UPCOMING VATICAN DRAFT DOCUMENT TO CLAMP DOWN ON ABUSES

(EWTNews) A Vatican legislative document designed to curb liturgical abuses will soon be released. Announced earlier this year in John Paul II’s encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, the document could have far-reaching effects on the way Mass is celebrated, especially here in the United States and in western Europe. According to the Italian Roman Catholic monthly magazine Jesus, a draft of the document seeks to correct certain practices that have become common in the nearly 40 years since Vatican II. A story in the October issue of the magazine states that, among other things, the directive discourages:

· The use of female altar servers “unless there is a just pastoral cause”, and stresses that “priests should never feel obliged to seek girls for this function.” · Applause during Masses and “dances inside the sacred building.” · The use of non-Biblical texts during the Mass, i.e. readings from poets, etc. · The practice of Communion under both kinds (bread and wine), saying that the reception of the Host only is preferred.

The document, drafted by the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, should be released in October or November after it is given final approval by the Pope. EWTNews will keep you updated on this developing story. The World Over Live with Raymond Arroyo will feature an exclusive interview with Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in advance of the document’s release [\quote] source: http://www.olg.cc/mobilegabriel/news.htm

I am quite anxious to see the final product when it comes out. There were rumors about other things to be discouraged in it, having to do with ad libbing and the use of the vernacular. I also heard from other Catholic discussion lists/forums that there may be an encouragement for bishops to make the Tridentine or "Latin Indult" Mass more widely available. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking, though.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 09, 2003

Answers

“unless there is a just pastoral cause”

Ahh, the requisute loophole.

That little phrase will allow the supposedly-coming "document" to be folded into paper airplanes and brought down for a landing in circular files in chancery offices all over the world.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 10, 2003.

I have not seen the document, so will withhold judgment, but IF the wording is as weak as the previews suggest, they might as well not even publish it. We have priests today who don't even do what is "required" in their parishes, and some who do what is expressely "forbidden". How much impact will a document have which merely "encourages" and "discourages" certain practices? I agree with Jake that the phrase "unless there is a just pastoral cause" makes the whole thing essentially meaningless. It is unclear whether that phrase applies only to the choice of female altar servers, or to other practices as well. However, no-one who is currently doing such things thinks they are doing them "unjustly" or "without pastoral cause". So the phrase "unless there is a just pastoral cause" essentially boils down to "unless you want to continue doing what you are doing". I'm hoping there will be more to it that that, but time will tell.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 10, 2003.

For those interested, this upcoming interview on EWTN may address this topic...

The World Over: Cardinal Arinze interview Raymond Arroyo with Francis Cardinal Arinze

Interview by EWTN News Director Raymond Arroyo of Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Friday at 8pm ET

Re-airs: -- Sunday at 5pm ET -- Monday at 10am ET -- Monday at 11 pm ET

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 10, 2003.

P.S.

One challenge with our Church is 'translation'... If you have concerns about 'weak wording' etc you can write to Cardinal Arinze. Of course, avoid being negative, critical of others -keep to the facts, be respectful and loving...

Send your letters to:

His Eminence Francis Cardinal Arinze Congregazioni per it Culto Divino E La Disciplina Dei Sacramenti Palazzo delle Congregazioni Piazza Pio XII, 10 00193 RomaITALY

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 10, 2003.

-oops

let me repost that address in proper format:

Send your letters to:

His Eminence Francis Cardinal Arinze Congregazioni per it Culto Divino E La Disciplina Dei Sacramenti Palazzo delle Congregazioni Piazza Pio XII, 10 00193 RomaITALY

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 10, 2003.

lol :)

try again...

Send your letters to:

His Eminence Francis Cardinal Arinze

Congregazioni per it Culto Divino

E La Disciplina Dei Sacramenti

Palazzo delle Congregazioni

Piazza Pio XII, 10

00193 RomaITALY

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 10, 2003.

ewtn

To be honest , I'll never watch this channel , and I will not , 'cause simply , it's not my kind of watching TV , the same as temptation island , blind date , Big Brother , Gran Hermano , .... !! __ Gi'me instead , science-fiction , horror & action !! __ But why than still putting their hompage on this forum ??

Simple , so you don't have to do a google-search !!

Good Night from here !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 10, 2003.

Laurent,

-you are quite a character... And you are closer than you think to embracing Truth. Consider a fact: you are on this forum...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 10, 2003.

Yes , indeed I'm Weird !! __ But as I said berfore , I don't want to come back , never , cause I really don't agree with the Vatican !!

Salut & cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 11, 2003.

But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

The Vatican is wrong in teaching that Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved unless they are truly in the Catholic church. "Not somehow in theChurch". Or saved by the old testament. This is a disservice to those people. The evil one enjoys teachings like that.

-- Buster (Buzz @aol.com), October 11, 2003.

As rumors of John Paul II’s imminent demise intensify, there is already much discussion of his legacy as Pope. In neo-Catholic circles the discussion never gets round to the current condition of the Church, for which everyone but the Pope is held responsible. Yet we hear constantly of an ill-defined papal “vision” that is uniquely John Paul’s. What are the fruits of this papal vision in the actual life of the Church? What direction will the next pope take?

-- Anonymous (outrage@yahoo.com), October 12, 2003.

All "Trads" can talk about is their own pessimistic, cynical, catastrophic impressions of "the current condition of the Church". To the small minority on the radical fringes of a movement, the moderate majority always appears extreme. The fact that the overwhelming majority of devout Catholics do not waste their time wallowing in such defeatist fantasies does not mean that they do not rationally discuss the current condition of the Church, both its tremendous strengths and its various needs. Discussion of the ACTUAL current condition of the Church will produce much fruit, and the cardinals who meet to discern God's will for the next Vicar of Christ will surely have those very strengths and needs foremost in their minds, and will place far more trust in the Holy Spirit's ability to guide the Church than is apparent in the doomsday fantasies of self-proclaimed "Traditionalists".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 12, 2003.

The EWTN interview with Cardinal Arinze was very good and quite enlightening. The interview that followed with Father Jerry Pokorsky, cofounder of Adoremus, was enlightening as well -I recommend viewing Monday when it aires again

P.S. For those interested, here is a link that details How to Address a Liturgical Abuse

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 12, 2003.

More energy needs to be used in the intent of worship, not the RULES of worship.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of academics who try to make a name for themselves by pointing to their bosses and exclaiming how wrong they are, instead of nurturing their own pastoral hearts.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 14, 2003.

Hi again, Paul.

You wrote: “All "Trads" can talk about is their own pessimistic, cynical, catastrophic impressions of "the current condition of the Church".

Now, now . . . that’s not all we can talk about. That’s just your fed-up-ness showing through! ;)

You wrote: “To the small minority on the radical fringes of a movement, the moderate majority always appears extreme.”

Quite true. This is also the same for the Traditional “movement” – although perhaps I should call it the Traditional “non-movement” or “un-movement” or “anti-movement” when “movement” means “innovations”. Well, that’s neither here nor there. The point is, there is always a variation of, or layering of, views in any movement. Mostly in the Traditional Catholic “movement” the Big Reason for not going to the parish Mass is fear that the bread and wine MIGHT not be consecrated properly by the parish priest, therefore we’d be worshiping and receiving bread and wine instead of the Savior. My fear of this possibility is great enough to keep me from ever receiving Communion at a Novus Ordo Missae. The last time I went was last year (or maybe early this year, I can’t remember) with a friend to her parish for a mid-week Mass. I listened to the words of the Consecration, and they deviated from that which is prescribed. I did not go to Communion for that reason, and also for the reason that the priest was giving Communion in the hand and I did not want to take part in any way with that sacrilege. Even if I had received on my tongue, I would still have been showing my approval of that priest’s other immediately visible sacrilegious actions, which I could not in good conscience do.

But there are many other reasons. Traditional Catholics are not all of one mind on everything non-binding; on binding beliefs, yes, non- binding, no, just like the Novus Ordo parish Catholics like you don’t always agree on everything which I’ll dare to call “immaterial”. (though of course nothing having to do with the Faith is truly immaterial)

You wrote: “the cardinals who meet to discern God's will for the next Vicar of Christ will surely have those very strengths and needs foremost in their minds, and will place far more trust in the Holy Spirit's ability to guide the Church than is apparent in the doomsday fantasies of self-proclaimed "Traditionalists".”

