think about it. We are accused of being "elitists" (as if we've ever declared ourselves to be holier or better than anyone else here or anywhere!)''

No-- you only mocked the 2nd Vatican Council as fraudulent! ''They oppose us because we want the very best given to Our Dear Lord,'' --Regina; you oppose the Novus Ordo Missae. YOU are the dividers.

All you've done since you arrived here is pile scorn on the New Rite. It isn't good enough, you claim. It's what the Popes approved, Dear! The Rite doesn't call for YOUR seal of approval, as if we need one.

If a practice were offensive to Jesus christ, don't you suppose the Holy Spirit would give us some sign? You don't care what the Holy Spirit thinks, do you?

'' We are thought of as suffering from scrupolisty (sp?) because we want all humanly possible measures taken to protect Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament from insult and profanity.'' Humanly possible measures? That's what you call NEVER GIVE UP, isn't it? Not even if the Church saves a hundred million new souls? Not even if Christ is glorified in thousands of recent saints and martyrs, such as Padre Pio, Mother Theresa, Jose Maria Escriva, and many others? -- (Oh.) But we forgot. --You protect Jesus from insult & profanity. --Sure you do !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Padre Pio, Jose Maria Escriva

Historical tidbit: Neither saint ever said the new mass; and Mother Theresa had some pretty tough words about Communion in the hand.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 13, 2003.

If a practice were offensive to Jesus christ, don't you suppose the Holy Spirit would give us some sign?

He has.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 13, 2003.

"I have seen with my own eyes some of the abuses that go on with the New Order Mass"

A: I have also witnessed some abuses OF the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, both under its current rite and under its prior rite. In neither case were the abuses anything inherent in the rite, but rather deviations from what was specifically required in the rite. Criticizing a rite of Mass because some people abuse it is tantamount to criticizing children because some people abuse them. People who point to a particular outrageous Mass celebrated by some renegade priest as representative of the Masses celebrated in that rite are simply dishonest.

"and what is taught from the pulpit, private conferences with priests, and parochial schools. "By their fruits you shall know them."

A: How many pulpits have you heard from? How many parochial school classes have you recently sat in on? How many priests have you had "private conferences" with? Perhaps you have read reports by a few people who have had negative experiences? If you receive so-calle "traditionalist" literature, you have no doubt had the opportunity to read compilations of negative experiences, gleaned from all parts of the world, and combined for impact. What does this say about Catholic preaching in general? Catholic schools in general? Catholic priests in general? For a thinking person, obviously nothing at all. The preaching from the pulpit in my parish is solid orthodox Catholicism. The teaching in our parish school is too. And we have a number of knowledgeable orthodox Catholic counselors, lay, religious and clerical, to meet the needs of our congregation. While I do consider my parish "exceptional" in some ways, we certainly do not have a monopoly on solid orthodox teaching. We would certainly not allow an illicit Mass to take place in our church.

"Vatican II took away much of the reverence which was paid to the Blessed Sacrament"

A: No, it did not. That's the saddest aspect of all in this so-called "traditionalist" movement. The overwhelming majority of Catholics still attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and partake of the Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord in great reverence, even as the "traditionalist" dissenters circle around outside shouting "Reverence is Gone". All I can say is, if your "traditionalist" position prevents YOU from experiencing the fullness of reverence in the Mass and the Eucharist, while the rest of the Church is experiencing it, you really need to take a hard look at what is deficient in your position.

"What I'm getting at is the whole philosophy behind Vatican II was man-centered rather than God-centered and that anything man-centered is intrinsically flawed."

A: That is pure pap. Bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord. Is that something men can do? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by its vary nature, cannot be man-centered. It is an interaction between God and man, but God alone can make it happen. Interaction between God and man however, is what the holy Council restored. The Mass for most Catholics had become a performance, presented for their benefit on a stage called the altar. That is not to say that it didn't invoke a sense of awe and reverence - but other kinds of performances can invoke those same feelings. What the "traditionalist" position sadly suggests is that the awe and reverence they experience at the Tridentine Mass is more about costumes and motions and music than about the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. But then, that's what you would expect to be the source of reverential feelings at a performance. If the source of their awe and reverence were the Real Presence, then surely they would experience that same awe and reverence whenever and wherever the Eucharist is present. Most of the Church knows this.

"This is the reason so many sacrilegious abuses have morphed themselves into the Mass. And, anything which allows such abuses to be propagated should be eradicated immediately."

A: NO abuses have become part of THE MASS. Abuses OF the Mass have been introduced by specific individuals in specific times and places. These abuses do have to be addressed, when and where they occur, so that the holy rite of Mass as defined by the Church, may be maintained. However, again, to suggest that such abuses are the fault of that which is being abused is absurd and dishonest. Probably not intentionally so however - "trads" just haven't thought it through. I find the whole movement to be emotionally, not rationally driven.

"So, at the very least, Rome should go back to the Vatican II documents and tighten things up drastically, negating many if not all of the looser regulations concerning the liturgy"

A: I admit that some of the directives concerning the liturgy should have been presented more forcefully, with an eye to avoiding any hint of ambiguity. Not that any of the texts are so ambiguous that their intent cannot be clearly discerned by any honest person seeking the truth; but that they are sometimes sufficiently imprecise to allow for personal misrepresentation by persons who do NOT wish to conform to the teaching of the Church, and are looking for any possible loopholes. However, such persons would probably do their own thing, regardless of what the Church required. Just like "traditionalists".

"and the Catechism should be re-written or thrown out, reverting to one of the older Catechisms for the sake of clarity"

A: The older catechisms do not include the necessary level of clarity or explanation of important doctrinal issues. They were suitable for initial catechesis of children, but not for the ongoing guidance of adult Catholics. Which is one reason most Catholics in pre-Vatican II days possesses no more than an elementary understanding of the truths of the faith. However, I would indeed like to see the Catechism rewritten in simpler language which the average Catholic with average education and reading skills could comprehend.

"I do not have any obligations to obey Vatican II when it or its proponents tell me to sin or to receive a Host which may or may not be validly consecrated"

A: True. But non-sequitur. The real question is - does the average Catholic in the pew have the theological training, knowledge, depth of understanding, and AUTHORITY to dictate to the Church of the Living God the circumstances under which a Host may be validly consecrated? Apparently so-called "tradionalists" see no problem in responding to this question with an unqualified YES!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 13, 2003.

I thought we were rid of the blasphemer? Jake: Were those good souls, Theresa, Pio, Jose Maria; loyal to their Holy Father? Did they retreat into a schismatic element in defiance of a Catholic council and the Holy Spirit our Paraclete? Do you know the meaning of unity? Are you just a pest?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Psyche,

You asked,

Frank, I have a question for you: What do you believe YOUR obligations are as far as obeying Vatican II and it's proponents?

Happy to answer, as submission to church councils applies to all Catholics. The first question would be did Vatican II intend to be an official church council? The answer is definitely yes, (from VatII):

following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love.

The next question then is what is required of us and why? A good article on this is in the Catholic Encyclopedia Link

Vatican was an Ecumenical council, and

Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.

It BINDS all Christians.

A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation,

Therefore, the decrees of Vatican II are infallible, and hence must be obeyed.

The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff's ex- cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature.

Therefore even withOUT an infallible pronouncement from a pope, a church council is infallible.

Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope.

Therefore the decrees of Vatican II (again) are infallible, and MUST be obeyed.

The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the definitions and decrees of councils, and in them alone, to the exclusion of the theological, scientific, or historical reasons upon which they are built up.

This is very important to the schismatics here. The council decides what is decreed, and this is infallible. REGARDLESS of what historical or theological past reasons there are. Therefore, if the church decrees a new rite of mass, this is an infallible pronouncement to you, and you obey. To disobey is schism, or heresy.

These represent too much of the human element, of transient mentalities, of personal interests to claim the promise of infallibility made to the Church as a whole; it is the sense of the unchanging Church that is infallible, not the sense of individual churchmen of any age or excellence, and that sense finds expression only in the conclusions of the council approved by the pope.

It doesn't matter if you can quote a few or many people from ages gone by (or current schismatics) the church council decides the truth.

Promulgation of conciliar decrees is necessary because they are laws,

These decrees are laws, and must be obeyed.

To summarize: The argument that scismatics make about "pastoral" versus "dogmatic" (or whatever is in vogue with them) is garbage. A general church council when it is appoved by the Pope is INFALLIBLE, and must be obeyed. You must obey every decree in Vatican II whether you like it or not. That is what it means to be Catholic. By reading this BTW, you can no longer claim innocence on Judgement Day. To reject a church council is to reject the church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 13, 2003.

Bravo, Paul M;
It won't appeal to Jake or Pysche and A. The very idea that you could hope to wipe away their crocodile tears; you, a Neo ! Once a whitened sepulchre, always a w.s. --Good writing; Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Psyche,

You asked,

Frank, I have a question for you: What do you believe YOUR obligations are as far as obeying Vatican II and it's proponents?

Happy to answer, as submission to church councils applies to all Catholics. The first question would be did Vatican II intend to be an official church council? The answer is definitely yes, (from VatII):

following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love.

The next question then is what is required of us and why? A good article on this is in the Catholic Encyclopedia Link

Vatican was an Ecumenical council, and

Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.

It BINDS all Christians.

A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation,

Therefore, the decrees of Vatican II are infallible, and hence must be obeyed.

The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff's ex- cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature.

Therefore even withOUT an infallible pronouncement from a pope, a church council is infallible.

Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope.

Therefore the decrees of Vatican II (again) are infallible, and MUST be obeyed.

The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the definitions and decrees of councils, and in them alone, to the exclusion of the theological, scientific, or historical reasons upon which they are built up.

This is very important to the schismatics here. The council decides what is decreed, and this is infallible. REGARDLESS of what historical or theological past reasons there are. Therefore, if the church decrees a new rite of mass, this is an infallible pronouncement to you, and you obey. To disobey is schism, or heresy.

These represent too much of the human element, of transient mentalities, of personal interests to claim the promise of infallibility made to the Church as a whole; it is the sense of the unchanging Church that is infallible, not the sense of individual churchmen of any age or excellence, and that sense finds expression only in the conclusions of the council approved by the pope.

It doesn't matter if you can quote a few or many people from ages gone by (or current schismatics) the church council decides the truth.

Promulgation of conciliar decrees is necessary because they are laws,

These decrees are laws, and must be obeyed.

To summarize: The argument that scismatics make about "pastoral" versus "dogmatic" (or whatever is in vogue with them) is garbage. A general church council when it is appoved by the Pope is INFALLIBLE, and must be obeyed. You must obey every decree in Vatican II whether you like it or not. That is what it means to be Catholic. By reading this BTW, you can no longer claim innocence on Judgement Day. To reject a church council is to reject the church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 13, 2003.

/ / /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Gene:

No-- you only mocked the 2nd Vatican Council as fraudulent!

Many of the "doctrines" contained in the documents of the Council contain statements which were clearly condemned as errors in councils and papal encyclicals prior. You want proof?

you oppose the Novus Ordo Missae.

How could anyone *not* oppose a doctrinally and reverentially *inferior* missae which has done nothing more than create confusion, ignorance and indifference among the faithful? Read the link jake provided. It comes from the organization which came from the Ecclesia dei document you guys love to wave in our faces. It's a report of the staggering affects the new "rite" has had on the faithful. The results aren't pretty. You still say this is God at work?

All you've done since you arrived here is pile scorn on the New Rite.

See my above comment and add "scorn" to it.

It's what the Popes approved, Dear! The Rite doesn't call for YOUR seal of approval, as if we need one.

The rite would still be doctrinally inferior whether I said so or not, Honeybunch.

If a practice were offensive to Jesus christ, don't you suppose the Holy Spirit would give us some sign?

Confusion, ignorance and indifference. Denial of the Real Presence. Vocations down. Sodomites in the seminaries. Invalid Masses.

Is this good enough, or do you require a lightning bolt?

You don't care what the Holy Spirit thinks, do you?

Yeah. That's why I'm a Traditionalist.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 13, 2003.

Go ahead, fire from the hip. Our Tradition is alive in the Church today; as it will be on the last day, when Jesus returns. You must not have much faith in the Holy Spirit, otherwise you would also show some sense. He is with His Church always. The Church whose members love one another.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Confusion, ignorance and indifference.

I'm not confused, or ignorant, Ma'am. You are very indifferent to the Gospel. When have we denied the True Presence? Maybe in your dreams?

''Denial of the Real Presence.'' Oh? Put up or shut up.

''Vocations down.''

Everybody has a vocation; not all to holy orders. What's your own? Muckraking?

''--Sodomites in the seminaries.'' --But many of the worst offenders were ordained before the 2nd Vatican Council, Dear. Is the Mass of Trent ''invalid'' because some octogenarian pansy priest played with the altat boy now 35 years old? Ha!

Invalid Masses. Invalid to you, a schismoid elitist. We know what an invalid mass is; you don't.

''Is this good enough, or do you require a lightning bolt?'' I never see anything good enough from your side, Regina. Only whiffs of hot air from the devil's dragoons. Pharisee.com / Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

-hmmm...

One problem may be that although 'Vatican II' is valid -the implementation & interpretation by various faithful in some specific instances and or in some areas and or in some geographic regions is invalid due to ignorance, error, epikeia, misguided poetic pastoral licence, or even by design?

Of course, discussion of this possible scenario would require comparing and contrasting specific examples of action(s) relative to the documented requirement(s) -the arguments/discussion would then be a bit more concrete... THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II -have I missed any specific references to these douments?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 13, 2003.

Regina,

Many of the "doctrines" contained in the documents of the Council contain statements which were clearly condemned as errors in councils and papal encyclicals prior. You want proof?

I would like proof that you don't have to obey an official church council, yes, that would be nice. I would ALSO like proof that a decree of a church council when approved by the Pope is NOT something you MUST obey. If you cannot produce this, you have no reason to disobey in the first place.

How could anyone *not* oppose a doctrinally and reverentially *inferior* missae which has done nothing more than create confusion, ignorance and indifference among the faithful?