That is very trusting of you, Paul. For one thing, you are misinterpreting what is “apparent” in Traditional Catholics. There are no Catholics more trusting of the Holy Ghost’s ability to guide the Church than us. We exist because the Holy Ghost is indeed guiding the Church:

“"Even if Catholic's faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the True Church." -- St. Athanasius

However, we do acknowledge that the Holy Ghost’s guidance is taken 100% for sure ONLY in the case of infallibility. So, we acknowledge that we are not infallible; no bishops or priests or laypeople are infallible; only the Pope speaking ex cathedra, or all the bishops of the world including the bishop of Rome, speaking together, like at a true Ecumenical council, as Frank pointed out, is infallible. (But if an Ecumenical council fails to have the agreement of all the bishops, then it is not infallible. Such was the case with Vatican II.)

I think perhaps you misinterpret our concern for the souls caught up in the errors of Vatican II and other errors prevalent in the modern Church as pessimism. Incalculable numbers of souls will be lost, as have already been lost; we must never loose sight of the fact that our job here on earth is to get ourselves to heaven as well as helping others get to heaven. I think that this is the reason all of us are here arguing in this forum, Traditional and Novus Ordo alike. And maybe the protestants that show up, too? I can’t look into everyones’ hearts to see, but I know that’s why I’m here.

The other thing is that power corrupts people; clergy not exempted. One rotten apple can spoil the whole barrel. I am worried that not enough attention has been paid to keeping the bishops and cardinals in line. The pope is in such ill health that I don't see how much more he could have done recently, but he hasn't always been this sick; he's had a good 24 years to do his work; and in those 24 years the bishops (at least those in the US) have by-and-large run wild, doing whatever they please. If the bishops were really doing their jobs, why would the pope be drafting a disciplinary letter to them, as he has done before, and as the next pope will probably have to do, too?

No, this is not the first time there have been problems within the Church. But in times past, those who kept their wits about them and made an uproar about the problems were those who were instrumental in finally getting the problems fixed.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.

"(But if an Ecumenical council fails to have the agreement of all the bishops, then it is not infallible. Such was the case with Vatican II.) "

A: Nonsense! There is no requirement that the proclamations of a Council must be unanimous. If that were the case, we would have virtually no binding doctrines or disciplines at all! The Council produces a proclamation, formulated after input from various bishops, presenting differing views of the matter in question, and subsequent discussion/debate/discernment. It is totally unrealistic to expect that the various bishops who have presented their differing opinions will suddenly all adopt a single position. All that is necessary is that the Council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, formulate a statement based upon the collective input received, and that statement be approved by the Pope. The Pope can also make infallible pronouncements without any input from the bishops at all. Therefore, the question of dissenting opinions is completely irrelevant to the matter of infallibility.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 14, 2003.

For those who read occasionally and those who may be newcomers:

Anyone who states that the teachings of Vatican II were not valid DO NOT represent the Roman Catholic Church. They are a fringe group. Calling themselves traditional catholics is misleading.

They are not an orthodox group, but rather a splinter group.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 14, 2003.

Shalom Psyche +AMDG+,

We have a Scriptural study on Vatican II called “Vatican II in light of Fatima and La Salette”, but we do not recall any of your comments showing us why we should not believe in this council and our Church. Perhaps you overlooked this piece; it’s lower down on this page. We would really appreciate some proof to show that what we see with the Scripture is not valid.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 15, 2003.

John Placette wrote: “For those who read occasionally and those who may be newcomers: Anyone who states that the teachings of Vatican II were not valid DO NOT represent the Roman Catholic Church. They are a fringe group. Calling themselves traditional catholics is misleading. They are not an orthodox group, but rather a splinter group.”

Prove your statements, John, or retract them.

I, and many other Catholics I know, have done hours, days, and weeks worth of research for church documents and teachings which support my (our) findings concerning the non-binding nature of Vatican II and all it’s proponents, teachings, and extensions. Please have the respect to at least produce some documentable evidence to support your claims, particularly that I (we) am not Catholic.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 16, 2003.

Paul wrote: “ . . . and that statement be approved by the Pope.”

Not just “approved”, Paul, though you may have meant more than that; it must be formally ratified. The pope as a man can approve whatever he wants and it gives what he approves no greater weight than the approval of a wise and learned man; but when he formally ratifies it ex cathedra, then and only then does it become infallible.

“. . . nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility [required]. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value.” – the Catholic Encyclopedia, on Infallibility

“Objective authoritative teaching” meaning, of course, infallible teachings.

Whatever an ecumenical council decides must be either 1) absolutely unanimous throughout the bishops of the Church (which apparently hasn’t happened since the 9th century) or 2) formally ratified by the pope, which amounts to essentially the same thing as the pope speaking ex cathedra.

So, either we have either the pope formally declaring infallible dogmas or doctrines which the council came up with, or the pope formally declaring infallible dogmas or doctrines which he himself or another group came up with. In the absence of unanimity, the pope is required to ratify teachings formally (speak ex cathedra) before they bear the weight of infallibility.

Therefore, what I said before still stands as true: If an ecumenical council fails to have the agreement of all the bishops, then it is not infallible. Such was the case with Vatican II.

What Vatican II lacked for producing infallible teachings was either 1) unanimity or 2) it’s teachings spoken ex cathedra by the pope.

This article, an in-depth explanation of infallibility, both ecumenical and papal, might be useful to you: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 16, 2003.

Shalom, C & C wrote: “We have a Scriptural study on Vatican II called “Vatican II in light of Fatima and La Salette”, but we do not recall any of your comments showing us why we should not believe in this council and our Church. Perhaps you overlooked this piece; it’s lower down on this page. We would really appreciate some proof to show that what we see with the Scripture is not valid.”

C&C, it seems that in your statement to me you rely solely on Scripture to give support to your beliefs. I hope this is not correct.

Be that as it may, here are a few things which show that belief in the teachings of Vatican II is not required (I will be repeating some of what I wrote to Paul in this thread):

The pope as a man can approve whatever he wants and it gives what he approves no greater weight than the approval of a wise and learned man; but when he formally ratifies it ex cathedra, then and only then does it become infallible. The same goes for a council; any council: unless there is complete unanimity including agreement of the pope, the teachings of a council carry no great weight. Only when the pope takes the teachings of a non-unanimous council and pronounces them ex cathedra, thereby making them infallible, must they be believed.

“. . . nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility [required]. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value.” – the Catholic Encyclopedia, on Infallibility

“Objective authoritative teaching” meaning, of course, infallible teachings.

Whatever an ecumenical council decides must be either 1) absolutely unanimous throughout the bishops of the Church (which apparently hasn’t happened since the 9th century) or 2) formally ratified by the pope, which amounts to essentially the same thing as the pope speaking ex cathedra.

So, either we have either the pope formally declaring infallible dogmas or doctrines which the council came up with, or the pope formally declaring infallible dogmas or doctrines which he himself or another group came up with. In the absence of unanimity, the pope is required to ratify teachings formally (speak ex cathedra) before they bear the weight of infallibility.

Therefore, if an Ecumenical council fails to have the agreement of all the bishops, then it is not infallible. Such was the case with Vatican II.

What Vatican II lacked was either 1) unanimity or 2) it’s teachings spoken ex cathedra by the pope.

Without either of those qualifications, the council has only the weight of non-binding, fallible teachings, which must be scrutinized by every Catholic before decision to obey those teachings take place. For example, the pope recently added new mysteries to the Rosary, the Luminous mysteries I believe they are called. I choose to not accept these new mysteries as part of the Rosary. This is a non-binding, fallible thing which the pope has done, which every Catholic has the right to have an individual opinion on. (This article, an in-depth explanation of infallibility, both ecumenical and papal, might be useful to you: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

Likewise, every Catholic has the right to have an individual opinion on all non-binding, fallible teachings of any council, pope, bishop, priest, or lay person, except when those teachings directly contradict prior infallible (and thereby irreversible) teachings of Holy Mother Church.

Some – not all – of the teachings of Vatican II contradicted prior infallible, irreversible teachings of Holy Mother Church. Example: in the Vatican II documents which concern ecumenism between religions, it is taught that people can find salvation through other religions and belief systems than only the Catholic Church. This is a direct contradiction of the infallible Church teaching “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus,” “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” (for many resources and quotes supporting this teaching, go to http://www.romancatholicism.org/nosalvat.html)

Since at least one of Vatican II’s teachings is false, then all of its teachings must be suspect. This is why we should not blindly believe the teachings of Vatican II.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 16, 2003.

For anyone thinking of responding to Psyche, these exact same things were discussed on This thread.

Reading the answers there will save them from being repeated ad nauseum.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 16, 2003.

Do you not want to hear what I have to say, Frank?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 16, 2003.

No one in his right mind would "want to hear what" a fallen-away deceiver like you has to say, Pisces. Your words are 100% proof B.S..

Sincerely yours,

B.S.D. (the Bull-Spit Detector)

-- (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 16, 2003.

Make that 200% proof B.S..

B.S.D.

-- (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 16, 2003.

(Exhaustion is a tough thing. One last time:)

Make that 200 proof B.S..

B.S.D.

-- (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 16, 2003.

Get some sleep, John.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 16, 2003.

Psyche,

There's no point in cut & pasting everything from that thread to this one. Just keep posting over there if you want to repeat the same thing again.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 16, 2003.

*turning the other cheek to jake and B.S.D*

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 17, 2003.

*shrug*

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 17, 2003.

It seems that the Pisces types have at least twice mentioned around here that Cardinal Arinze supposedly hinted that all priests worldwide would soon be given permission to celebrate the Latin "Tridentine Rite" of the Mass, whenever and wherever they wish. I "detected" that this was B.S..

I just saw the lengthy interview of the good Cardinal on EWTN and confirmed that my "detection" was on the money. He said that some reporter had completely misunderstood him. What he had actually said to that reporter was that all priests should be reminded that they have the right to celebrate the 1970 Mass rite fully or partly in Latin. He recommends that each parish that has several weekend Masses have one that is fully in Latin -- and that all parishioners learn to (sometimes) sing the chants in Greek (Kyrie) and Latin (Gloria, etc.) even in otherwise vernacular Masses. He also said that the Mass rite approved by Pope Paul VI "is here to stay." And that's no B.S.!

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 17, 2003.

"It seems that the Pisces types have at least twice mentioned around here that Cardinal Arinze supposedly hinted that all priests worldwide would soon be given permission to celebrate the Latin "Tridentine Rite" of the Mass, whenever and wherever they wish. I "detected" that this was B.S.."

Do I detect something in the detector?

Pisces types... what do you mean by this? Because if you go ask the new agers, they'll tell you that we are moving out of the age of Pisces and into Aquarius at this time. The Pisces is generally used to depict, well, something Traditional, like some of us.

Trads like us all reject such things related new age and what's generically known as the spirit of the age.

Is this what you mean, or something else? If so, did you just blow it or is there a simpler explanation?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 17, 2003.

Here's exactly what I mean, from enemy new age guru Benjamin Creme, quoted:

"Each age confers on humanity a specific quality of achievement. Pisces, the age now at an end, has given to men the divine achievement of Individuality, together with the qualities of Devotion and Idealism. These are mighty advances in the long journey of evolution and have prepared mankind for the blessings of Aquarius.

The new age, Aquarius, has, too, its intrinsic quality — Synthesis — and in this coming time will, indeed, cause this divine attribute to manifest its beneficent Unity throughout the world. This present time of turmoil, division and separation will gradually give way to an era in which the ever-increasing forces of Aquarius will perform their magic, blending and knitting together the disparate, unruly, parts. Thus will men undergo an extraordinary transformation, greater and faster than ever before in their long history.

For this to happen, men must respond correctly to the incoming energies, recreating the world’s structures in such a way that they present no barrier to the synthesising forces of Aquarius.

Hierarchy, physically present among men, will lend all Their experience and knowledge to this end. Thus will it be, and thus will men renew their ascent towards their God-given destiny, demonstrating in all its glory their unity with God and with all men...

...Guided and helped by Hierarchy, men will soon realize the benefit of change, and trust the wisdom of their Elder Brothers to see them safely through the period of transition."

Now obviously that's some real bull above. I put this as far from me as the north is from the south, but I keep it in the corner of my eye because it carries the context of something larger which is the real enemy of the faith... which are the ways of the world, the world, flesh & the devil; the spirit of the age.

This stuff is poison to the Faith, poison to the soul. Are we partaking in this poison?

Also, note the word Synthesis and how it's used above. Remember what the watchword was, a.k.a. The Process.

There comes a time for honesty, a time for clarity and humility, and above all, Faith, and a time for the Blessed Mother. Now's as good a time as any; maybe there really is safety and truth and honesty in the simplicity of traditional Catholicism. It's elite only because it's God's.

So I hope that's not detector's intended derivitive of that term; thank God if I'm wrong.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 17, 2003.

italics off.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 17, 2003.

Pisces types... what do you mean by this?

What a waste of time, going down that blind alley (new ages, and so forth)!

My term "Pisces types" came from "massaging" a nickname -- a reference to the poor folks identified as "Psyche" and that troubled one's co-religionists. THEY are the ones who foolishly got all excited about the Arinze rumors over the past month or so. And that's no B.S..

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 17, 2003.

Actually it's not a waste of time or blind, because that's the direction from which much of the attacks upon the Catholic Faith come from.

You made specific reference to Pisces types:

"It seems that the Pisces types have at least twice mentioned around here..."

I think it's a fair question; glad you answered in the negative.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 17, 2003.

THEY are the ones who foolishly got all excited about the Arinze rumors over the past month or so.

Arinze's solid reputation as a rabid Pentecostalist is enough for any Traditionalist to be more than sure that anything coming out of his mouth is a lie. Rome likes to throw stupid rumors in order to attempt to divide Traditional Catholics. They dangle the occasional carrot, but they're invariably left scratching their red caps wondering why no one seems to want to bite. It's because what they offer is poison.

It's sort of like this recent pathetic story. The intent is to get Traditional Catholics to drool; to say "Hey, that's great! Well, I guess there's no reason for me to keep going to my SSPX chapel anymore. Cardinal George is coming around!"

Because Traditional Catholics know His Eminence's track record, they will not be lured by another obvious Trojan horse. If a man would lend his impramatur to this filth, he's obviously devoid of any real intent to do what's right for the Church.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), October 17, 2003.

If people don't see the esoteric, new age spirit of the world in that last link of jake's, the one titled "this filth", and is it ever, then they just don't see. This is the world, the flesh and the devil with an emphasis on the latter.

This isn't an isolated case.

This is pandemic, and it's Satanic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 18, 2003.

If a man would lend his imprimatur to this filth, he's obviously devoid of any real intent to do what's right for the Church.

This cannot quite be "detected" as B.S. because it starts with the crucial word, "If." (However, the veiled attempt to smear Cardinal George, as though he approves of homosexual activity, is indeed B.S..)

The good Cardinal has made it clear that the only thing he supports is pastoral aid to people with homo-attraction IF they are willing to live chastely, according to the Church's teachings. He is aware of this AGLO group, but, given the immense task of shepherding such a huge archdiocese, probably knew nothing of the linked weirdness (retreat, or whatever it is). That's why the word "If" was proper. If those people were doing bad things at that "retreat," you can be sure that Cardinal George would condemn and denounce it, not give his "imprimatur" to it.

Arinze's solid reputation as a rabid Pentecostalist is enough for any Traditionalist to be more than sure that anything coming out of his mouth is a lie.

I'm "detecting" ... Yep. That's B.S., all right.

Correcting B.S. numero 1: Cardinal Arinze (not just "Arinze") is not a "rabid Pentecostalist."

Correcting B.S. numero 2: Cardinal Arinze is a Traditionalist, because he respects, follows, and teaches the Catholic Church's Tradition (unlike the B.S.-er being corrected).