Aside from your disparaging opinion, you do not oppose it because you MUST support it. While there are abuses of the current rite of mass occuring, that is not the fault of the rite. Sowing dissention among the faithful by schismatics is not helping to increase understanding, but adding to confusion, and possibly, God forbid, causing some weak- willed souls to leave the True church for your schism.

It's a report of the staggering affects the new "rite" has had on the faithful. The results aren't pretty. You still say this is God at work?

The trouble is you can't REALLY say that there would be any less moral laxity among some of the clergy and faithful if the Tridentine rite continued. That's just something you want to believe. Perhaps it was just the combination of external influences that led to problems in the church. As I tried to point out to Robert above, if you think the church has problems NOW, look back when the Tridentine rite was practiced near the time of the Reformation and see how bad the state of the church was. Did the rite stop it? No. Did the rite CAUSE it? No. But somehow you think NOW the rite is responsible. If you REALLY want to insist that the current rite of mass is responsible for the church's current problems, please have the internal consistency to say that the Tridentine rite caused the abuses in the church of the middle ages, then we can talk about the abuses of the clergy under each rite.

Confusion, ignorance and indifference. Denial of the Real Presence. Vocations down. Sodomites in the seminaries. Invalid Masses.

Kind of like in the middle ages the people who were concerned with the church leaving and becoming Protestants. Today some people who are concerned shirk their responsibility to perfect the church and become schismatic instead. The door is always open for their return, but as history shows us with the Protestants, most in the end WON'T return. Once you put your own authority over the Church's on what is best for the church, you are unlikely to submit at a later time.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 13, 2003.

Daniel,

Don't know if this is what you want, but FYI: Link to Vatican II documents

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 13, 2003.

Daniel,
We must face the fact Regina raises a straw man here; a mass somewhere sometime that she says was invalid. I'd like to know how she determined it was invalid. Maybe the Mass was attended by a madman or two; or as Psyche said, the celebrant was dressed in bunny costume. Neither point which would invalidate the mass. It would probably make me sick; but not invalidate the Mass.

The elite wants us to stop the Church they want to get off. For their own motives; not all of them nearly legitimate. We see the Church with love and hope. With faith in the Holy Spirit who abides. We are certainly NOT assisting at invalid Mass, nor is the True Presence ever questioned. These are divisive lies.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

eugene,

You have put up with a lot of insanity on this thread, I commend you.

To the schismatics of the Lefebvrite movement who refuse submission to the bishop of Rome, this scripture is for you...

Romans 13:1-2

Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 13, 2003.

Gene pondered

I'd like to know how she determined it was invalid.

Adding juice to the wine prior to the consecration. Using bread other than the type that is required for the consecration. The GIRM is clear about this. If anything is added to the wine or any sort of bread other than what is required is used, the mass is invalid.

Mike H. I have a quote for you, too, as well as all of those who demand obedience to contradictory "teachings". Here ya go:

But even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. - St. Paul

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 13, 2003.

Answer this: Did you yourself take juice to the altar for this purpose? Or have you taken the word of a 3rd party? Did the priest say: ''Here is juice. I add this to my wine here.--?'' Did you produce the unfit bread? How do you know this bread was not adequate to the task? You dreamt it, didn't you Regina? Whatever you thought during this Mass it was VALID. (Now you can tell me to go soak my head. Lol!)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Romans 13:1-2 Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation.

By posting as much, Mike, congratulations. You've just laid waste to the whole Ecumenical Movement and the New Springtime of the Church.

Now what are you going to do?

But this here, this is private judgment on your part.

"To the schismatics of the Lefebvrite movement who refuse submission to the bishop of Rome, this scripture is for you...

And what's more, being the private judgment that it is, in most cases, you're wrong.

Go figure.

Here's another glaring oversight made continually by people exercising intellectual dishonesty: that the whole of the traditional Catholicism consists of what you term LeFebvrites.

Guess what? It doesn't. In other words, if you were to take the SSPX out of the equation, you'd still have a bunch of people insisting upon holding the Catholic Faith.

It's bigger than you, bigger than me, and bigger than the SSPX, and bigger than the New Springime, this Neo/Trad conflict. It's bigger than what you can handle with a pat on Eugene's back.

It's bigger than what you understand.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 13, 2003.

What if Emerald were right? Why, we'd better treat the kid with kid gloves. In a few years he could become Pope; we'd be singing that song: ''To dig I am not able, to beg, etc.,'' Gee, Emeraldus. Quo Vadis, back-seat driver of the Pope Mobile?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Gene

Answer this: Did you yourself take juice to the altar for this purpose? Or have you taken the word of a 3rd party?

This happened at my nephew's first Holy Communion two years ago. I took the "word" from his father (my brother - whose reaction when I told him that rendered the sacrament invalid was, "Oh, so what?!")

Did the priest say: ''Here is juice. I add this to my wine here.-- ?''

No, he said, "I'll be adding apple juice to the wine for the sake of the kids taste buds."

Did you produce the unfit bread? How do you know this bread was not adequate to the task?

No. The bread was semi-soft and off white (whole wheat?) and it crumbled a bit when broke, in stark contrast to the bread commonly used: white and firm in consistancy. The GIRM (fortunately) is clear that any deviation no matter how small, invalidates the sacrament. *That's* how I know. It's called studying your faith, Gene.

You dreamt it, didn't you Regina? Whatever you thought during this Mass it was VALID.

Re-read this thread, Gene. For the most part it is made up of people from *both* sides of the arguement who have been gracious with showing respect for those of opposing opinions. People on both sides have debated using only church documents and the words written by those they are debating with. Once again, you are trying to turn this thread into a weird slanderfest with your off-the-wall comments, your ridiculous ramblings, and your unfounded, baseless accusations.

(Now you can tell me to go soak my head. Lol!)

No. I'll leave those types of snotty, irrelevant remarks to you. Why don't you behave like a Catholic, or at the very least, like an adult, OK?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 13, 2003.

Regina,

You use Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. - St. Paul in an attempt to justify your position but that verse only condemns it. Paul used an absurd idea by saying "we" might preach you another Gospel or an angel might, in order to make a point, he means he wants to create unity of faith in the church under its ONE authority. It was an emotional way to say "stick to what I told you!" The Gospel is clear today, the church's authority and doctrine has become MORE obviously clear cut since the time Paul wrote Galatians, we know where the church is, we know where the pope is, he who is the Rock, the keeper of the keys, the prime minister to the King Of Kings. If you defy him by ordaining bishops without his permission and then get excommunicated, it is painfully clear who is away from Christ's teaching.

Among people who use Gal 1:8 to justify their positions are Fundamentalists, Lefebvrites, people who read Chick Publications and Roman Catholics. Which one is right? It is the one with Authority from Jesus Christ, first passed on to St. Peter and then to those in his direct line of succession. Those in union with him would have authority also but would necessarily exclude all those excommunicated by him.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 13, 2003.

Whatever you thought during this Mass it was VALID.

There's no way you could know that, even if you were there in the front row (you may have been, for all I know. I refused to go).

Even assuming the matter to have been valid (which it could not have been), his carelessness raises serious doubt about the priest's intention, which is just as necessary for validity; and even with both these things (matter & intention) in place, you'd still have to rely on the priest sticking to the proper form for consecration. If he were so bold and callous as to proportedly "consecrate" Wonder bread & apple juice, what would make you think he'd stick to any of the other rules?

Nuvo question: Did I receive a valid Sacrament?

Trad response: Maybe, but why wonder if you can be sure?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 13, 2003.

Emerald,

Wow I laid waste all that?!

You said, And what's more, being the private judgment that it is, in most cases, you're wrong.

I wasn't referring to "cases" rather only to schismatics of the Lefebvrite movement who refuse submission to the bishop of Rome

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 13, 2003.

My point being that it can be turned around and used against you to make a point. In other words, use of this passage of as a condemnation of Lefebvrites to hell is to be in conflict of the foundational prinicple of ecumenism as it is practiced according to Vatican II, which is a larger and subsistent mystical body which has a mysterious relationship with the Church which exceeds the boudaries of the Mystical Body of Christ which was previously defined as the Church itself. It's in Lumen Gentium.

So see, according to the later description of the Mystical Body and it's outer limitations, you can't damn Lefebvrites to Hell even if they really were schismatics.

There's a double standard there, which indicates the truth is suffering somehow.

"I wasn't referring to "cases" rather only to schismatics of the Lefebvrite movement who refuse submission to the bishop of Rome"

Taking all things pertaining to what happened in 1988 at face value and setting aside all protests about the nature of the excommunication itself, this would include at the time, 4 people at the most.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 13, 2003.

Five! Sorry, five people at the visible most.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 13, 2003.

Emerald,

I didn't damn anyone to hell, nor can I, nor did I say that I know they will go to hell. I said, that particular scripture was for them to ponder. I said that group I mentioned needed to heed that passage. How they apply it to themsleves in real fashion will depend on them. If I or you or they, go to hell, than it is because we opposed God and persisted in that action to the end.

It is uncharitable to let anyone go skipping and dancing into hell.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 13, 2003.

To put it clearer:

" Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation."

This would mean that all Protestants dying outside the Catholic Church, even if you limited it only to those who know of the Catholic Church and whatnot, would be damned.

But people don't adhere to this idea anymore because the new ecumenism says so. So you have a conflict on your hands when it comes to the credibility of applying the quote to the Lefebvrites.

Pretty staight forward.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 13, 2003.

"It is uncharitable to let anyone go skipping and dancing into hell."

True!

We are limited in what we can do I suppose.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 13, 2003.

Emerald,

In other words, use of this passage of as a condemnation of Lefebvrites to hell is to be in conflict of the foundational prinicple of ecumenism as it is practiced according to Vatican II

Actually ban-breaker, I've posted several times that the biggest irony of the whole thing is that the LeFebvrites take advantage (perhaps even without knowing it) of the same ecumenism they condemn.

Big deal though, right? Once you turn your back on the authority of a church council, you don't have any restrictions left on your "religion" of one(s).

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 13, 2003.

Emerald

So you have a conflict on your hands when it comes to the credibility of applying the quote to the Lefebvrites.

It is the word of God and so it applys to everyone.

It means we Christians are not free to do as we please. Being Christian doesn't mean doing my own thing if it opposes the plan of God. Being baptized and confirmed and maybe ordained offers us the blessings and support of an infinitely powerful loving God who promises he will help us to heaven as his sons and daughters. But those sacraments ALSO apply conditional curses. I, as a Catholic, will go to hell if I knowingly break my covenant with God and persist in that behavior without seeking forgiveness to the end of my life. That is a fact.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 13, 2003.

I think one of the most common misperceptions of someone coming in from the angle I'm from is this: that I would think that if one garners for themselves a certain collection of manditory items on a checklist of salvation essentials, you'll be granted Heaven. No matter what.

But I don't think this, and if fact I agree with you last paragraph completely.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 13, 2003.

You dreamt it, didn't you Regina?-- Whatever you thought during this Mass it was VALID.

''The bread was semi-soft and off white (whole wheat?) and it crumbled a bit when broken, in stark contrast to the bread commonly used: white and firm''. Dig that! Everything pointed to bad bread!

Well, that settles it. An invalid Mass. No court. No judges, no jury. Just Regina and one relative. Hey, Regina: Pardon another off-the-wall question. Tell me, what did the priest answer after you asked him to his face, ''This Mass is valid, isn't it Father?''

No, it's invalid, he must have answered. Just to put the cap on it. You will win, Regina. because you refuse not to win. In stark contrast to the Catholic Church of your experience. She loses, no matter what. You made up your mind, she loses.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

You're really being quite ridiculous, Gene. There are three requirements for a valid sacrament: form, matter and intent. Any one of these that's missing makes for an invalid sacrament. It's really that simple.

The use of leavened bread makes for an invalid sacrament. Period. End of story.

It's so simple, in fact, that I'm surprised you were never taught that. Sad, really, that Catholics don't even know what constitutes a valid sacrament.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 14, 2003.

Isabel,

Sad, really, that Catholics don't even know what constitutes a valid sacrament.

It's ALSO very sad that their are those who claim to be Catholics who don't believe they have to obey an ecumenical church council. Worse actually because some of them DO know, but refuse to do so.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

It's ALSO very sad that their are those who claim to be Catholics who don't believe they have to obey an ecumenical church council. Worse actually because some of them DO know, but refuse to do so.

Let's try this again.

One.

More.

Time.

What exactly is it from Vatican II that Traditionalists are "disobedient" to? Think you can tell us? I have quntifiable reservations.

Show me the money, or stop those ridiculous, canned replies.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

Jake, In the year or two you've been here you've maligned the Catholic Church more than anyone I've seen to date, and on this forum that's saying something. Don't bother asking questions of me, it's a waste of time answering them.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

Don't bother asking questions of me, it's a waste of time answering them.

You just answered a bunch. Thanks.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

you were never taught that. Sad, really? Ha ha! Ask me any question on faith, the church, and the Catholic religion, Regina. I will return an answer immediately. I won't search for it, I'll give it to you from memory. Your hubris is extraordinary. I understand the requirement for a valid consecration, Dear. I just want to know why you see ''leavened bread'' on an altar; simply on account of the color and how it ''crumbled''. Or juice? Of all the cockamanie rope tricks! How about the Mass of Trent? Do you KNOW for sure what juice went or didn't go into the wines? (Oh!) ''That's never questioned. We know the Mass of Trent can't ever be invalid. It's what the Holy Ghost is there to insure never happens--'' and so on, and so on.

I questioned your looseness with the truth before this, Regina. There's no longer any question.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 14, 2003.

Ask me any question on faith, the church, and the Catholic religion, Regina. I will return an answer immediately. I won't search for it, I'll give it to you from memory.

Q: What are the requirements for sarcamental validity?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

Frank, you wrote: “The next question then is what is required of us and why? A good article on this is in the Catholic Encyclopedia Link Vatican was an Ecumenical council, and “Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.” It BINDS all Christians. A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, Therefore, the decrees of Vatican II are infallible, and hence must be obeyed.”