Correcting B.S. numero 3: I have listened to many hours of Cardinal Arinze talking, especially teaching the Catholic faith. Never even once has he "lied." In fact, he is such a great man (friendly, brilliant, able to communicate the Catholic truth, etc.) that I hope he becomes the next pope. And that ain't B.S.!

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 18, 2003.

Correcting B.S. numero 1: Cardinal Arinze (not just "Arinze") is not a "rabid Pentecostalist."

Haha.

Correcting B.S. numero 2: Cardinal Arinze is a Traditionalist, because he respects, follows, and teaches the Catholic Church's Tradition

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Correcting B.S. numero 3: I have listened to many hours of Cardinal Arinze talking

That much is apparent.

he is such a great man (friendly, brilliant, able to communicate the Catholic truth, etc.) that I hope he becomes the next pope.

May God forbid.

This is priceless. Someone who will not recognize my presence on this forum (I'm hurt. Really.) has sidestepped that pompous little declaration by *poof* inventing a new identity who seems to agree with him, something at which, as I understand, he is adept. "Hey! It's not me talking to you, it's my alter ego!"

Smells a lot like....

Nevermind.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 18, 2003.

Less that one in a hundred persons who regard themselves as Catholics are even aware that the Church as they knew it before Vatican II still exists, alive and well, utterly unchanged, and if anything, healthier (albeit much smaller) than it has been in centuries. Out of that "less than one in a hundred," less than one in ten of those realize that it is their absolute right, indeed their duty as faithful Catholics, to attend, support, and receive their sacraments from those still as yet very few traditional priests who function largely as if Vatican II and all of the chaos which followed it just never happened.

-- (9999@444.com), October 18, 2003.

Checking over at that other thread, I read something that seemed unbelievable. "Whatever direction a council wants to take, is binding". That is preposterous. especially from a non-dogmatic council. Vatican two was so vague, that it could be taken several ways. Deliberate? I think so.

-- (9999@444.com), October 18, 2003.

Cardinal Arinze is such a great man (friendly, brilliant, able to communicate the Catholic truth, etc.) that I hope he becomes the next pope.

No B.S. there, but forgot to mention the most important thing about him. He is a holy, prayerful man. Seems unlikely, though, that he will be elected pope, since he is over 70. May live ten or more years more, though, so the next pope should allow him to continue in his current role.

That is preposterous. especially from a non-dogmatic council. Vatican two was so vague, that it could be taken several ways. Deliberate? I think so.

Big-time B.S. detected there, boy! Council was not "vague," but easily understood by those who were properly evangelized and had a true Catholic faith. For the ignorant and to those lacking faith, all of the Church's teachings of all time (including Vatican II's teachings) have been made crystal clear through the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it and learn, Ivory Soaper.

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 18, 2003.

B.S.D.,

I detect big time BS -I can only assume you have not read the documents of Vatican II? Vague is an understatement!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 18, 2003.

9999,

"Whatever direction a council wants to take, is binding". That is preposterous. especially from a non-dogmatic council.

It was shown on the other thread that this council IS binding. Rather than continue with the schismatics' unsupported assertions, show from a legitimate source where an ecumenical church council's decisions are NOT binding, and I will listen. Otherwise, I'll count you as one of the lost who doesn't want the to follow the truth.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 18, 2003.

"Ivory Soaper"

I didn't pick up on that one. So to speak.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 18, 2003.

I get it, but I'm not going to pick it up.

Just substitute any lowbrow attempt at mokery from the Novus Ordo lexicon. It's a short book.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), October 18, 2003.

"Ivory Soaper" I didn't pick up on that one.

Comment was directed to "9999@444.com". For over 100 years, Ivory Soap's slogan has been "99 and 44/100% pure."

This may or may not have been what the Prince of Lowbrows ("jake the mistake") had in mind when he posted his 199.44% useless comment.

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 19, 2003.

ok, I get it now. I was figuring if someone was dropping something, I wouldn't be caught dead reaching down to pick it up.

Alright then, so there's an analogy there. What if I hear that the Ivory Soap Company, in it's tenuous financial condition, with languishing sales and obsolete products, is being bought out by Irish Springtime. Workers in the Ivory company have been sent into early retirement to make way for younger executives with trendy new ideas and big plans for expansion. The Irish Springtime company believes that Ivory's flagship product can be improved by working with the modern advances in soap technology. They believe that the old formula of purity can be improved with newer ingredients that appeal to the modern end user. They mean to appeal to a wider audience. If the soap isn't as pure, that won't matter they say, since the fresh scent will mask any impurities.

People buy it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 19, 2003.

Well, the above post shows how a poor example doesn't demonstrate anything, but not much else.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 19, 2003.

Lighten up Frank... geez. So you don't think it's funny. This proves that all traditionalists are heretics and schismatics, right?

This would be your best defense to date... lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 19, 2003.

("jake the mistake")

I told you it was a short book...

...With HUGE print...

...and lots of pictures.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 19, 2003.

Open This link in a new window, minimize it, and read the second half of this thread while listening to the music. By the time you get to the end, you'll either be smiling or you'll have put your fist through your monitor.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), October 19, 2003.

Irish water torture.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 19, 2003.

Shalom Psyche +AMDG+,

You wrote:

>>>C&C, it seems that in your statement to me you rely solely on Scripture to give support to your beliefs. I hope this is not correct. >>>

We do not rely solely on Scripture to support our beliefs; we accept everything upon the Holy See in every teaching she has, both fallible and infallible because she alone (and those she gives her authority to) have the right to loosen and bind. This does not mean we cannot question sometimes, especially those things not under her designation as “infallible”; however there is a right and wrong way to approach her on this. We can ask, request, or even to a certain point plead, but never should we tell, demand or speak as if we have any authority; and we should speak our words as sweet as possible because we never know when we might have to eat them.

Further you stated:

>>>Some – not all – of the teachings of Vatican II contradicted prior infallible, irreversible teachings of Holy Mother Church. Example: in the Vatican II documents, which concern ecumenism between religions, it is taught that people can find salvation through other religions and belief systems than only the Catholic Church. >>>

Perhaps, however the same can be said of that teaching Vatican II usurped, as its root is in the Bull of the Council of Florence and that council contradicted the teaching of First Jerusalem Council concerning the blood and unclean husbandry practices. Peter (and those whom Peter designates) has the right bind as well as LOOSEN, something no one else is granted. Therefore, even if the Ruach (Spirit) called the leaders in Vatican II to loosen those teaching from before, this doesn’t make this (in our understanding of the ecclesiastical law) illegal because Church is a living Church, growing and developing so she can fully meet her mission. What may have been needed while her children and her faith were young may no longer be needed after they matured. Thus one tells a toddler to stay away from the stove and knives, but a teen we teach to use these tools.

Yet we will agree they may have underestimated the maturity of some of her members who might fear such freedom. For example, you fear our studies in Scripture claiming just because we use this tool we “rely solely on Scripture to give support to your beliefs” when we were using that Scripture to DEFEND our Church’s teachings against those who reject her authority, under the claims you do not to bolster our own beliefs! Yet if one really accept the Holy See fully you will listen not only to their spiritual father who delivers those ex cathedra statements, but also our spiritual mother- His Church, His Cardinal, bishops, priests, etc…trunk, branch and twig, even if you do not fully agree with everything they say (as hard as it may be, even with failings). This is because knowledge is and will be imperfect until HE returns; yet unity is more important than knowledge as we are saved by faith.

And for us, we do not doubt Vatican II is indeed in prophecy because (as you stated) it does SEEM to overturn all, which we have built. Still that apostasy is older than Vatican II when all those structures you seem to need to depend on were strongly and firmly in place. It is no coincidence; then from what we’ve learned that apostasy was 60 years into attacking our church before the Shepherd (as Fatima II confirms as well) took into His hands the two staffs of “k6indness” and “pledges” that are the essence of Vatican II. Further, St. Hilary in 367 told us that after a great World War, skirmishes would soon redevelop (and haven’t they), then he adds:

"Before the Christian Churches are renovated and united, God will send the Eagle, who will travel to Rome and bring much happiness and good. The Holy Man will bring peace between the clergy and the Eagle and his reign will last four years. Then after his death God will send three men who are rich in wisdom and virtue. These men will administer the laws of the Holy Man and spread Christianity everywhere. Then there will be one Flock, one Faith, one Law, one Life, and one Baptism throughout the World.”