Frank, your whole argument here, and therefore everything which is based on it, falls flat and can not be used because of the sentence after that which you quoted, from the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here it is:

“A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils.”

There you go. Vatican II obviously failed to secure the approbation of the whole Church, all the bishops and archbishops in good standing. Therefore, NONE of the documents or teachings of Vatican II are by this means infallible. This is not the first time something of the sort has happened, either:

“Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.”

Also, there's an interesting quote from St. Athanasius which applies in the case of the chaos in the Church now-a-days:

"Even if Catholic's faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the True Church."

So, Frank, do you still believe Vatican II was/is infallible, and what are your reasons for what you believe?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.

First of all I must say to Eugene, please stop calling names, baiting, and slandering. Please do act like an adult. We are trying to help each other get at the truth here, and the attitude of the remarks you’ve been making is a detriment rather than a help. Please, everyone, let’s be calm and civil. Let’s be kind and charitable. “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” rather than “Hate the sinner, hate the sin,” Nothing good can be accomplished from either side if anyone hates the sinner as well as the sin.

Statements and my replies:

“In neither case were the abuses anything inherent in the rite, but rather deviations from what was specifically required in the rite. Criticizing a rite of Mass because some people abuse it is tantamount to criticizing children because some people abuse them.”

No, it’s like criticizing the parent for not having better rules enforced for disciplining his child! This is where the pope’s responsibility comes in. I can not fault him so much as his advisors because of his poor health and his age, but still, I should hope the pope would still know a sin when he sees one or hears about one, and at least try to put a stop to it, which maybe he has and it has been stonewalled by his advisors; or maybe other things are going on with the pope, more than his poor health, that I don’t know about. In any case, I can not condemn anyone, it is not my place, but God’s place; but I do say no one is bound to believe anything that came out of Vatican II. See my above post to Frank.

“How many pulpits have you heard from? How many parochial school classes have you recently sat in on? How many priests have you had "private conferences" with?”

Many pulpits (I’ve moved around a lot both in California and in Texas), I used to teach in parochial school so I know what goes on, I’ve had multiple private conferences with at least four different priests. However, none of this matters when I can and have randomly walked into various parish churches to “check out” the Mass and it was routinely a mish-mash of the New Order rite, and “other things” – words, prayers, actions, whatevers of the priest, or the monsignor, or the bishop, or whoever; but I have never been able to find the Novus Ordo Missae celebrated in it’s true, pure form as it is in the Missal. Never. And I am not alone in this experience. Every Traditional Catholic has a sound reason for attending the Tridentine Mass, and almost every one’s reasons or “straw that broke the camel’s back” has to do with some shenanigans going on with their parish Novus Ordo Mass.

"traditionalist" dissenters circle around outside shouting "Reverence is Gone".

Not gone, greatly reduced. From my own experience I have determined this. People at parish churches act like it’s more of an auditorium; as it is, once the Blessed Sacrament is removed and placed in the side-chapel. Even where the Blessed Sacrament is present, people may or may not genuflect, may or may not chat with others, or discipline their children, or turn around and gawk at whatever, and mainly act like it’s some community concert they’re getting ready to listen to and/or perform, rather than attending Holy Mass.

“That is pure pap.”

There’s no need for you to be insulting.

“The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by its vary nature, cannot be man- centered.”

Exactly. And yet the Novus Ordo Missae itself, in it’s pure form, has attempted to make it man-centered to a ridiculous degree. And that’s not even speaking of the daily abuses which go on at every parish church I’ve ever stepped foot in . . . and in most other parishes around the world.

“It is an interaction between God and man,”

A-ha! You think the Mass is an interaction between God and man! I see Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae have succeeded in convincing you of this all-important fallacy. The Mass, if said by a validly ordained priest, with the necessary conditions fulfilled (which does NOT include other people present!) is still is the Mass if no one else is there! Not even an altar boy (or, heaven forbid, an “altar girl”). And you must realize that at the time he is celebrating Mass, the priest is not a simple person anymore, but is the Alter-Christus, the Other-Christ; he gives up his personhood in order to say Mass! So no person needs to be present; according to you, that would mean the Mass either does not exist, or has no meaning! The Mass, in actuality, has nothing to do with interaction involving people. Even Communion of the people is not necessary for a valid Mass. The Mass is complete and good to the highest degree without even one single person in attendance.

“The Mass for most Catholics had become a performance”

Nope, but that’s what the Novus Ordo Missae has become, as you just proved. It’s the pot calling the kettle black in this instance.

“persons who do NOT wish to conform to the teaching of the Church, and are looking for any possible loopholes”

Such as virtually all of the diocesan bishops in the US, and virtually all of their priests.

“The older catechisms do not include the necessary level of clarity or explanation of important doctrinal issues.”

Then read the Summa Theologica. Then the Summa Contra Gentiles. Then the . . . you get the idea. Don’t write a new catechism when there are already so many good ones out there; study what you already have. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it . . . which is exactly the Traditional Catholics’ belief about the Tridentine Mass, incidentally.

“does the average Catholic in the pew have the theological training, knowledge, depth of understanding, and AUTHORITY to dictate to the Church of the Living God the circumstances under which a Host may be validly consecrated?”

Church of the Living God?? I thought you were Catholic! But all joking aside, you throw that word “dictate” in there as a hopeful damnation of the Trad. Catholics’ ideas. It doesn’t work, and I think you know as well as I do that I (we) have never assumed to dictate anything to the Church; we have upheld the Church dictates to the present-day clergy of the Church. That’s the big difference. And, yes, the average Catholic in the pew should have the theological training, knowledge, and depth of understanding to be able to see if and when the Consecration is valid. Every Traditional Catholic I know has such knowledge, training, and understanding. Perhaps this is the difference between us and you. BTW, every person has the authority to judge the difference between right and wrong.

“In what capacity of theological argument is:--''However I don’t think it was wise for Vatican II to change as much of these things as it did, and so quickly. What possible reason could there have been? It seems the popes just wanted to give the whole religion an overhaul and facelift. . which it didn’t need.'' --What divine gift did you bring to bear on the ''problems''; by which to make these deep judgments?”

In the theological capacity of my knowledge of what the Catholic Church has taught for roughly 2000 years. I said what I think and what it seems like – I did not make deep judgments, but rather an overview-judgment based on the prior ~1950 years. Quit trying to twist my words, it doesn’t work, and it certainly does not help your cause. Please try to argue this like more of an adult.

“You act better than the Pope I suppose; he's the ''sexist'' you spoke of before; wasn't it you two?”

I never said the pope was sexist. BTW, I am one person. The +AMDG+ is a motto which the Jesuits have, which I adopted for myself. It means, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, or, “For the greater glory of God”. And, how can you even think to make ridiculous accusations about “who’s better than the pope”? People are people. I, personally, am the worst of God’s creatures. It is solely through the grace of God that have what good I have.

“The next thing you'll be denying our Church ever had the protection of the Holy Spirit.”

The guidance of the Holy Ghost is only guaranteed concerning infallible teachings and documents. Every other teaching and document is questionable. Of course the Holy Ghost is always with the Church; but that does not mean She has to listen to Him.

“Anyway, says Pysche et al, give me one good reason for a Holy Spirit.”

This is a meaningless demand. Please restate it.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.

Psyche,

Did you read what you posted? Here it is with my emphasis in bold:

"“A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils.” "

Approbation means "approval". The whole church OR the pope needs to approve it, not "every single Bishop AND the Pope! Sorry, you are wrong, it was a valid council. Think about it for a second Psyche, how could ANY heresy EVER be countered if all it took was one Bishop to stop a council? One Bishop who is a heretic themselves could derail anything. Letting the Devil in one man keep the truth from Christ's faithful is NOT the intent of a church council!

Yes, it is an infallible council, NO, you have obviously not proved otherwise.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

Psyche, part II,

First of all I must say to Eugene, please stop calling names, baiting, and slandering

Start with yourself! Quit with the "neo" this and that, then speak. Attempting to divide Christ's church into factions is NOT Catholic.

A-ha! You think the Mass is an interaction between God and man! I see Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae have succeeded in convincing you of this all-important fallacy. The Mass, if said by a validly ordained priest, with the necessary conditions fulfilled (which does NOT include other people present!) is still is the Mass if no one else is there!

Isn't the priest a "man"? How then was his comment a fallacy? It seems you are looking for errors where there are none to bolster your position. There is NO mass that is not an interaction between God and man, regardless of the rite.

Exactly. And yet the Novus Ordo Missae itself, in it’s pure form, has attempted to make it man-centered to a ridiculous degree

This is YOUR opinion, which is wrong compared to an infallible church council. Give it up Psyche, return to obedience to the Pope and Magesterium, return to the Chruch!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

Frank wrote: “Did you read what you posted? Here it is with my emphasis in bold: “A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils.” Approbation means "approval". The whole church OR the pope needs to approve it, not "every single Bishop AND the Pope!”

Frank, “the whole Church” includes the Pope, so if you are arguing semantics, why did the author of that article put “or of the pope” in there in the first place? It is obvious that a part of the whole is not the whole; therefore, if only a part of the Church dissents from the council, the council is not infallible. Therefore, Vatican II was not infallible.

Frank wrote: “Sorry, you are wrong, it was a valid council.”

Valid council, yes, Frank! Infallible, no!

Frank wrote: “how could ANY heresy EVER be countered if all it took was one Bishop to stop a council?”

Like St. Athanasius said, “Even if Catholic's faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the True Church." Yes, that means, possibly only one bishop; or no bishop; perhaps no priests; perhaps only lay people; perhaps only one lay person may have the true Faith and may be the entire True Church! Any idea that the Church is dependent on numbers of people is an error.

Frank wrote: “One Bishop who is a heretic themselves could derail anything.”

If he was a heretic, he wouldn’t technically be a member of the Church, now would he?

Frank wrote: “Yes, it is an infallible council, NO, you have obviously not proved otherwise.”

No, it was not an infallible council, and yes, I have proved so. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.

Frank wrote: “ “First of all I must say to Eugene, please stop calling names, baiting, and slandering” Start with yourself! Quit with the "neo" this and that, then speak. Attempting to divide Christ's church into factions is NOT Catholic.” I have never called anyone or anything “neo” this or that. Do not accuse me of doing so. I call Novus Ordo Catholics “Novus Ordo Catholics” because they attend the Novus Ordo Missae, which is that Mass’s proper name. It would be like calling Traditional Catholics “Tridentine Catholics” because we attend the Tridentine Mass. There is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly proper, and not an insult, and in no way intended to be an insult. We must differentiate between us because of our differing beliefs somehow! And please don’t say again that this is the reason you call Trads “heretics, schismatics, mal-contents” or whatever. Because that is not what we are, and occasionally those words are used specifically as insults against us. Please don’t resort to insults, name-calling, and defining people as heretics or schismatics, or not, when you are not the proper Church authority to call us that. Frank wrote: “Isn't the priest a "man"? How then was his comment a fallacy? It seems you are looking for errors where there are none to bolster your position. There is NO mass that is not an interaction between God and man, regardless of the rite.” Did you read the part of my post where I mentioned the Alter- Christus? Do you know what that is? The priest is no longer simply a man, or a person, when he celebrates Mass. This is standard Catholic theology. The priest (man, person) gives up his personhood and his self-as-a-man in order to allow Christ Himself to take over his body in a way, in order to say Mass. This is why the priest says, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” rather than “This is Christ’s body” and “This is Christ’s blood”. It is the same thing in Confession, though I don’t know if the priest is still called the Alter-Christus there. In Confession, you tell your sins directly to Christ; the priest is loaning his body and his faculty to Christ in Confession as well as while saying Mass. The priest is not “interacting” with God; he is loaning his body to God so God can do things with that body. I suggest you go look up and study the term “Alter-Christus” . Frank wrote: ““Exactly. And yet the Novus Ordo Missae itself, in it’s pure form, has attempted to make it man-centered to a ridiculous degree” This is YOUR opinion, which is wrong compared to an infallible church council.” Non-infallible church council which contradicted many previous councils and infallible teachings of the Church (such as, “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”). And, it is not an opinion. See for yourself: one of the fist things they did was quit using the altar and start using a table, which signifies a “meal” rather than a sacrifice. Altar = sacrifice, table = meal. Simple. Man- centered. Turning away from God. Another example: the fact that the priest faces the congregation rather than back to congregation. The reason for having his back to the congregation is to signify leading the faithful to God, leading the faithful to heaven. Turned around, it signifies that this is a show for the people to watch and that the people and the priest are celebrating Mass together, which is also man-centered, forgetting God. Need more examples, just let me know.

Frank wrote: “Give it up Psyche, return to obedience to the Pope and Magesterium, return to the Chruch!” I obey the pope in as far as he tells me to obey the magisterium; I obey the magisterium with a completeness of obedience which you do not understand but which I am trying to make manifest to you; how can I “return to the Church” when I am already there?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.

Ask me any question on faith, the church, and the Catholic religion, Regina. I will return an answer immediately.

I don't doubt for one moment you'd "return an answer immediately." You seem to have enough odd ramblings and false accusations up your sleeve to last you a lifetime.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 14, 2003.

"It BINDS all Christians. A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation"

A: Nonsense! "Binding on all Christians" is not remotely equivalent to "infallible". The Church can make all sorts of disciplinary rules and regulations which are binding on all Christians, but are not infallible in any sense. If the Church decides that all Catholics must abstain from eating meat on fridays of Lent, that decision is morally binding on all Christians. But it certainly is not infallible, and is subject to change at a later date. If the discipline is changed, then the new discipline is binding on all Christians, and the former discipline is no longer binding on anyone. If the Church dictates that all Catholics throughout the world will celebrate the Mass in Latin, then that decision is binding on all the faithful. But there is absolutely nothing about such a decision that touches upon infallibility. Infallibility applies ONLY to doctrinal matters, and then ONLY when they are specifically declared to be binding upon the universal Church.