The Eagle our studies can show is the Spirit of Bride of Christ and the last of the Four Living Creatures named in Rev.4.7, 8.13. This we believe is what traveled to Rome in 1960 proclaiming the call of the Shepherd: “penance, penance, penance,” from Fatima III. She/He stayed with His Church from 1962 to 1965 putting the Shepherd’s two staffs within the parameters of that council. Then came this eagle’s “death” because few if any listened to this council’s directives and condemned this as apostasy even then while other used its call for kindness as an excuse for lawlessness. So Yeshua sent us “three men who are rich in wisdom and virtue” we see: John Paul II (1978-) 110 De labore Solis (of the eclipse of the sun, or from the labour of the sun), Petrus Romanus, Peter the Roman, and Gloria olivae (Glory of the olives) {Malacy}. It was and is and will be their mission to unite the flock to “one Flock, one Faith, one Law, one Life, and one Baptism throughout the World” by administering the laws of that Holy Man who was in our eyes Yeshua Himself, THE SHEPHERD of Zech.11 gave us the law mercy and unity found in the texts of Vatican II!

Yet we believed in this council and we have been active in the administration of its aims in a small way for several years. This was long before we read the Fatima vision (just last May) and saw it there, long before we came upon Zech.11’s deeper meaning and saw it within that text (and connected that council to Is.28) as well as long before we ever saw St. Hilary’s (367) amazing prophecy, which we actually found just this Wednesday. We accepted this back then because Peter proclaimed this and we trusted in promise of Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus the Messiah) even if we, like you, do not understand everything, and we have not been disappointed.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 20, 2003.

C&C,

I have not studied the prophecies much and so I am not qualified to discuss them.

You wrote: “We can ask, request, or even to a certain point plead, but never should we tell, demand or speak as if we have any authority; and we should speak our words as sweet as possible because we never know when we might have to eat them.”

Every Catholic should demand that Rome do the right thing, not “what we think” is the right thing, but what 2000 years of Church teaching has shown to be the right thing. Some of us have so demanded. Rome has continued teaching things which are contrary to the previous 2000 years’ teachings. So, we Traditional Catholics do what we must do to be sure we receive the Sacraments instead of an invalid mockery of the Sacraments.

You wrote: “You fear our studies in Scripture”

Don’t be ridiculous.

You wrote: “unity is more important than knowledge as we are saved by faith.”

Incorrect. We are not saved by faith alone but also by works. Those fence-sitters who disagree with Vatican II but refuse to do anything about it out of a misconception of Catholic unity are not doing the works which are required of them. Traditional Catholics who run, not walk, run away from sacraments of unknown validity, and find a place where they can receive the sacraments confident that they are valid, are doing their required works, as well as having the Faith.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 20, 2003.

In 1458, Pius II came to the Throne, himself indoctrinated with the "Conciliarist" attitude. However, once seated on the Papal Throne, he realized the evil of appealing to a future Council whether for the expressed or secret purpose of overturning Church Tradition and the Deposit of Faith. So serious had matters worsened that by 1460 Pius II felt impelled to issue his now-famous Bulla, Execrabilis, on February 15th of that year, outlawing this harmful maneuver and binding it with two of the severest punishments the Church may inflict. No future council, may undo a Dogmatic council.

-- Lane Wilson (Lane ab.@yahoo.com), October 20, 2003.

To add my 2 cents worth.

Second Vatican Council The last of the Ecumenical Councils was, indeed, the most controversial for the ambiguous language of the documents opened a Pandora's Box to allow Church leaders and others to interpret dogma and doctrine in a Protestant light with an emphasis on humanism, ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality in an effort to conform to the modern world rather than the world adhering to what the Church had always taught. This year we commemorate the 40th anniversary of this council convened by Pope John XXIII on October 11, 1962 and, despite the latter's pleas to "Stop the Council!", it was carried on by his successor Paul VI for three more years, closing on December 8, 1965 and unleashing, by Paul's own admission, the "Smoke of satan into the sanctuary." Since then errors have spread universally and the Church has been in turmoil. For an overview to the documents see FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL

-- Soapy (9999.@444.com), October 20, 2003.

To add my 2 cents worth ...

Ivory Soaper, I can assure you that your paragraph of easily "detected" B.S. is not even worth "2 cents."

Your comments ain't worth the powder it would take to blow them back to hell (their fatherland). Ditto for the droolings and doodlings of Shady Lane, Psuche, Jacko, Emmett Kelly, and other assorted wannabe-Catholic loons.

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector) (B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector)), October 20, 2003.

Hey, John:

Point your detector at this.

Detect anything?

Nah. Didn't think so.

Carry on.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 20, 2003.

Shalom Psyche+AMDG+,

You had mentioned:

>>>I have not studied the prophecies much and so I am not qualified to discuss them. >>>

Yet, these prophecies are vital to the issue at hand. In fact, Yeshua (Jesus) warned us to watch for the times and the seasons lest we get too comfortable with our sins and miss the signs of His return. Yet for Catholics who accept the Holy See FULLY, these can let her do the watching. Yet if you do read Scripture and accept ALL her teachings, then how will see the coming of the end?

>>>You wrote: “We can ask, request, or even to a certain point plead, but never should we tell, demand or speak as if we have any authority; and we should speak our words as sweet as possible because we never know when we might have to eat them.”

>>>Every Catholic should demand that Rome do the right thing, not “what we think” is the right thing, but what 2000 years of Church teaching has shown to be the right thing. Some of us have so demanded. Rome has continued teaching things, which are contrary to the previous 2000 years’ teachings. So, we Traditional Catholics do what we must do to be sure we receive the Sacraments instead of an invalid mockery of the Sacraments. >>>

The words we gave you came from a dream in response to a prayer to Yeshua and our Blessed Mother and we feel those words were for you, but it would not stop your error in judgment. Also please explain to us, whether by Scripture, tradition or even prophecy do we get a license as Catholics to “demand that Rome do the right thing” or the authority to define “what 2000 years of Church teaching has shown to be the right thing”? The authority is our L-rd’s and He gave His word for Peter to have His authority, even if errors exist (see Matt.23 for a previous history).

>>>You wrote: “You fear our studies in Scripture”

>>>Don’t be ridiculous.

If you do not fear them, then why do you refuse to read them or even try to refute them by proof? By such actions, you resemble Protestants that we encountered who claim “Sola Scriptura”; yet when we challenge their claims against our Eucharist with a Scriptural defense, they either refuse to read it or try to nullify the Gospel of John.

In the same way, we see your actions like theirs because we see that you quote Church teachings constantly, yet these teachings are no more complex than the Scriptures and prophecies we use to challenge these false claims with.

>>>You wrote: “unity is more important than knowledge as we are saved by faith.”

Incorrect. We are not saved by faith alone but also by works. Those fence-sitters who disagree with Vatican II but refuse to do anything about it out of a misconception of Catholic unity are not doing the works which are required of them. >>>

We did not write we are save by faith alone as our own words show, but rather we are saved by faith initially and the Sacraments follow this acceptance of faith like the Beatitudes teach. Also we are anything but “fence-sitters who disagree with Vatican II but refuse to do anything about it out of a misconception of Catholic unity”. To begin with, we ACCEPT Vatican II and defend this as our studies into Scriptures and prophecy would show if you had bothered to read these. We also have not been silent on the issue of Fatima and La Salette nor do we advocate such actions. We do not believe that Catholics are to be mindless robots by any means, all we have been saying and we stand by this, is that there is a right and a wrong way to speak to leadership if you disagree on something they are doing (see Gal.6 for details) as our leadership has the last word.

>>>Traditional Catholics who run, not walk, run away from sacraments of unknown validity, and find a place where they can receive the sacraments confident that they are valid, are doing their required works, as well as having the Faith. >>>

In 1999 here in the US hundreds of people ran away from modern technology into homemade bunkers out in the American wilderness and gathered firearms because they feared the chaos of what was then termed then as the Y2K fiasco. We know today these overreacted a bit, however they may also have been fulfilling prophecy about judgment coming upon a sinful nation founded by G-d:

“…you shall flee when no one pursues you..”