Likewise, there is no such thing as an "infallible Council" or a "fallible Council". If a Council declares an article of faith binding on the universal Church, and that declaration is subsequently approved by the Pope, then it is infallible. ANYTHING else a Council decides is NOT infallible. One Council may produce both infallible statements on certain doctrinal matters AND fallible statements on any number of other matters. Trent clearly did so, as have many if not most other Councils.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 14, 2003.

That's an incontrovertible post, Regina & all elitists. Paul gave it to you straight. Our Lord says, ''Love one another as I have loved you.'' Stop, then; spreading division and contempt for your brethren.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 14, 2003.

Ask me any question on faith, the church, and the Catholic religion, Regina. I will return an answer immediately. I won't search for it, I'll give it to you from memory.

Q: What are the requirements for sarcamental validity?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

Emerald

You said, Five! Sorry, five people at the visible most. referring to excommunication of schismatics. (setting aside all protests about the nature of the excommunication itself)

It seems like the spiritual consequences for lack of submission to the bishop of Rome in the case of the Lefebvrite movement would also include all those who with full knowledge followed these renegades. That would mean a larger number than five I am guessing.

In clarification of that scripture Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation.

In application to this case,

It is always a mistake to leave that Catholic Church which is in full union with the pope because one's odds of salvation will be decreased. In that sense one would "purchase to themselves damnation" or an increased chance of damnation to be exact.

However, there is a more severe possibility to quote John G. here from another thread: "...The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church ("Lumen gentium" of Vatican II), which tells us in #14: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

And of course they would have to persist in their sin to the end.

I will not say I know for sure if they are really "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ". It seems the leadership, who was recently fully Catholic, would know this. And being out of union with the pope is hardly safe anymore as we see even in the Eastern Orthodox church as it moves toward the acceptance of contraception and divorce. What will be in store for future Lefebvrites?

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 14, 2003.

What is a "Lefebvrite"?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 14, 2003.

Paul,

Those were meant as two separate statements, although they may have appeared as one. I agree with your point completely about infallible doctine, but was trying to show that even the decrees of the church council are not subject to debate as some here claim they can pick and choose what to believe. While they are in effect they MUST be obeyed. In this sense they *are* infallible as they are not subject to error while in effect. If the church says you MUST do something, you must.

Psyche,

Frank, “the whole Church” includes the Pope, so if you are arguing semantics, why did the author of that article put “or of the pope” in there in the first place?

It's not arguing semantics. Did the Vatican I have the signature and appoval of every single Bishop? No. did ANY council get approved by every single Bishop beforehand? No. There does NOT have to be univeral consensus to pass a church council. There is one special case that *might* require "the church" to be distinct from "the Pope" in terms of approving something though, that of the Pope himself preaching heresy. If this happened, the church would have to correct it.

Frank wrote: “One Bishop who is a heretic themselves could derail anything.”

If he was a heretic, he wouldn’t technically be a member of the Church, now would he?

Psyche, seriously, why are you saying this? If it took EVERY Bishop in the church to say something WAS heresy, then having one bishop believe the heresy would stop it from ever being defined AS heresy! For example if there was a nut who said Jesus Himself was just a metaphor, a church council couldn't deny this because he would vote not to! Another example would be a murderer sitting on his own jury that requires unanimous consent to convict. It doesn't make sense. The church does NOT require universal appoval of Bishops at a council.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

Regina,

A Lefebvrite is a follower of Archbishop Lefebvre.

QUOTE

The Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre

November 21, 1974

"We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries..."

END QUOTE

So the bishop blamed Vatican II for any difficulties that followed Vatican II. He says the Church teaching and not human weakness is at fault. This led to Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff which was a schismatic act.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 14, 2003.

Oh OK, thanks. The declaration of his which you provided really made it quite clear.

A "Lefebvrist" is a Roman Catholic.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 14, 2003.

Just to correct a typo, when Regina wrote:

A "Lefebvrist" is a Roman Catholic

she intended

A "Lefebvrist" is a neo-Lutheran

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

She doesn't need you to speak for her.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

Hi Ms P

The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary gives a good simple definition:

"When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required."

The word "unanimous" comes from two Latin words: únus, one + animus, mind. "Consent", as was used when coined means "to be of the same mind or opinion." Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have "unanimous consent."

(Steve Ray)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 15, 2003.

Let's sum up this long thread then:

1. Communion in the hand was practiced by the early church

2. Vatican II was an official church council, and the decrees of this council MUST be obeyed by all Catholics.

That's about it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.

Oh, and Frank, you forgot another:

#3. Archeologism has been condemned.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 15, 2003.

No, Isabel, not returning the liturgy to a primitive form for the SAKE of being primitive, but rather to remove the Gallic extravagances that distract from the mass added in the middle ages ;- ) It doesn't really matter though, a Catholic obeys the church, a Protestant obeys their own interpretations.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.

This is a Catholic:


and this is a Protestant?


A lie is one thing. Stupidity only compounds it.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 15, 2003.

Frank

1. Communion in the hand was practiced by the early church

And *if* this is true, it was stopped after a deeper awarness, respect, and reverence for the Real Presence of Our Lord was recognized, and to avoid and put a stop to Our Lord being used for diabolical purposes. It started again in the 1960's after disobedient clerics apparently decided that we should pander to heretics in the name of ecumenism.

2. Vatican II was an official church council, and the decrees of this council MUST be obeyed by all Catholics.

So, we must "obey" the that there exists an "imperfect communion" between the Catholic Church and heretical sects. OK. Since we are regarded by many in this forum as "heretics," could someone explain to me then why it is (1.) Necessary to return to the Church since the Traditionalist faith is apparently salvific, and (2.) which circular file should we place the following past church teachings:

Jesus did not found a Church made up of a number of communities that were generically similar, yet separate and without those bonds of unity which make the Church one and indivisible. Satis Cognitium – Pope Leo XIII

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation." – Humani Generis – Pope Pius XII

"Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." Mortalium Animos – Pope Pius XI

“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her" Pope Gregory XVI

So we must "obey" that "together with the Mohammedans we worship the same God." OK. Would someone help haul the following past church teaching out to the dumpster:

Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like. – From the Catechism of St. Pius X

"those who die as infidels are damned." – St. Pius X

"No one comes to the Father but through me" St. John. 14:6

"Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as was your false prophet Mohammed - St. Peter Mavimenus

Now this is a big one, so would someone please open the incinerator and chuck the following "outdated ecclesiology" on what defines heresy:

1) a pertinacious adherence to teachings expressly contradictory to that which has been defined by the Church;

2) an opinion opposed to a doctrine not explicitly defined by the Church nor clearly proposed dogmatically as an article of Faith;

3) a proposition that, although not directly contradictory to the Faith, nonetheless necessarily entails logical consequences against it; and

4) a speculation which reaches a certain degree of probability of being against the Faith. - The Council of Florence

There's so much more that needs to be tidied up and thrown away, but that's enough for now.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 15, 2003.

Sorry Regina,

It's just not working. Despite the fact that YOU think things are inappropriate, you don't have any ground to stand on. The church is NOT a confederacy or democracy, but is ruled from our Lord Jesus downwards. If you obey His authority (legitimately exercised by the church), you are a Catholic. If you protest, and not obey, you are a schismatic, heretic, or Protestant depending on what your problem with the church is.

The Devil can quote every Church Father, and knows every Scripture, but he is not Obedient to God. You are trying to do a similar thing, come up with *reasons* for your disobedience, but remain disobedient. At the end of the day, it's the lack of obedience that defines you.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.

So to sum up this long thread (and the entire Novus Ordo religion, for that matter):

1. When painted into a corner, try insults.

2. If it rocks, it's Catholic. If you can't shake hands, it's Protestant.

3. When painted into a corner, try insults.

4. The Novus Ordo religion, although completely and totally irreconcilable with Catholic truth, is itself Catholic truth.

5. You can't be saved outside the Church if you go to the Latin Mass. Muslims, Sufis, Swamis, and Jews, however, are "bretheren in imperfect communion."

6. When embarrassed by a glaring contradiction in your words, insults seem to work.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 15, 2003.

At the end of the day, it's the lack of obedience that defines you.

I'm not sure if my post went lightyears over your head, or you just don't *want* to understand. To sum it up, if I "obey" Vatican II, it means I have to *disobey* past Church teachings and Councils. In all seriousness, I'd rather die than turn my back on Her and Her infallible definitions in the name of a "pastoral" council which was little more than a long-winded homily which, in many more cases than I provided above, contradicted centuries worth of Catholic teaching. The very idea that I should cling to a 40 year old ambiguously worded, liberal influenced pastoral council whose fruits are confusion, heresy and indifference, as opposed to clearly, infallibly defined, centuries old teachings which produced ever growing faith glory, and hundreds and hundreds of holy men and women, is absurd.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 15, 2003.

The very idea that I should cling to a 40 year old ambiguously worded, liberal influenced pastoral council whose fruits are confusion, heresy and indifference, as opposed to clearly, infallibly defined, centuries old teachings which produced ever growing faith glory, and hundreds and hundreds of holy men and women, is absurd.

Besides if you did that, you'd just lack common sense. But, you know, not everyone was given common sense. It's kind of like faith, I guess.........a gift.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 15, 2003.

You'd rather die than obey. I get the idea. And Isabel, you're right, many people don't have the faith to get by what they consider their "common sense". I can't instill that faith in people. I wish I could.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.

No, Isabel, not returning the liturgy to a primitive form for the SAKE of being primitive, but rather to remove the Gallic extravagances that distract from the mass added in the middle ages

Who revives old customs for the sake of being primitive? I mean, come on. No one ever said that. If that was the case we should all being living in caves and you could drag me around by the hair in between us receiving communion in the hand.

It's sad you feel those things are extravagances. It's sad you think standing before Our Lord is just as good as humbly kneeling before Him in adoration. It's sad anyone thinks it's OK to take a chance on small fragmants (almost imperceptible to the human eye and yet still fully the Body and Blood of Our Lord) to break off the host and fall to the ground due to unnecessary handling, when all that was needed to avoid that was to let the priest place it on your tongue. And it seems odd that those things that inspired so many saints are now looked on by some as extravagances. The people of today could use some of those extravagances to lift their hearts and minds to God, now more than ever. No reason to pull long dead *supposed* customs out of a trick hat.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 15, 2003.

It's more sad when someone leaves the church, prefering their own "wisdom" to hers.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.

It doesn't take wisdom, Frank, to read how forcefully this was condemned by the Church since almost the beginning. For, certainly, I have not been so lucky as to be gifted with that gift of the Holy Ghost. It doesn't take wisdom, Frank, to see how contradictory many things today are to past teaching of the Church. God does not contradict himself. He never changes. If it was wrong then, it is wrong now. No, it doesn't take a rocket scientist........

Do you not see the contradictions?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 15, 2003.

Isabel,

From your link:

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379) "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault

I've linked his whole 93rd letter above, the statement your link quotes is a lie. If you believe lies, that's your problem, and likely a big part of the reason you won't trust the Church, you prefer the lies that agree with you to the truth that doesn't.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.

Unnecessary handling?? As anyone who has distributed Holy Communion knows, the Host is FAR more likely to break while trying to maneuver it through barely open lips and teeth than while placing it onto the palm of a person's outstretched hand! That's why the communion plate was formerly held under the chin of a recipient (a practice I would like to see again). Yes, I know that many people do open their mouths wide and extend their tongues. I am talking about the many people who don't do so. I have never seen a person whose hand was not sufficiently open, but trying to place the host on some people's tongue is like trying to insert a coin into a vending machine, no disrespect intended. The Host however is much more fragile than a coin, and accidents do happen as a result of this. Even when the recipient does properly present his tongue, placing the host there is more awkward than placing it into an open hand, especially if the minister is short and the recipient is tall. I am not "against" receiving on the tongue. But it is certainly the more accident-prone method.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 15, 2003.

Let's look at the parallels between this and the Reformation.

Protestants: The early church was right but it went bad.

Traditionalists: The early church was right but it went bad.

Protestants: Scripture alone! because the church forgot about the sacredness of scripture.

Traditionalists: Council of Trent alone! because the church forgot about the sacredness of the Eucharist.

I see God allowing these divisions in order to get the Roman Catholic Church to make changes. After the Protestant Reformation, Catholics made obvious reforms as a result. Catholics also became better versed in scripture in order to defend heresy from scripture toting Protestants. The same thing is happening here with the Traditionalists. The liturgy, for Catholics loyal to the pope, will remain in post-Vatican II format but the Traditionalists will insure that we do not lose sight of the central focus of the mass; which is the Eucharist. Traditionalists are simply God's judgment on his first-borns in order to keep them faithful.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 15, 2003.

You forgot one type, Mike:

Vatican Two-ers: Let's stop offending the Protestants! Let's be more like them! Let's ignore those pesky little things which separate us. One big happy family with no unecessary or visible boundaries. --- Paul, Even when the recipient does properly present his tongue, placing the host there is more awkward than placing it into an open hand, especially if the minister is short and the recipient is tall.

A problem easily eliminated if communicants would only kneel before their Lord.

BTW, I'm afraid one of my earlier posts got overlooked. I was hoping you could tell me what the difference is between "helping yourself" to Communion left in the sacred vessels on the Altar, and receiving the Host into your own hand, and then taking it out of your hand to consume It. What is really the difference between the vessels and one's own hand? And also, isn't it correct to say that if one receives in the hand, he/she becomes his/own minister of the Sacrament?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 15, 2003.

You'd rather die than obey.

No, and that isn't what I said, Frank. Please don't twist my words.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 15, 2003.

Regina,

You missed the meaning of my post. Your comment doesn't fit in with the analogy because Vatican IIers don't say the Catholic Church was right but went bad. There may be many Vatican IIers who think as you say, Let's stop offending the Protestants! Let's be more like them! . And that is the reason for God allowing the Traditionalists or Lefebvrites to emerge. In order to help discern exactly how much liturgical reform is acceptable in God's Church. The point is however, the Traditionalist/Lefebvrites, although God's loving children too, are being used to chastise any waywardness going on in the One True Church. The ones doing the chastisement are on the outside or on the fringe even though they have a roll to play. In the end, as always, the One True Roman Catholic Church under the pope are the source of instuction for the faithful.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 15, 2003.

Regina, jake, etc

I admire your concern for Our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist. You show concern here by asking, And also, isn't it correct to say that if one receives in the hand, he/she becomes his/own minister of the Sacrament?. Very good. Important question.

But let's be honest, is our social activism to reform every exact detail in the way we get the Blessed Sacrament physically into us, ever being used as a distraction so that we avoid the difficult task of preparing our spiritual dispositions such that they are able to obtain the graces available by Holy Communion? I am talking about prayer. Such as the Divine Office and a daily Holy Hour in order to really take in Jesus when we receive him regardless of whether it is in the hand or on the tongue? Might our fanatic arguments really be covering up the fact that we would rather rant and rationalize everything to avoid task of prayer in front of the Eucharist? Why no dicussion on how often we stay awake with him for one hour during his agony in the Garden?

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 15, 2003.

Regina,

Vatican Two-ers

See, that's the problem: We're Catholics, not schismatics defined by a particular deviance from the faith like an "Old Catholic" or "SSPX".

Would it be more fair to say you'd return to obeying the church when the church decides to conform itself to your beliefs?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.

Friends,
Regina is parked. Jake is her driver and he parked her.

Last night examining mt conscience I had to confess in justice I can't be calling Regina a liar about her varied experiences. She wouldn't consciously lie, I have to admit. Therefore, I take back what I accused Regina of doing: lying to make her point. I also apologise, by way of restitution. Hope I never have to hurt her feelings again. So, then--

Regina may be telling the truth, or she may not. It isn't for me to judge. God knows.

Even if we accept she has sometime witnessed an invalid Mass; we have to point out: what one unworthy priest might do, since some definitely are unworthy; cannot invalidate the Novus Ordo Missae; nor discredit the 2nd Vatican Council, nor encourage faithful catholics to bolt the Holy Catholic Church. That is, by definition, protestant, schismatic or heretical, and unworthy of one who trusts in God the Holy Spirit.

If the offending priest trusted in God, and meant well ''celebrating'' an invalid mass as Regina claims; her obligation as a faithful Catholic is to pray for him and help correct him in his diocese. Not lambast him and the Novus Ordo Mass. Not belittle those who assist at one, nor their bishops. Not desert the Church for greener pastures in a Trent, or anyplace else. Because, that makes her a dissident; a schismatic sucker for the devil. Regina, her driver, and the whole parking lot.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 15, 2003.

Might our fanatic arguments really be covering up the fact that we would rather rant and rationalize everything to avoid task of prayer in front of the Eucharist? Why no dicussion on how often we stay awake with him for one hour during his agony in the Garden?

Of course, Mike, one hour in prayer is infinitely better spent than a thousand hours in front of a computer, arguing this point or that with a bunch of anonymous strangers. You'll find no one to dispute that, not on the Traditional side of things, anyway.

At the same time, what can often be seen and dismissed as unimportant diffrences of opinion are, for the Traditionalist, the red flags that have gone ignored since the dawn of Moderism, when the Popes first started waving them. Those seemingly external trappings really do mean a great deal, because we express what we really believe when we pray, liturgically or otherwise. The essence of Traditonalism is to dig deeper, to understand just what it is we have, why we do and believe the things we do and believe, why it was this way before, and what the proported reasons were for changing it. Using the example of Communion in the hand, since you used it also; the Traditionalist approach to the question runs along these lines:

1. Communion can now be (optionally)taken in the hand.

2. There is not the way it's been done for centuries.

3. Why?

4. Can it lead to profanation of the Sacred Species?

5. Aren't there particles left over?

6. Did the Summa or the Baltimore Catechism say anything about it?

7. Is there precedent for it in the Church at all?

8. If so, why did it stop?

9. Who was Pope at the time, and what did he say about it?

10. Could this be another blur in the distinction between the laity & the priesthood?

11. Wasn't there a heresy that said the same thing?

12. How was it conbatted, and by whom?

13. What was the proposed remedy?

14. Were the rituals of the Mass of Trent overscrupulous in preventing profanation of the Sacred Species?

15. Can one go "overboard" to protect the Blessed Sacrament?

The Novus Ordo response is more like this:

1. It's allowed? Hot damn! Case closed.

My point being that that every action the Church takes has theological reasons, not just beautiful, rich traditions (small "t") and ritual. If the theology is flawed, the worship / prayer will be bad. If the theology is ambiguous, it will breed error and confusion. If the theology is disordered, it can't bear good fruit. Beauty is the footprint of the Holy Ghost. Ugliness is the footprint of the Devil. Sorry for the long diatribe, but you raised a good point, and I'm glad you did.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 15, 2003.

Mike H. But let's be honest, is our social activism to reform every exact detail in the way we get the Blessed Sacrament physically into us, ever being used as a distraction so that we avoid the difficult task of preparing our spiritual dispositions such that they are able to obtain the graces available by Holy Communion? I am talking about prayer.

I think we're getting someplace with this way of thinking, Mike. IMO, the posture *reflects* the prayer and prayer, IMO, reflects posture. Now, this is just my opinion, but if one *truly* belives he/she is about to receive Christ and spends time before Communion meditating upon this, I just can't see how walking up and taking by the hand demonstrates a profound belief that what one is taking isn't ordinary food, but the very real Body and Blood of Our Lord. I've never said what a communicant may believe in his/her heart. It isn't for me to say. But if "community" is as important as the regulars here would have you believe, wouldn't an outward appearance of adoration, an outward demonstration of what *is* in our hearts, be beneficial and inspire those around us?

___________ Frank:

See, that's the problem: We're Catholics, not schismatics defined by a particular deviance from the faith like an "Old Catholic" or "SSPX".

But you cling to, obey, and promote obedience to teachings which I demonstrated completely contradict past Church teachings. How do you reconcile and/or defend your disobedience to all which was taught before it?

Would it be more fair to say you'd return to obeying the church when the church decides to conform itself to your beliefs?

No, because this isn't about *my* personal beliefs. If you want to talk about *my* beliefs you'll be talking about what the Church has always taught uptil Vatican II.

It would be fair to say that I obey what ever a priest, bishop, Cardinal, Pope says/teaches when that teaching represents what Holy Mother Church has always taught. If it runs contrary, than it isn't Catholic and I reject it because Holy Mother Church has *taught* us to reject it...at least before Vatican II. _____

Gene: Therefore, I take back what I accused Regina of doing: lying to make her point. I also apologise, by way of restitution. Hope I never have to hurt her feelings again.

That's very kind of you, Gene, and I happily accept your apology. If I came off snotty to you, I sure hope you'll accept my apology for that and in any other way I may have hurt *your* feelings.

Even if we accept she has sometime witnessed an invalid Mass; we have to point out: what one unworthy priest might do, since some definitely are unworthy; cannot invalidate the Novus Ordo Missae;

Correct. The terrible actions of one particular priest doesn't mean that every NO Mass everywhere is invalid or that the rite itself isn't either. I've never said anything to the contrary. My point has always been that while the rite itself is valid it allows abuses to occur and allows priests to take liberties with it which were unthinkable before its creation. This has had a devastating effect of the faithful - we're at a point now where people don't even recognize abuses, or if they do, don't seem to care all that much. Just obey and all will be right with the world.

An example I used once (with Paul, I think) is that the NO is like a house furnished with imitation knock-offs of precious items with its windows and doors left wide open, with no one inside keeping watch, in the middle of a crime-riddled neighborhood. The house has been ransacked. The old Mass, by comparison, is a house in the middle of the same crime-riddled neighborhood, but whose windows and doors are dead-bolted shut to protect the precious items to be found inside. If one tries to ransack it, even subtely, this is obvious to the faithful in attendance.

nor discredit the 2nd Vatican Council,

Vatican II discredited centuries of Catholic teaching as I pointed out above.

Not lambast him

Pointing out the error of a priest is quite different from "lambasting" him.

Not belittle those who assist at one,

I've never done that,

nor their bishops.

that,

Not desert the Church

and certainly not that.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 15, 2003.

Not to belabor the point, Regina (as you and Jake do); I was not accusing you of those things but rather telling you what the proper alternative is, and that is PRAY for the priest you believe invalidated a Mass.

Presume, as Jake has, that ''--Let me out of here; I'll never come back again;'' is an option, with the denigrating of all Novus Ordo Masses and the Council as well-- is plain sinful. It denies the Holy Spirit, who guards us all.

And, without prolonging this post; I'm very often called to realise (by my conscience) --That many at whom I look during Mass, with dismay, with shock, even; are certain to be in a state of grace. Whereas, I, being pharisaical by glancing and judging, am offending God in His holy sanctuary. That sanctuary, despite your steady protest which is holy and glorious because of His Presence, not the altarpieces, the language, or the surroundings. He is there! You do Him a dishonor dwelling on the new location His tabernacle is placed in. He is everywhere in our midst; and I know it. I worship Him there with all His faithful! I love the place where His glory dwells.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 15, 2003.

Not to belabor the point, Regina (as you and Jake do); I was not accusing you of those things but rather telling you what the proper alternative is, and that is PRAY for the priest you believe invalidated a Mass.

I pray for all priests, Gene. Those good priests who are out there as sheep amidst the wolves who cling to Tradition, those who have been duped by the wolves, and those, believing there is no alternative to the NO will offer it to the best of their ability (and I'm sure there are some...somewhere). I pray for those priests who deliberately invalidate the Mass by straying from matter, intent, form or what have you, that they may either be converted or be cast out.

It denies the Holy Spirit, who guards us all.

We only have the guarantee of the Holy Ghost's protection when the Holy Father makes an infallible declaration - which comes from the Deposit of Faith which was given by Christ. Other than that we can't assume that every other word or action of the Pope, or the actions of the clergy under him, has the Holy Ghost's promise of perfection. It's really dangerous to think that every single word or action from an ordained man is directly from and pleasing to the Holy Ghost simply because he is ordained. There's a reason we here are called the Church Militant. We are to fight against error, from all that is opposed to the one true faith, even if that error comes from an ordained man. You do Him a dishonor dwelling on the new location His tabernacle is placed in.

The dishonor has already been done to Him by those who took Him off His Altar and shoved Him off to the side or into another room. How do I dishonor Him by wanting Him to be the Head of and in His very own House?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 15, 2003.

Regina,
Your reply seems to ignore the moral of my story:

''Other than that we can't assume that every other word or action of the Pope, or the actions of the clergy under him, has the Holy Ghost's promise of perfection. It's really dangerous to think that every single word or action from an ordained man is directly from and pleasing to the Holy Ghost simply because he is ordained-- ''

When I say the Holy Spirit guards all I mean the obvious thing: the Holy Spirit protects His Church. His real, genuine Church, from becoming a pseudo-church or an offshoot of His genuine Church, as sectarian protestant & schismatic churches became.

Since the 2nd Vatican Council was convened by our ordained leaders with the Holy Spirit and made the Liturgy what it now is, we have to confess that the Holy Spirit now sustains that Liturgy; that Catholic Church.

He is with her, or He isn't. ''Trads'' seem to say He isn't. I say they're mistaken by reason of their elitism.

The Holy Spirit guards us ALL, when we assist at the Mass of Trent, and also-- at the Novus Ordo Mass. Our Lord hasn't cast off the Catholic faithful. And ''trads'' aren't the only faithful, Regina. We are too.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 15, 2003.

Mike... interesting post, because that's pretty much similar to the way I used to think. Not quite that bad, but similar. But that's back when I was concerned more about the ways of the world than really trying to make an honest effort to absorb Catholicism. Not that you're a man of the world and not of Catholicism, I'm just saying, that's what I was when I thought these things.

I see ingruities; help me out here.

"Let's look at the parallels between this and the Reformation. Protestants: The early church was right but it went bad. Traditionalists: The early church was right but it went bad."

Protestants denied doctrines; Traditional Catholics hold doctrines. Protestants wanted to change things; Traditional Catholics want to keep them the same. Protestants protested the Church; Traditional Catholics protest what is not of the Church that always was.

"Protestants: Scripture alone! because the church forgot about the sacredness of scripture. Traditionalists: Council of Trent alone! because the church forgot about the sacredness of the Eucharist."

Bzzzzt. No Traditional has ever said Council of Trent alone. In fact, they have never isolated anything and made it an alone kinda-like thing. Let's be honest about this. I think the moderns have, though.

"I see God allowing these divisions in order to get the Roman Catholic Church to make changes."

By most accounts on either the Traditional or the Progressive (you may insert orthodox here if you wish, in place of progressive...lol!), the time of the Council marked the begining of the rise of visible divisions. Seeing as how you opine that God is allowing these division, are we able to then conclude that the Council is the source of division? One might be inclined to infer this from your proposition.

"After the Protestant Reformation, Catholics made obvious reforms as a result. Catholics also became better versed in scripture in order to defend heresy from scripture toting Protestants. The same thing is happening here with the Traditionalists."

You mean that Traditionalists are becoming better versed in doctrinal matters? Absolutely. Just kidding, I know what you meant... but on with the incongruities:

Are traditional Catholics promoting heresy? If so, what might these heresies be? Common experience tends to characterize the Traditional Catholics as the ones complaining of heresies... as the ones who want to keep things the way they are. If Trads promote heresies while trying to keep things the way they were, then, can we safely conclude that the way things were before were heretical? Obviously not. Did I just do a Reductio Ad Absurdem?

"The liturgy, for Catholics loyal to the pope, will remain in post- Vatican II format but the Traditionalists will insure that we do not lose sight of the central focus of the mass; which is the Eucharist..."

Can this be safely construed as an admission that the traditional Catholics are the guardians of doctrine?

"Traditionalists are simply God's judgment on his first-borns in order to keep them faithful."

You flatter us. =) But listen, another incongruity here: generally speaking, many defenders of the post conciliar variety of Catholicism will be quick to point out that Traditional Catholics are only a very small percentage who are insignificant in number, and thus wave them off with an air of irrelevance. But yet we are a spector enough gain status as a judgment, or a scourge. Does this conflict or jive with Paul or Eugene's claim that we are Elitist? If so, do we heap this honor upon ourselves, or has it been bestowed upon us by The Firstborn?