Yet ironically later in that prophecy, if that nation does not repent but continues in their sins despite G-d’s chastisement, eventually an enemy will come down upon them, killing them and taking them ultimately into captivity, Lev.26.23-39. So why is it evil to flee when no one pursues according to that Scripture? Could it be that by doing so these inadvertently may cause the death of others who took their word as true only to find this false and so when the true watchman comes proclaiming the coming doom, they ignore this watchman to their own destruction?

And how different are you “traditionalists” to these? You make claims you seem unwilling to prove and ignore anything others give you that might expose your weaknesses. You speak with arrogance and pride and chide any call to simple humility, claiming these are censoring them when all we are trying to do achieve is greater civility is this discussion.

How many people who have followed rhetoric such as yours (like the Y2K, it was discovered to be false, “a boy crying wolf”) will walk not only away from your movement, but also away from our Church? And even if they stay, how likely will they listen to the call of the two witnesses and the “no-prophet” when they come, or will they instead follow the lies of the false prophet? For the word states clearly:

“For false Christ and false prophets will arise and show great sings and wonders, so as to lead astray even the elect.”

It will not be in isolation, not in the inner room, but out in the open, from the east shall that Light come, where the body gathers; in Rome is what see as the Third Vatican Council (for three is complete), Matt.24.24-28, and there too will our enemies gathered as well.

Further, satan is a great counterfeit, creating three false shepherds: The antichrist, the false-prophet, and the dragon, to challenged G-d’s three true shepherds: Zerub’babel (Petros Romanous/Eli), Y’hoshua (Glorious Olivia/Enoch) and the “no- prophet”. From the different pieces of study we have done, we suspect the reason the righteous three will die is because satan’s lies will lead people to believe they are the false ones, so the people will seek to murder Yeshua’s (Jesus’) righteous. He will also create his own “ecumenical movement” called “the one world religion” to undermine the true movement begun though Vatican II. There are also two times we perceive that great armies will march upon Israel, Rev.9.13-19, and Rev.16.12-16 so that when everyone screams “Armageddon” when it’s not, people will ignore Armageddon when it is.

Indeed Oslo was a seven-year treaty and that didn’t lead to Armageddon, thus Daniel’s seven-year treaty is false- right? We do not believe so, which is why we believe our Blessed Mother called Vatican II a “mountain”, for it is an obstacle that we must scale with slow deliberate steps leading to a “cross” that is awaiting us when we reach the top.

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 21, 2003.

Shalom Jake,

Our nine-year-old son had the following dream last night which seems to figure into this conversation:

>>We were sent to a high-rise building and were commanded that we turn this into a church. Its roof was gone and on every floor we were told someone was close to death. Indeed, on the second floor the people had run completely out of food. Once there the L-rd assigned each of us a different job- Christopher (the Christ-Bearer) did the bathroom (Reconciliation and Baptism/Chrism); Matthew (Gift of G-d) did the steeple; Elisabeth (oath of G-d, promise) tested things; and Cheryl (Grace of G-d) made the pews. Mom and dad did the rest with us while Father Edward Muerder was to be priest. <<

We believe that high-rise building was the state of the Christian faith in the west during the middle of the twentieth century (as St. Nilus and Our Lady at La Salette both affirm) for we over the first fifty years had built for ourselves the tower of Babel again. Few people saw (except that righteous "eagle") that there were people dying both in our faith and just outside in the Protestant and Jewish faiths, and the only one who could bring healing was the Holy Roman Catholic Church. So Yeshua sent our Church into that city of secularism to that building that was once erected for His glory to make repairs.

Unfortunately, too many here have looked at the terrible state of that building and turned their backs going back to the comfort of their own congregations. Others look at that building in disgust and simply walk away from not only from Vatican II, but also from our faith as a whole.

Yet those that bear Christ came, and by their simple childlike examples they led these people to seek forgiveness for their sins and renew their baptismal promises. The gift of G-d we see in those Protestants who were skilled in Scriptural exegeses who came and joined our Church; they along with those Jesuits whose faith in Catholicism is so strong came together and they used Scripture to defend their Church, thus reaching into the heavens with their gift (Is.28.12). The Oath of G-d, we further see as Vatican II in context with all the teachings before her because this is the measure stick we must use to ensure we do not wander, even as we seek to heal. And the grace of G-d made the pews, and we have to wonder if these pews are in fact the word "pew", a sign of disgust or displeasure. If so, why would grace build this? We suspect this is that cross, the reaction we would receive for our good works because what we are doing is for Christ and as the world rejected Him, so too shall the world reject us. Yet the Beatitudes teach us this is not evil, but good, for "blessed are they who are persecuted for righteous' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". And of course the pebbles, the little guys will do "all the rest", though exactly what "all the rest" is, we are not sure. Finally a priest, Father Edward Muerder will oversee all. Edward means "appointed to protect"/"guardian of happiness" and we suspect Muerder may mean mother in German (please correct us if wrong), and this seems to suggest our Mother Church.

Therefore, we suspect the real problem with that prayer meeting Jake linked is that too many only see that broken down tenement with nice bathrooms, ignoring the fact that many of those at that meeting may be tasting real "food" (the Spiritual kind?) for the first time. Yet to take these children whom have been accustomed to a more deprived situation into our fine spiritual homes and full of delicate items with high levels of sophistication just isn't being reasonable. This why we were told in the New Covenant:

"No longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the L-rd,' for they shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the L-rd; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more." Jer.31.34

And Yeshua told us that the least and the greatest are:

"Whoever the relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt.5.19

So you Rad Trads may be considered "great" in the kingdom because you keep His laws and teach others to do so, but this does make those who do not as being evil, just "least" in the SAME KINGDOM. And being so "great" has its risks as well, for once the scribes and Pharisees were equally great, yet they were served our Moshiach's rage:

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done without neglecting the others." Matt.23.23-24

The words "For you tithe mint and dill and cumin" could be modernized to "For you tithe Latin Mass, male Eucharistic ministers and boys only as altar servers, but you "neglected the weightier matters of law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done without neglecting the others." We suspect the application is this value in your more traditional mass is not bad in and of itself, but your pride is. This is because even in their sins these of least are still completely forgiven and He no longer remembers how they fall short, so why do you? Besides, we are not to hinder the little ones coming to Him, and we suspect these little ones are not limited to physical children, but also spiritual children. For He also said:

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of My Father who is in heaven. What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of My father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." Matt.18.10-14

Neither is it the will of His Holy Roman Catholic Church!

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 21, 2003.

"Peter (and those whom Peter designates) has the right bind as well as LOOSEN, something no one else is granted."

Could you provide an example of things which might be loosened, and venture a guess at what the stategy might be, and the desired results? In other words, what would be the objective of a loosening? You capitalized "loosen", which led me to ask.

The "Church is a living Church, growing and developing so she can fully meet her mission."

In the context you intended above, can you identify in greater exactness what Her mission would be in your understanding? How and when would fullness be attained? In practical terms, how would we identify fullness such that we could say "we're here" or "we have a ways to go"?

Now this question is bizarre, so bear with me here, o.k.? I might be way, way off on a tangent, but let me ask anyways:

"She/He stayed with His Church from 1962 to 1965 putting the Shepherd’s two staffs within the parameters of that council. Then came this eagle’s “death” because few if any listened to this council’s directives and condemned this as apostasy even then while other used its call for kindness as an excuse for lawlessness."

What are the two staffs, specifically?

"Yet we believed in this council and we have been active in the administration of its aims in a small way for several years."

Can you isolate in your own words exactly what you would identify as the aims of the council of Vatican II, and in which specific ways you have been active in it's administration? Just a couple examples if that's ok.

"Yet if you do read Scripture and accept ALL her teachings, then how will see the coming of the end?"

Like a thief in the night; no question here.

"To begin with, we ACCEPT Vatican II and defend this as our studies into Scriptures and prophecy..."

Can you identify what exactly is it that you accept? Is it a doctrine or is it a strategy... what is it that you accept? I'm asking, can you state what's accepted with precision, and the nature of the thing accepted?

Regarding speculations involving Y2K and it's relation to this:

“…you shall flee when no one pursues you..”

Wouldn't it make more sense that this quote would be more properly adapted to describing a person guilty before God who, knowing his guilt, is constantly aware that he's a "wanted man" so to speak? St. Don Bosco makes a similiar comparison in his description of the guilty soul's flight into damnation in one of his dream-visions.

"And how different are you “traditionalists” to these? You make claims you seem unwilling to prove and ignore anything others give you that might expose your weaknesses. You speak with arrogance and pride and chide any call to simple humility, claiming these are censoring them when all we are trying to do achieve is greater civility is this discussion."

This conflicts with all my observations. I could be wrong, but it seems to me just the opposite. What can I say? I just... don't see this; I see it's flipside opposite.

"How many people who have followed rhetoric such as yours (like the Y2K, it was discovered to be false, “a boy crying wolf”) will walk not only away from your movement, but also away from our Church?"

Interesting you should mention that particular parallel, because I always thought that that made for a good illustration. But here's the way it really works; listen to this. The Divider seeks to introduce compromise and cause the division. The non-compromiser allows this to take place. In the dividing Process, the lesser part will take the more difficult course, which is that of non- compromise. The divider then returns to divide this lesser portion seeking further division. He infiltrates again, and divides the divisions with an intent to eclipse anything of a safe-haven from compromise. Everywhere to run and no-where to hide is the objective. He continues to do this time and again, until even the smallest percentages of the dregs are gathered up and divided again.

It is an unholy mockery of the multiplication of the loaves. There seems nowhere for one to turn... either they embrace the ever- encroaching compromisers, or they turn to face a precipice and contemplate jumping off of standing ground. In this sense, the quest stands on the edge of a knife.

But then the woman clothed with the sun steps into the picture and crushes the head of The Divider.

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

Remember what I said about the document not being worth the paper it was printed on?

I love being right.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 24, 2003.

Shalom Emerald,

You asked if we could provide an example of Peter’s loosening and binding and the answer we believe is yes. In the First Jerusalem Council Pope St. Peter declared the following:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from the blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.” Acts.15.28-29

Our Church teaches that this was because those early Jews joining our Church felt it was sinful to consume the blood or eat pagan offerings. Further, St. Paul explains that by getting this food from a pagan temple or doing a pagan practice one might be led astray. Yet, years later in the Council of Florence, this above law was loosened because as our Church said:

“It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practicing the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.” (Council of Florence, section 11, Bull of union with the Copts)

So once our Church had taught her Jewish believers true faith and that a Gentile consuming something prohibited by Torah was kosher (proper) because mercy oversees ALL other laws. Still we believe she left open the door for Jews and Catholics (like during Lent) to abstain from certain foods, yet this could no longer be because this made anyone better but rather: “…for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline…”.

You also asked: >>> In other words, what would be the objective of a loosening? >>>

The objective is same as that of a parent for loosening laws of their children as they grow. Just as children who were once warned never to touch a stove will one day be taught to use this in every way, and so the early church demanded all the new believers, whether Jewish or not, to keep the law of the blood, only to lift this demand as we mature in the understanding of mercy. This is also what we meant by our words: The "Church is a living Church, growing and developing so she can fully meet her mission."

>>>In the context you intended above, can you identify in greater exactness what Her mission would be in your understanding? >>>

For two thousand years her sole mission was to spread the Good News unto all the earth to bring in through her testimony “the full number of the Gentiles”, Acts 1.7-8 and Rom.11.25. After all those Gentiles whose names where written into the Book of Life were saved by her Gospel, then in that same passage of Romans we are told “all Israel will be saved” and this is the answer as well to the disciples’ question in Acts when they asked, “L-rd, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1.6)

>>>How and when would fullness be attained? In practical terms, how would we identify fullness such that we could say "we're here" or "we have a ways to go"? >>>

Perhaps the old question of “how long is a piece of string” may be beneficial. The answer is twice as long as half its length. In other words, without reaching the very end to see the full measure, we can only what we do know. In this case, we do know He has not returned yet, therefore we cannot say, “we’re here”. But, exactly how long will this last leg of her mission be isn’t obvious, but it will be as long as He chooses. Perhaps, your words are very similar to those of our early Church leaders, in which Yeshua’s (Jesus’s) response was: “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by His own authority.” In other words (as we borrow from C.S. Lewis), it’s not your story. For now, go bring in that “full number”, which our Church has done for the last two thousand years, but now something changed in the twentieth century that is making it clear it’s time to make new motions. We believe she knew this in her heart for He promised:

“I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will not speak on His own authority but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you in the things that are to come.” Jn.16.12-13.

So the best answer we probably can give to when we can say "we're here" is when our Moshiach returns with His bride from the heaven, Cat.677, and that "we have a ways to go" because He hasn’t returned yet.

>>>Now this question is bizarre, so bear with me here, o.k? I might be way, way off on a tangent, but let me ask anyways>>>

The only dumb question our teachers use to teach is the one we are afraid to ask so don’t worry, be happy.

>>>What are the two staffs, specifically? >>>

These two staffs are named and vaguely described in Zech.11. We discussed this text in light of visions of our Holy Mother (which we believe helped us understand this text) as we perceive them at:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BNJR

Briefly, we will explain that at the beginning of this text we are told that the faith will fall into great sin, which your movement have perceived and feared, Zech.11.4-6. Traffickers in sheep were drawing our Church’s children away from her, thus causing their spiritual death. We believe (as we stated in our write-up above) that this was that sword spoken of the Third Fatima vision. Yet as the visions states, that light was G-d in His Son Yeshua and as the text of Zech.11.7 confirms, Yeshua did step in and save that flock from the slaughter and we believe He did this through Vatican II, in which we believe our Church took into her doctrine two staffs:

1. One was “Kindness”. That law of mercy which Florence used to loosen the law of the blood, is now used to declare that those not Catholic (including non-Christians) might be saved by the mercy of G- d. 2. The second staff was pledges, or unions where she said we should reconcile with our brothers in the Christian faith and with our brothers in Judah. In the second group, the Jews are actually named in that text in verse 14 as one of the products of those pledges, whereas the Christian faith we drew from the meaning we see in the Seven Assemblies of Rev.2-3.

Yet as the Holy Mother at Fatima said, if we understand her words correctly in this light, these two staffs were a mountain with cross at its top.

>>>Can you isolate in your own words exactly what you would identify as the aims of the council of Vatican II, and in which specific ways you have been active in it's administration? Just a couple examples if that's ok. >>>

We give two above from passages in Scripture that we believe defend certain council objectives, however we also saw one more in the texts from this council that call Roman Catholics to read their Scriptures; and it further explains to us how to be most effective in doing this. In fact, by allowing this, we suspect she was opening the way for another prophecy to come to pass and how to secure her doctrines against the apostasy you folks rightly fear. We saw this within another passage of Yeshua’s second coming, Is.28. We have this study at:

http://www.angelfire.com/ny/Yeshuaslight/Is.28.1-4.html

Again briefly, E’phraim was exiled almost 3000 years ago now, which was about 700 years before Yeshua came and breathed life into our Church. Is.28.11 tells us that E’phraim will return to faith in G-d at the hands of Gentiles, not Judah, for it reads, “by men of strange lips and with alien tongues”. This was the text further stated because mercy and faith are greater than any other law which now we interpret: “This is rest, give rest to the weary; and this is repose” (12). This is the essence of the Pauline Epistles, which Protestants love to shove down our throats. Yet Yeshua appointed those teachers, our Catholic Holy See and Magisterium, so we know their laws are good. Yet we also know “they would not hear” those traffickers in the sheep is our guess, which is why Yeshua also called our Church to go back to His Word, as the text in Is.28 states one day will happen:

“Therefore the word of the L-rd will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, measure upon measure, measure upon measure, here a little, there a little…” Is.28.13

In this way we believe E’phraim, the Lost Tribes, will emerge within His Church and one of the ways they will identified (according to the Midrash) will be by the apparent Gentile ways of Torah, which Rav Paul states in Galatians cannot be done without legalism. Yet we believe these will do so without legalism and they will also in their interest to return to the spiritual Torah will find ways to defend His Church. An example of this we believe is in a teaching from Talmud that only one Sacrifice is eternal and this is the Thanksgiving Sacrifice. When HaMoshiach (Messiah) comes He will establish the fullness of this Sacrifice and all the others will end. And this happened at the Last Supper when Yeshua (Jesus) took bread and wine and told us that this IS His Body and His Blood (He established this doctoral teaching in Jn.6).