Lastly, do you see an danger in designating yourself or your kin as of The Firstborn?

Too many holes, it seems to me. Can you shore it up a bit?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 15, 2003.

"Those seemingly external trappings really do mean a great deal, because we express what we really believe when we pray, liturgically or otherwise. The essence of Traditonalism is to dig deeper, to understand just what it is we have, why we do and believe the things we do and believe..."

What jake says here about the oft-mischaracterized understanding of what the modernist Catholic calls Accidentals of Traditional Catholicism, better known on the street as "Smells & Bells", might be aided in it's true understanding by an analogy to marriage.

The modernist wants to strip the romance and the expressions of love and devotion out of our Holy Faith, with the claim that they want to get to the point. As if all that sort of stuff came left field and was attached artificially to the Church and had nothing intrinsic to do with it. Parallel this same strategy with a marriage and start thinking about it.

Are they really all accidentals, incidentals and extra attachments as the Fresh Air advocates claim, or do they arise from the very nature of the thing itself, being essential to it?

Field test your theory... try it with your wife or husband. See if they like it, or understand, or whether they think you just don't care about them anymore. Why not? After all, the marriage is the official analogy of the Church to describe the relationship between Christ and His Church.

After you begin to reap fabulous results, ask yourself it those supposed "accidentals" were really all that peripheral and needless as you might have imagined.

Let me know how it goes. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 15, 2003.

When I say the Holy Spirit guards all I mean the obvious thing: the Holy Spirit protects His Church. His real, genuine Church, from becoming a pseudo-church or an offshoot of His genuine Church, as sectarian protestant & schismatic churches became.

It's more fair to say that the Holy Ghost protects the Deposit of Faith given to us by Our Lord Himself. Holy Mother Church cannot be damaged by anyone. The Holy Ghost simply will not permit this to happen.

However, our history is full of Popes and other churchmen who embraced heretical/erroneous teachings. An example of past error: One of our past popes (whose name escapes me right now) taught that no soul will see the Beatific Vision until the Final Judgment of the world. Now if this guarentee of protection is bigger than what was truly promised, this sort of thing would never have happened. But it did because the Holy Ghost never guaranteed that churchmen wouldn't err outside the realm of Infallibility bestowed on the Holy Father.

The Holy Spirit guards us ALL, when we assist at the Mass of Trent, and also-- at the Novus Ordo Mass.

What does He "guard" us from at Mass exactly?

Our Lord hasn't cast off the Catholic faithful.

I've never said He has. It is a large chunk of the faithful and many of the clergy who have cast *Him* off.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 16, 2003.

Regina,

But you cling to, obey, and promote obedience to teachings which I demonstrated completely contradict past Church teachings. How do you reconcile and/or defend your disobedience to all which was taught before it?

It is only YOUR opinion that these teachings are contradictory. OTOH, a full church council is the highest authority in the church, and by its very nature is infallible. Having to choose between believing you and the legitimate, properly exercised, Christ-given authority of the church, does not take much mental effort. You are just wrong.

It seems to me like you are saying "this teaching is hard, who can accept it, since it doesn't fit with what *I* believe the intent of earlier church teaching was". That doesn't mean it doesn't, it means you need to have faith and obey, then try and understand how it *does* agree with prior teaching, not say "well, I don't like it so it's wrong" and start looking for folks who agree with you. You don't have the right to call yourself Catholic and do that, and 10 wrong people are just as wrong as one.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 16, 2003.

a full church council is the highest authority in the church,

change this to "there is no higher authority in the church" so I don't have to respond to someone saying that a Pope speaking infallibly has an equal authority.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 16, 2003.

You are just wrong.

Bravo. Well done, Frank.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 16, 2003.

It is only YOUR opinion that these teachings are contradictory.

No. It has nothing to do with my "opinion", Frank. Read the quotes again that I posted above demonstrating the contradiction of now, to the past church teachings back then. The Vatican II teachings are contradictory whether I think so or not.

OTOH, a full church council is the highest authority in the church, and by its very nature is infallible.

Wrong. The highest authority in the Church is the Deposit of Faith, infallible definitions. A church Council is subject to it.

Having to choose between believing you and the legitimate, properly exercised, Christ-given authority of the church, does not take much mental effort. You are just wrong.

I'm not asking you to "choose" between believing me or the authority of Churchmen. I'm asking you to look at Infallible Definitions and compare it to the teachings of Vatican II by those churchmen.

It seems to me like you are saying "this teaching is hard, who can accept it, since it doesn't fit with what *I* believe the intent of earlier church teaching was".

What I'm saying is "These new Church teachings are wrong because they don't fit with what *the Church* has always believed and taught." It has absolutely nothing to do with me.

That doesn't mean it doesn't, it means you need to have faith and obey, then try and understand how it *does* agree with prior teaching,

So you propose that I use "private interpretation" to make a square peg fit into a round hole?

not say "well, I don't like it so it's wrong" and start looking for folks who agree with you.

I've never said that. The Church teaches us to reject error. I'm doing as I'm told. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I do or don't "like."

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 16, 2003.

Frank wrote: “If it took EVERY Bishop in the church to say something WAS heresy, then having one bishop believe the heresy would stop it from ever being defined AS heresy!”

Incorrect again, Frank! You are forgetting that the pope, independent of other bishops’ approval, can declare a heresy through producing an infallible teaching/document.

Frank wrote: “The church does NOT require universal approval of Bishops at a council.”

Not to have a valid council, no. But still, no teaching is binding unless it is infallible.

Kiwi wrote: “Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have "unanimous consent."”

Sorry, Kiwi, that doesn’t cut it. According to that extrapolation we could have 51% of the bishops agreeing on something, and 49% disagreeing, and we’d have to accept as binding what the 51% are saying. Your explanation does not work. Here, yet again, is St. Athanasius speaking: “Even if Catholic's faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the True Church.” So, even if all the bishops were morally opposed to Tradition, that would not make Tradition heretical.

Frank wrote: “1. Communion in the hand was practiced by the early church. 2. Vatican II was an official church council, and the decrees of this council MUST be obeyed by all Catholics.”

Frank, 1) we are not the early Church. So . . . so what? 2) Vat II was definitely an official church council. NONE of it’s decrees, however, MUST be obeyed by ANY Catholic, because NONE of it’s decrees were INFALLIBLE (or binding under pain of sin, for that matter).

Frank wrote: “You are trying to do a similar thing, come up with *reasons* for your disobedience, but remain disobedient.”

Frank, Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition are not disobedient to the Church. They are disobedient only to heresy . . . even if that heresy was spouted by a member of the Church.

Paul wrote: “. . . receiving on the tongue . . . is certainly the more accident-prone method.”

Paul, how many accidents have you seen with the Host, one way or the other? I’ve seen one accident in my entire life, and that was when the Host slipped from the priest’s fingers before even coming close to the person’s mouth. Also, it is less injurious to the Host to touch an inanimate object (carpet, flooring, clothing, Communion rail) than to touch the sinful person. The difference between the mouth and the hand is that the mouth is “inside” and the hand is “outside”. “Inside”, you receive Christ into your body and soul, which is the whole idea of Communion. “Outside”, you simply hold the Host for an undetermined length of time before receiving Him. What use is that? In fact, since all people are sinners, and since receiving the Host cleanses the soul of the stain of venial sins, but holding the Host in your hand does not cleanse the soul, but rather puts the Body of Christ in direct contact with the sinful person, it is actually an insult to Christ for a person with unconsecrated fingers (not a priest) to hold Him in the hand; meanwhile, receiving by mouth is not an insult because receiving Him thusly “automatically” cleanses the person of all stain of venial sin, so Christ goes into a clean soul.

I don’t understand why you and other proponents of Communion in the hand would rather insult Christ and delay that much longer the cleansing of your own soul, rather than bypassing the insult and delay, and instead receive Him directly in the mouth. Is it demeaning or humiliating to you to have someone else put something in your mouth?

Mike wrote: “Such as the Divine Office and a daily Holy Hour in order to really take in Jesus when we receive him regardless of whether it is in the hand or on the tongue?”

An abundance of vocal prayer (Divine Office) and/or mental prayer (daily Holy Hour) is not necessary in order to perfectly prepare to receive Holy Communion. (Divine Office is of course binding every day for priests (and other clergy?).) The best and most pleasing-to- God way to prepare for Holy Communion is to pay calm attention to the duties of one’s state in life. Living, and everything you do while living, in itself is a prayer if the intention to “live for God” is there. This is what the apostle meant when he said, “Pray always.” There was a saint who was playing chess one day and someone asked him, “If you knew you would die this evening, what would you do to prepare for it?” and the saint replied, “Keep playing chess.” I'm speaking about practicing recollection. Does anyone else here practice recollection?

Eugene wrote: “You do Him a dishonor dwelling on the new location His tabernacle is placed in. He is everywhere in our midst; and I know it.”

It sounds like this is slipping into Protestant theology. We must differentiate between the physical Presence and the non-physical presence of God. The reason church buildings were built in the first place was to make a home for the physical Presence. Of course God is everywhere in a non-physical manner – even in the most hardened sinner – even in the devil himself, since Satan would not be able to exist if God was not there keeping him in existence, as with every thing. But the removal of the physical Presence from the main tabernacle, the “throne” of the church building, and putting Him in a side-chapel, a lesser “throne”, is insulting to Him. Who takes precedence over God in His own house? The priest? The people? Apparently so, in parish churches these days.

Frank wrote: “there is no higher authority in the church than a full church council, and by its very nature is infallible.”

Did I get that right, with your correction, Frank? I realize a full church council would include the pope, but if that council went one direction and the pope broke with it and went another direction, who would you go with?

The point is, a full church council is not infallible. The documents and teachings that come out of it are infallible, yes; if all requirements are met. It seems that you are still implying that Vatican II was infallible, which is incorrect. I believe even Paul said Vat II wasn’t infallible; correct me if I’m wrong, Paul. In fact, absolutely none of the documents or teachings which came out of Vatican II were infallible.

I've read so many good arguments against following Vatican II in this thread alone; but the only argument for following Vatican II that I've seen yet is "Obey." Obey your parish priest; obey your bishop; obey the archbishop, the cardinals, the pope, and the latest council. Is there nothing left to the modern Catholic Church but blind obedience, even when others are screaming that the blindly obedient flock has followed the leader down the path to a cliff?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 16, 2003.

Psyche,

You are wrong, don't you guys get that yet? The church isn't a democracy where you can follow wherever your desires lead you. You MUST obey a valid church council to be a Catholic. Do you still not understand that? The Pope approved Vatican II, there's no strawman to raise.

Obey or you've left the church. You can post till doomsday, but those are your only choices.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 16, 2003.

You MUST obey a valid church council to be a Catholic

Was the Council of Carthage a valid Council? If not, why don't you obey?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 16, 2003.

--

''The modernist wants to strip the romance and the expressions of love and devotion out of our Holy Faith, with the claim that they want to get to the point.''

That is simply false. I'm surprised you stoop to this kind of demagoguery in order to make your side seem the more caring and devout.

We have the same adoration of Jesus Christ and His saints in our diocese that you have in yours, purportedly. We say novenas with devotion, we assist at holy hour & bebdictions and lenten missions, advent devotion, etc., we give alms and pray for vocations and our Holy Father. We keep the feasts and receive the sacraments. Knights of Columbus, sodalities, youth counseling and every form of group activity for our neighbor and the Son of God, are given support here.

You label us modernist simply because of the Mass in the vernacular and how the priest faces us in the liturgy. That's pure sophistry; and once again I say you follow the examples of the Pharisees confronting Jesus Christ.

All I mention above is not to aggrandise ourselves before God, but to correct your slander. Coming to THIS forum with such tripe, brands you as a young crackpot willing to say ANYTHING to vilify the 2nd Vatican Council. You ought to be ashamed, Emerald. For THIS you asked to be ''un-banned''. . . ? Get lost!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 16, 2003.

--

Psyche maintains ''You do Him a dishonor dwelling on the new location His tabernacle is placed in. He is everywhere in our midst; and I know it,'' was a slide into protestant theology ? (whatever that means.)

It sounds like this is slipping into Protestant theology. We must differentiate between the physical Presence and the non-physical presence of God. . . . removal of the physical Presence from the main tabernacle, the throne of the church building, and putting Him in a side-chapel, a lesser throne, is insulting to Him.''

Psyche, please address my main point: ''

. . being pharisaical; glancing and judging, offending God in His holy sanctuary. That sanctuary, despite your steady protest, which is holy and glorious because of His Presence, not because of the altarpieces, language, or surroundings. He is present there! You do Him a dishonor dwelling on the new location His tabernacle is placed in. --INSTEAD OF DWELLING ON HIM; THE TRUE PRESENCE! That is Catholic theology, Madam!

We have to stop making prejudiced appraisals of everything from what our neighbor wears in another pew, to the placing of the tabernacle; in order to give God our undivided attention and LOVE. My point has nothing to do with how the church employs floor space, it has to do with MINDING YOUR BUSINESS in Church.

Let me please inform you, also: God is either pleased or He's ''insulted'' as you presume here. but ONE thing I know, He isn't: He isn't insulted because YOU think He should be! You are not the judge of what ''insults'' God. Again, you act like the Pharisees, who called Jesus a drunkard and a friend of prostitutes and tax collectors. They wanted to judge over all the others; and no one had ever APPOINTED them judges. No one ought to have to worry about your disapproval, IMHO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 16, 2003.

He isn't insulted because YOU think He should be!

Nor is He indifferent toward the placing of His Earthly Home (the Tabernacle) because YOU are.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 16, 2003.

I see; and who told you that?
Is He pleased in our wool-gathering during Holy Mass and examining everything except our own, interior unworthiness? Does Christ say, Love one another as I have loved you? We are the Body of Christ, Regina. We will never become indifferent to Jesus; and upon our deaths, we'll be taken up to Him; the altar and the tabernacle will stay here on earth. He in fact IS quite indifferent to externals. --They add and/or subtract not one blink of your eye to His glory; your illusions are earth-bound. Meditate on this. Let your heart look at Jesus Christ fancy-free ! Didn't He tell us we had to become as little children? You have allowed your heart to become burdened by these cares. I'm praying for you, little sister.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 16, 2003.

I see; and who told you that?

The same voice that told you He doesn't care about the placement of the Tabernacle.

Does Christ say, Love one another as I have loved you?

Of course He did. What does this have to do with anything we're talking about right now?

We are the Body of Christ, Regina.

We are the members of the Mystical Body of Christ. See it's statements like that which made for much confusion for me. A statement like that left alone suggests that together we make up Jesus, as if He wouldn't or couldn't be present at Mass without us and that it is only by our faith that He becomes physically present for us.

We will never become indifferent to Jesus; and upon our deaths, we'll be taken up to Him;

Who is the "we" you speak of, Gene?

And yes, we (every soul in the world) will see Him upon our deaths. However, He will judge us. Not all will share His Kingdom with Him. Again, taken by itself, your statement seems to suggest that everyone who believes will be saved.

He in fact IS quite indifferent to externals.

"I see. And who told you that?"

How sad that you see the placement of the tabernacle as an "external." Something insignificant which can be changed at a whim. What you see as an "external", I see as an *essential.*

--They add and/or subtract not one blink of your eye to His glory; your illusions are earth-bound.

And if He is All That Is Glorious, which of course He is, how can anyone possibly justify casting Him off to the side, or into another room?

Gene, you seem to think that when I've encountered a badly placed tabernacle in a NO church, that I've sneered at it. Perish the thought! I look upon Him, sad that His people think He does not deserve to be placed at the very Head of His House.

Didn't He tell us we had to become as little children?

And children who love their Father, want to be close to Him, to see Him, to Honor Him. When children love, they place the object of their affection on a pedestal.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 17, 2003.

Regina:
Our hearts are Jesus Christ's real tabernacles. While the Blessed Sacrament is in repose certainly is within the tabernacle, He must be replenished daily from the holy altar. Without the altar, there can be no Jesus Christ in that tabernacle. Holy Mass is where Christ is offered up to Our Father. The tabernacle is a place of repose until the morning after, when He enters the REAL tabernacle, your heart. He unites with you & me, and makes us part of his divine offering. The tabernacle takes a secondary place ritually, to the altar. We meet Him at the altar; where no tabernacle but our hearts is necessary. This is the true reason why the Church (Council) has elected to set aside a different zone for visiting the Blessed Sacrament. The central altar is the place justly set apart for the Holy Eucharist; our Lord's passion, death and resurrection commemorated.

Nothing else should be central except Holy Mass. The separate tabernacle is for either visiting, contemplation, perpetual adoration or His abiding Presence within the Universal Church. That can never take precedence over the sacrifice of the Mass, --Novus Ordo, or Tridentine.

On the most critical night of my whole life, when I was a lad, Regina; I ran 20 blocks to the Church. I wanted to go before Him (at about 10 PM) and beg His mercy. When I came up to the entrance, I was feeling desparate.

The doors were all locked. I stood with my face pressed on the door for an hour, praying. He was within, and He absolutely heard my prayer. It wouldn't have mattered if I'd entered that night or prayed outside. I know that today. He comforted me through locked doors! He is a Divine Presence. Jesus abides throughout the entire place where His glory dwells; the tabernacle is for your own benefit, not His. He wants to come into your heart. For this we need no central area inside the building. Faith is all we need.

That's why I say He is not impressed by externals. He wants YOU for His living tabernacle. The MASS takes precedence over a veiled place we call His tabernacle. At Mass we consume His Body and Blood; we LOVE Him; and we don't think of anything but Him; not the setting, or anything but Him! He'll always love you; no matter the place or the externals.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Eugene, if your main point was that Catholics should pay more attention to Christ in general, I agree. However, Catholics should pay much more attention to Christ when He is physically present than otherwise! It sounds to me that you and the other members of your parish pay next-to-no attention to the Blessed Sacrament and the Mass! So many people, including myself, must continually fight against letting the mind wander during Mass, or whenever in Church. But this fight against the imagination while in the Real Presence is to be expected! It is elemental! I did not understand that this is the point you were making. I still maintain that the more important issue is the general disrespect to the Blessed Sacrament which is present in most parish churches today, which encompasses all modes of disrespect, including lack of attention, as well as moving the Blessed Sacrament off of the “high throne” of the Altar and stashing Him in a room on the side. Frank wrote: “You are wrong, don't you guys get that yet? The church isn't a democracy where you can follow wherever your desires lead you. You MUST obey a valid church council to be a Catholic. Do you still not understand that? The Pope approved Vatican II, there's no strawman to raise. Obey or you've left the church. You can post till doomsday, but those are your only choices.” Frank, I asked if you (and all Novus Ordo Catholics) have any other reason to believe as you do except “Obey, obey, obey,” i.e, blind obedience. Please answer the question, for in the above quote you just reinforced my suspicion that blind obedience is all Novus Ordos have. Others on this thread have already brought up Lumen Gentium, so I am reluctant to post quotes of it again. But the fact remains that this all-important document of Vatican II contradicted the Church teaching of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” by declaring multiple times that salvation is possible outside the Catholic Church. I have not seen any arguments which even remotely persuade me to accept this fallacy as truth. All I have heard is “Don’t think about it, don’t worry about it, just believe it, just obey!” Is there nothing else but “Close your eyes and obey,” that can be said to support the (non-binding, of course) teachings of Vatican II?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 17, 2003.

Psyche

An abundance of vocal prayer (Divine Office) and/or mental prayer (daily Holy Hour) is not necessary in order to perfectly prepare to receive Holy Communion...The best and most pleasing-to- God way to prepare for Holy Communion is to pay calm attention to the duties of one’s state in life.

I agree that one must do as you say in regards to "living the Gospel life" as they way to perfect contemplation with our God. I would say it is our duty to pray using scripture and to spend some time with the Eucharist outside of mass time. And we might neglect this special time with God and substitute for explicit prayer in our free time, a fervent and maybe violent activist attitude on social issues in order to cover up the guilt of our neglects. I respect your quote from our saint. Below is a quote from the one saint who is credited with making Holy Hours well known and showing that it is important to do. He made praying Holy Hours accessible and pointed out their profitability in the manner that St. Dominic made available the Rosary or St. Francis of Assisi the Stations Of The Cross. That Saint is St. ALPHONSUS DE LIGUORI first expressed in his first work, Instructions on the Visits to the Blessed Sacrament

QUOTE

Our holy faith teaches us, and we are bound to believe, that in the consecrated Host, Jesus Christ is really present under the species of bread. But we must also understand that He is present on our altars as on a throne of love and mercy, to dispense graces and there to show us the love which He bears us, by being pleased to dwell night and day hidden in the midst of us...

...There it was also that St Francis Xavier found refreshment in the midst of his many labors in India; for he employed his days in toiling for souls, and his nights in the presence of the Most Blessed Sacrament. St. John Francis Regis did the same thing; and sometimes finding the church closed, he endeavored to satisfy his longings by remaining on his knees outside the door, exposed to the rain and cold, that at least at a distance he might attend upon his comforter concealed under the sacramental species.

St. Francis of Assisi used to go to communicate all his labors and undertakings to Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament. But tender indeed was the devotion of St. Wenceslaus, duke of Bohemia, to the Most Holy Sacrament. This holy king was so enamored of Jesus there present, that he not only gathered the wheat and grapes, and made the hosts and wine with his own hands, and then gave them to be used in the Holy Sacrifice, but he used, even during the winter, to go at night to visit the church in which the Blessed Sacrament was kept. These visits enkindled in his beautiful soul such flames of divine love, that their ardor imparted itself even to his body, and took from the snow on which he walked, its wonted cold: for it is related that the servant who accompanied him in these nightly excursions, having to walk through the snow, suffered much from the cold. The holy king, on perceiving this, was moved to compassion, and commanded him to follow him, and only to step in his foot-marks; he did so, and never afterwards felt the cold.

UNQUOTE

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 17, 2003.

Psyche,

First, if you would "obey, obey, obey" you wouldn't be in the peril you are now. What is wrong with obeying Christ? As a Catholic, I'm PROUD to be trying to obey, obey, obey. If I can get to the point where I'm a "slave of Christ", I'll be thankful.

But the fact remains that this all-important document of Vatican II contradicted the Church teaching of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” by declaring multiple times that salvation is possible outside the Catholic Church.

Do you believe that anyone who is NOT a Catholic is DEFINITELY going to Hell? If so, there's a contradiction between you and the church, if not there's no contradiction between the church and herself.

that can be said to support the (non-binding, of course) teachings of Vatican II?

This is a lie. Vatican II's decrees are binding. You are NOT permitted to disobey and be Catholic. If you want to *admit* you are schismatic, you of course can do whatever you want (in your lifetime).

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

Psyche: ''in the above quote you just reinforced my suspicion that blind obedience is all Novus Ordos have.''

All? We are taught obedience means faith. You call faith in God blind? That's what complying with our obligation to obey is; faith in the Holy Spirit who guides the Church. Disobedience merits no grace, only division and punishment. We obey not from fear. We obey because it has been God's way from the beginning. His divine Will.

P.S. No-- a separate place for the holy tabernacle is not an offense against the Blessed Sacrament. That's ridiculous. If it were, Psyche, that is what our Catholic faith would teach. There is no ''Neo'' and NO Traditionalist Church; we all belong to one Church. Except some of you have very deficient faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Presumably the opposite of blind obedience is blind disobedience??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 17, 2003.

Here's an interesting article on tabernacle placement.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 17, 2003.

The opposite of blind obedience is INFORMED disobedience of FALSE TEACHINGS.

I submit to the infallible doctrines and dogmas taught by Holy Mother Church, including "There is no salvation outside the Church."

Those who espouse "There is salvation outside the Church," as Vatican II taught through Lumen Gentium, are not Catholic.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 17, 2003.

Psyche,

Do you believe that anyone who is NOT a Catholic is DEFINITELY going to Hell?

Was this really such a difficult question to answer?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

Emerald,

Hi :) I think of where Traditionalist direction may go or has gone. We now have a schismatic church as a result of the Traditionalist thinking gone to extreme in Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff. There are conservative liturgical abuses as well as liberal ones. I am talking about the conservative abuse extreme. One other example is “intinction”, the dipping of the Eucharist in wine at Holy Communion, which is no longer allowed, to my knowledge, but I see it required by a couple Detroit churches I have gone to. Those two parishes were very conservative and did many other good things. I noticed some serious pretentiousness at one of those parishes, that used intinction, in that they had a symphony play frequently during Latin masses. It was impossible to participate, one could not sing, we could only listen to the opera singer and loud instruments playing so called "sacred music" and the Latin made it difficult to follow the words even with the missal in both languages. I never went to that service again. So some Traditionalists do not hold to Catholic teaching regarding the intinction practice and there may be other improper practices as well and that tendency will be an ongoing danger for any Traditionalist.

My "Council of Trent alone!" comment was a parallel concept to the Protestant idea of scripture alone. I refer to the spirit of the Traditionalist movement although yes they do not say those words.

Seeing as how you opine that God is allowing these division, are we able to then conclude that the Council is the source of division?

No. The evil one by definition is the one who divides. The Council being the expression of the Holy Spirit in the world would not be the ultimate source of division, but rather reveals a division that has been hidden and also maybe a variety of weaknesses in all the Catholic Church members. Something the Holy Spirit does may result in division but that is due to various levels of holiness in members and how we humans respond to the Holy Spirit who is in the Council. As in Scripture: Matt 10: 34-38 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

Are traditional Catholics promoting heresy?

My parallel should be taken in general here. Like with the Protestants, the Traditionalists are already being destructive (which may be seen as a chastisement) or are in danger of being destructive to the One Church. In the long run this all may be best for God's plan. Traditionalists like Lefebvre and the intinction promoters are making schism, disunity or confusion happen out of their disobedience to the Council or pope, however, some of their effort may have a positive effect on worship in that their intent is to keep the Eucharistic celebration as sacred.

Can this be safely construed as an admission that the traditional Catholics are the guardians of doctrine?

Only in the sense that God allows his loving judgment flow through outsiders as he did with the Ninevites on a wayward Israel. But it is still better to be in the true church than it is to be one of these outsiders who could be seen as guardians of doctrine. These outsiders act unwittingly to the overall plan. It would have been better for Israel or the One Holy Roman Catholic Church to discipline herself and not wait for a chastisement.

Does this conflict or jive with Paul or Eugene's claim that we are Elitist? If so, do we heap this honor upon ourselves, or has it been bestowed upon us by The Firstborn?

No comment about other poster's terminology here for now.

Lastly, do you see an danger in designating yourself or your kin as of The Firstborn?

I am just using Old Testament terms for designating Israel. Israel was God's first-born son. Likewise his One Catholic Church replaces that ancient position. It can be dangerous to be the first-born son because when more gifts are given, more is expected as a result of those gifts, so one must live up to the obligations connected to them or be cursed.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 17, 2003.

All Catholics have to submit to the infallible doctrines and dogmas taught by Holy Mother Church, including "There is no salvation outside the Church." But you do not understand that infallible doctrine. It's not impossible to understand, if you investigate in good faith.

Your idea of disobedience being ''informed'' is sweet-sounding but erroneous. You are mis-informed if you think the 2nd Vatican Council is at fault in any decision. The Church is doing God's Will as she always has. By your disobedience you place your human wisdom over faith in God. Just as the so-called reformers once did. The sad results of their disobedience is plain to see today. All unity destroyed, false doctrines, denial of the holy sacraments; hatred and division.

Informed my eye.

---

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

MIke,

Don't know if I posted it, but I do appreciate your insight of how the Lefebvrists are useful to the church. I'm just a layman but have learned a lot about church councils, the early practice of communion in the hand, multiple rites of mass, etc. attempting to discuss this here that I otherwise wouldn't have read up on. So Thx!

Even Judas had his part to play I guess,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

Frank,

You are welcome and I appreciate you and others here being in the trenches with me because my knowledge is limited and needs your help.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 17, 2003.

"I'm just a layman but have learned a lot about church councils, the early practice of communion in the hand, multiple rites of mass, etc. attempting to discuss this here that I otherwise wouldn't have read up on. So Thx! Even Judas had his part to play I guess, Frank

We may disagree, Frank, but I would never think of you as playing the part of a Judas.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 17, 2003.

Why not just go to the source of all that's needed to fight traditional Catholicism, Mike? I've got sources...

There's actually a relatively small handful of laity that are involved in spinning out the arguments in favor of the post-conciliar way of thinking and in opposition to the Faith of the ages.

They spend countless hours at it, judging from the amount of content they use, and judging from the fact that they don't seem to have enough time left over to encourage people in the actual living of the Faith.

Heck, I know few of them. A few people I know know a few others. They like to win arguments, but are little interested in the truth imho and if they are, it's an easy truth to live and not a real big Cross to carry. Charity is also virtually non-existant in their tone, as they generally conclude that traditionalists are just stupid, uninformed, lacking all understanding, and just all-around blind idiots. I doubt it.

But if you want a list, let me know. It's not like traditional Catholics really are uninformed about the enemies of the Faith, let alone the Faith itself.

Either that or we could all live the Faith and learn it at the same time. Beats the heck out of the speck in the Lidless Eye.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 17, 2003.

ah ha ha

very droll Emerald.

or not.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

...or maybe you need their help too.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 17, 2003.

My opinion...

The Church moves slowly -v e r y s l o w l y....

The documents of Vatican II are but a tool -a two edged sword in that they are vague in many areas and can cut either way in thier interpretation and implementation...

The Church created them, the Church will implement them -slowly...

The abuses which are fact and the degradation of our Church which is fact can be blamed on Vatican II BUT can not Vatican II be blamed on God? hmmm...

Within the middle ground lies the solution -Unity & Faith... The solution is simple once the problem(s) are truly identified. Rome is doing this slowly...

Vatican II is not the problem, Rome is not the problem, Traditionalists are not the problem, Modernists are not the problem...

Man is the problem -Men are misguided and or absent Faith and or absent Grace and or led astray or leading others astray -- Vatican II implementation with it vague guidance in addition to our Church's necessary prudence and slow guidance/ feedback is the problem in that this is what allows that which is not of God fertile ground -the confusion is fertile ground...

It seems simple to me that this must be accepted by all... Those that preach aginst the extremes are lost and but adding to the confusion -in the middle is the Faith -NOT in the extreme camps...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 17, 2003.

Jake:
Jesus Christ is familiar over centuries with men like you. You are the intolerant. But the faith doesn't depend on you; we don't have to please you.

We know Him by our love for Him. He loves the least of His brethren. The Church was conceived in love; Christ's infinite love for us. There is little or no love where you come from. Only a self-payment in this world. You have your reward here. It's obtained in the severity you invest, all your inflexibility and pretense. We have Him for our Master, Jake. He gives Himself but all He asks in return is faith. We have nothing to fear.

He has ''spread the table before me in the sight of my foes; He anoints my head with oil, my cup overflows.'' It's only the beginning; only in this lifetime. Our reward is in the next life. You have chosen yours in this life.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 18, 2003.

Errr...

OK.

Thanks, Eugune.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), October 18, 2003.

Thank you Jake. Eugene, please.

Is our dispute over? I hope it gives you cause for meditation. God has a plan for you; allow Him an opening now.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 18, 2003.

Oh. Almost forgot, forgive me:

There has never been any Novus Ordo religion, Jake. Only the Holy Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 18, 2003.

"The opposite of blind obedience is INFORMED disobedience of FALSE TEACHINGS"

A: How very Protestant of you.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 18, 2003.

"Within the middle ground lies the solution -Unity & Faith... The solution is simple once the problem(s) are truly identified. Rome is doing this slowly..."

I used to think something similiar, Daniel; I know exactly what you are trying to say. It seems innocent enough as a place to start but it can never reside there because balances and means between extremes are proper to the physical existence, but taking a center between extremes does not pass through to truth and reality at it's core.

Balances, centers and means work well in physical and practical matters but they do not identify the essences and forms in philosophy, and do much less to identify reality in matters of the principles of the Faith, the truths of Catholic doctrine.

The doctrines of the Faith mesh into and melt with the living of a good life, and there are matters of finding the right amount or the center when it comes to excercising virtues, which Aristotle and St. Thomas talk about, but when it comes to doctrine itself and the items of Faith, one is not too married or not married enough, or overbaptised... God is not X-amount of good but goodness itself; a dead man is isn't half saved or mostly damned, Christ is not less present today in the Blessed Sacrament than yesterday, etc.

But that's kind of the principle you are applying in a way, and while it's tempting, it ultimately will lead to a loss of Faith if played out to it's natural conclusion. We cannot take a middle of the road on the truths of the Catholic Faith, because they must be either held to be true, or not true (disbelieved). There is no middle way.

However, many or most people are tempted to deal with truth in such ways, being sucked into the game of the left and the right. That's the core of the strategy of Synthesis... the deception that results by means of positing two extremes, one can produce a middle, and in turn therefore, by repositioning the extremes, they can reposition the middle. The consequence is that the "truth" can be made to appear to change while the claim is that it yet remains the same. The red flags should go up at this point, but mysteriously for many, they don't.

At that point, effectively truth becomes something not precise and actual and real, but the average of the sums in a range. Truth becomes an approximation; appearances of reality instead of reality itself.

But approximations and averages are not what truth is; truth is What Is. Things really, really are black and white. The mean between extremes does not touch upon the essence a thing.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 18, 2003.

"Rome is doing this slowly..."

True for now, and ultimately, Rome will put a stop to it.

Paul makes an analogy that fails, and Eugene makes a plea to cave in. But both men will eventually admit the truth, and Rome will eventually re-affirm clearly, again, what has always been true.

So what's to fret over?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 18, 2003.

Sorry for botching your name. There was no hidden agenda. Honest. Just my feeble hands at work.

Is our dispute over?

I doubt it.

I hope it gives you cause for meditation.

That time, when I'm lucky enough to have it, is not spent pondering the words of people like you on a forum like this.

God has a plan for you

Indeed He does, as He does for us all. I've begun to realize over time, though, that His plan for me probably has little to do with hapiness and comfort, at least not in the way you Novus Ordos speak of those things. It's going to have more to do with embracing what the world casts off.

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

There has never been any Novus Ordo religion, Jake. Only the Holy Catholic Church.

There never was a Novus Ordo religion, I'll grant you that. Not until it was invented in 1969.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 18, 2003.

In an above post I thought intinction was not allowed but I found here from the USCCB Committe on the Liturgy, in The Different Forms of Celebrating Mass Chapter 4 #283, that it can be allowed (meaning it possibly may not be).

"The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups."

A priest in a different diocese than the one I mentioned had told me intinction was not allowed. So perhaps different norms were in place for each diocese.

I stand corrected.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 18, 2003.

The "norms" referred to here concern the question of reception of the Eucharist under one or both species, and when, or if, both species may be offered to the congregation. They do not concern intinction.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 18, 2003.

Jake:
''. . . spent pondering the words of people like you on a forum like this.

People like me? I was referring to MY words. Ha ha! Don't ponder anything then. You can just expect them whenever you post here. It's serve & volley on a ''forum like this''. ''not in the way you Novus Ordos speak of those things. It's going (snip) to do with embracing what the world casts off.'' --A likely story; are they casting off another schism?

''There never was a Novus Ordo religion, I'll grant you. Not until it was invented in 1969,

''It's the Catholic religion, Jake. Too bad you're abandoning Tradition. Novus Ordo is in the living Tradition. Not 1969; 33 A.D. --and still growing; you can see it everywhere. Praise God forever!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 18, 2003.

Paul M. wrote: “"The opposite of blind obedience is INFORMED disobedience of FALSE TEACHINGS" A: How very Protestant of you.”

Go ahead and insult me, Paul, and you too, Eugene and Frank, and whoever else is afraid of the truth. As I suspected, y’all have nothing but blind obedience and insults to keep yourselves convinced that you should stick around your Novus Ordo parishes while you don’t even know if you are receiving the Blessed Sacrament or some invalidly “consecrated” cookie.

The dangerous thing about blind obedience is that it quickly deteriorates into a “the blind leading the blind” situation, which is what we have in the Novus Ordo Catholic parishes today, and on a greater scale with the whole Novus Ordo Church following Rome’s non- infallible dictates as if they were infallible and directly from the mouth of God.

Blind obedience is never a good thing, y’all, unless you are blindly obeying God directly, and none of us are doing that. We all have our orders coming from other humans; the safety-net is the infallible doctrines and dogmas of the Church. If a human tells you to obey those, fine. But humans are the least trust-worthy creatures alive on God’s green earth . . . so how can you hold the personal judgements of your N.O. priests and bishops in such high esteem when the havoc they have wreaked in the Church is so obvious?

By their fruits you shall know them . . .

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 20, 2003.

Psyche,

There's a difference between "blind obedience" and FAITH! I have faith in the Lord, and try and obey the instructions of His church. That's what Christ told us to do. Protestants have faith, and obey whatever their own consciences tell them is the right thing to obey (irregardless of the fact that 10 of them can be in a room all believing different things, and all of them believing they are correct). IMO (which is NOT binding, LOL) you have left the church, prefering to following your internal desires to that which the church says are correct.

N.O. priests and bishops in such high esteem when the havoc they have wreaked in the Church is so obvious?

I get it already. You left the church. Yippee. woo hoo. Come back when you are willing to be a Catholic and obey the Magesterium. (and for the 500th time, there is NO such thing as an "n.o. priest". There are Catholic priests. There are also heretic priests outside the church, and schismatic priests who shouldn't be administering the sacraments, but do so anyway. Caveat emptor, lost one.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 20, 2003.

Psyche feels justified in saying:
''--your Novus Ordo parishes while you dont even know if you are receiving the Blessed Sacrament or some invalidly consecrated cookie,'' After pleading, ''Go ahead and insult me, you guys!''

The perfect poster girl for self absorbed elitists. Always unaware of the offenses she brings here and indignant because we ''insult'' her!

Psyche is like the Roman arena crowd. The poor Christian buried up to his neck in sand; and when the lion attacked, he grabbed its testicles in his teeth;

The pagans screamed: ''Fight fair, dirty Christian!''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 20, 2003.

Eugene, your analogy is upside down.

Allow me to completely tick you off.

Traditional Catholics are the modern-day Israelites. We will have our Red Sea-parting experience.

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of thy faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of thy love. Send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth. Let us pray: O God, who did instruct the hearts of the faithful by the light of the Holy Spirit, grant us in the same spirit to be truly wise, and ever to rejoice in His consolation. Through Christ our Lord.

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

Emmie:
Your post is wonderful. Please come back in five years and give us another inspiring message. I love it when Emerald parts the Red Sea for me. Let me have five years to savor the good feelings, won't you? Make yourself an appointment to part the Green Sea of Narcissistustan, Em. Your resume will get so fat you'll be our next Holy Father if you don't watch out.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 20, 2003.

Emerald,

Traditional Catholics are the modern-day Israelites. We will have our Red Sea-parting experience.

That's probably true. You'll wander around in a desert for 40 years and start worshipping a golden calf. Hopefully, when the Pope comes down from the mountain you'll obey him and Vatican II and return to God's graces before you die and it's too late. Pretty good analogy this time Emerald.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 20, 2003.

lol! I have to admit that's pretty good.

Man, I love the desert, I really do. I was thinking about moving to Northern Arizona someday.

Tell you what, get me a golden calf, huh?

I'll pay for the shipping.

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

"Your resume will get so fat you'll be our next Holy Father if you don't watch out."

I ain't got one, and I'm married. Ho there... wait a minute. Five years, married, five years. Hmmm...

At the rate we are progressing, maybe I DO have a shot at Holy Father.

Nah... too risky.

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

The high desert part? Very beautiful, I've driven through a few times, but I wouldn't wish the "desert" part on anybody.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 20, 2003.

Man, I'm not sure exactly where it is; I guess I would say high desert. What we did was drive up to Southern Utah, which was beautiful, and then on down to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, and then on back to San Diego; this was I think about a year and a half ago. Not that I haven't been there a couple times, but I swear that area up there around Sedona is the most beautiful place on the planet.

I love the desert and I'm not sure why, but then again, there's Sequoia too. I can't make up my mind.

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

It's just that, Emmie: a resume like yours is so; well-- so chubby ! -and golden!

If another sea parts for you, Say; You could become another Mad Monk. the Catholic (Trad) Rasputin. Part that Green Sea, Holy Emerald!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 21, 2003.

I'm gonna need your staff.

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

What counts most is your faith, Emerald. It's a bit ironic you invoked the Holy Spirit in the last posts. All I've ever said to you & other dissidents amidst us is,

If you had real faith in the Holy Spirit and His power to heal, to support-- His Church during upsetting times, Vatican II and the past 4o years would be to you just a bump in the road. From the start of these arguments I've called on your faith. Faith to see the greater Will of God inside this present upheaval.

Once or twice one of your friends has openly ridiculed the idea of hoping that through Vatican II non- Catholics might enter the fold; and some of you criticise Novus Ordo as a protestantized service. There's an economy of hatred toward protestants betrayed by this analogy. As if protestants weren't even loved by God; and our worst fate as Catholics is necessarily some ''descent'' into their favor!

Some of your comments (Regina, Jake, et all,) have it that Vatican II has ''mongrelized'' Catholics, turning them into fools and critters who fell by the wayside! Just because of ecumenism!

If that brand of self-absorption isn't hateful to the Holy Spirit, I miss my guess, Emerald. We are equal in the sight of God. We haven't changed Holy Mass into a protestant service. We do invite outsiders BACK to Mass; --HAVE made mass more accessible to them according to that Wisdom the Holy Spirit imparts His Church. He makes the Church ecumenical; not the protestants. He will reward me and you for our faith; not for elitism and rebellion against our bishops.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 21, 2003.