The discovering ways to defend our Church’s doctrine against the lies of those wolves and thieves who have been trafficking in her flock is just one way we believe that many others and ourselves are “active in it's administration” as are our Scriptural defenses of Vatican II. Also we participate in the Jewish-Catholic Dialogue in the Buffalo dioceses as well as have a small Internet ministry and website where we share everything we believe we are learning through our part in this dialogue and our membership in the AHC (Association of Hebrews Catholics).

>>> Is it a doctrine or is it a strategy... what is it that you accept? I'm asking, can you state what's accepted with precision, and the nature of the thing accepted? >>>

Both. Precision is for popes, bishops, and Jesuit scholars and those they anoint, not pebbles, even those pebbles trying to defend their Church against unfair attacks. Still we suspect you can get a close enough view of what we believe from what is written here and those two studies we can linked as well.

>>>Wouldn't it make more sense that this quote would be more properly adapted to describing a person guilty before God who, knowing his guilt, is constantly aware that he's a "wanted man" so to speak? St. Don Bosco makes a similar comparison in his description of the guilty soul's flight into damnation in one of his dream-visions. >>>

This leads us to another statement you made:

>>>But then the woman clothed with the sun steps into the picture and crushes the head of The Divider. >>>

True, that image is of our Holy Mother and our Church, however that same image was seen above Jerusalem on Sept. 12th, 1999 and set a clock ticking for three and one half years. No one has yet to derail that calendar and from what we can see (except according to a dream, our enemy managed to tear it in half through an “electronic attack”). Therefore, as the text Vatican II states Spiritual interpretations do not discount the literal ones and both can and are often true and in case of Y2K at least as we read the entire text (we have a LONG write-up on Lev.26 available upon request) in context to America’s history, this does seem to fit the literal interpretation as well.

>>>This conflicts with all my observations. I could be wrong, but it seems to me just the opposite. What can I say? I just... don't see this; I see it's flipside opposite. >>>

One of us had a dream after we had asked in prayer why we were having such a hard time finding anyone to take our material seriously; and in that dream we were told it was because our Church is so fragmented with each person working in their own little sphere of understanding, oblivious to what others are doing. For example, with your strong views on the ecumenical movement, how often have you joined one of these dialogues to listen and learn? We have done so with you Traditionalists (a friend’s mother is part of your movement) and this why we do not judge you folks, we just wish you would come out of that isolated sphere.

You speak of that “Divider” with certainty, but can you take hold of the Palantir (the seeing stone) of our Mother’s visions and Scripture without risk? For on one end are those who do fall unknowingly into the enemy’s plan and come to serve his ends, and on other end, fear of what is to come immobilizes them into inaction and they seek to destroy even their own child. Only ONE may take that seeing stone with confidence, Aragorn (Lion’s threshing place/possibly Vatican III), for it will come from east and be seen even unto the west, for where the body gathers so shall He be, as will our enemies. Yet, when He (they) do this, they will show to our enemy the sword of truth reforged in the King of kings hands through the Holy See, and then:

“Sauron’s wrath will be terrible and his retribution swift…”

Actually, one other we left out – Pippin. He could not resist that stone, yet when quietly wandered to Gandalf (tricking or flowing garden) and removed that stone, and in doing this he found himself face to face with our enemy. So are you Merry (faithful friend- Eng.) or Pippin (eternal- Eng., friend-Hbrw)?

>>> In this sense, the quest stands on the edge of a knife. >>>

Actually, according to Scripture, it is a doubled edged sword because as we defend our Church we place ourselves at risk, “that they may go, fall backward, and be broken, and snared and taken.” Is.28.13. Double edges swords cut both ways, the enemy as well as he who holds the sword. This is why that “no-prophet gains wounds upon his hands in the house of his friends” we believe. He does this because those he loves will not take “trust in Him and in our Holy Mother to break through” and will demand more and more proof until he exposes to the enemy that he has seen inside that seeing stone (but no details we suspect) and he is rushed off the Seven Story Mountain (Thomas Merton) that last safe place and the first place our enemy will strike!

So are you among those Elves (“if’s” in Hbrw) who take the ships for the Valinor (Val means “power” in Elf, Valad means “child” and “Or” is the Light in Hbrw) because whether by the sword of truth or the slow decay of time, Aragorn (Lion’s threshing place Hbrw) will die according to visions and prophecies and we shall be thrown into the darkness and doubt of the tribulation! Or will you listen to Galadriel’s (“gil means star and “reil” means “brilliant” in Elf) words to Elrond (“star dome” in Elfin place of the stars-Greenspun?) that Helm’s Deep (trusting deeply in our “helm”/Holy See) is facing the full unleashing from that enemy you fear, but see only darkly and WILL fall without your help? Do you not know that you are part of this Church? Do you not know that the fires of Isengard (ish “fire” and engard “rebellion”) will burn and spread and all that was once good and green in this world will be gone, there won’t be a church! We in the Holy Catholic Church need your help!

Just as it is true in all those great stories, the ones that really mattered, full of darkness and danger they were, sometimes you didn’t want to know the end because how could the end be happy, how could our Church go back to the way it was when so much bad happened. But in the end its only a passing thing, even darkness must pass, a new day will come and when the Son shines, He will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you, that meant something, even if you were too small (pebbles) to understand why. And we think we might understand, we know now. The in those stories, they had many chances of turning back, but they didn’t, they kept going because they were holding onto something. What are we holding onto? There’s some good in this Church, Emerald, and its worth fighting for!

Yes, those words are taken from Tolkien, a devout Catholic and we do not think he’d mind in this case that we borrowed them to illustrate an important point. Though Truth (Scripture) is stranger (alien, hard to understand) than fiction.

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 24, 2003.

"Remember what I said about the document not being worth the paper it was printed on?

I love being right."

jake,

In this case -you really do not love being right -do you?

I read that 'article' too -it is but hearsay...

However, women no longer wear head coverings -that change too was but hearsay inspired vs. 'official'...

Lack of Obedience to the Magisterium is the root of many problems -our Church does not enforce that which should be followed obediently AND the masses that get led astray are not at fault...

The obedient want to follow -BUT follow what? In my opinion, our Church (Magesterium) is just in its infancy regarding 'mass media'/communication AND given time will be able to more effectively publish 'official' teaching to the masses without necessity of going through the hierarchal middlemen exclusively -eventually making those that 'rebel' or foster rebellion impotent...

Truth will set us free...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 24, 2003.

our Church does not enforce that which should be followed obediently AND the masses that get led astray are not at fault...

Who is at fault? I'm not asking you to poine on this publicly, just to ponder that (preferably in front of the Blessed Sacrament) and to be honest with yourself.

The obedient want to follow -BUT follow what?

You are on to something, Daniel. Something big.

In my opinion, our Church (Magesterium) is just in its infancy regarding 'mass media'/communication AND given time will be able to more effectively publish 'official' teaching to the masses without necessity of going through the hierarchal middlemen exclusively - eventually making those that 'rebel' or foster rebellion impotent...

I'm not so sure. The Church effectively published official teaching long before the internet, or newspapers, or even the printing press. It may have taken longer to disseminate, but the route/speed was not and still is not the issue. It's what happens with that teaching once it's in the hands of the faithful.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 24, 2003.

There's a lot there C & C; give me some time. In the mean time, I put a page a while back on LOTR. I haven't touched it in a long time and it needs updating badly, but let me know if your ideas are similar.

Let me be honest; I'm not sure we are on the same page. The closer things get to the point, the opposing sides become harder to distinguish.

It's an interesting conversation though and I would like to pursue it a little more. Tell me more about what the role of the Virgin Mother's role in all this and about the factor of Judaism in all these considerations.

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

Shalom Emerald,

We know we gave you a lot to digest so please take your time. As Tree Beard would say:

“Old Entish (Ent in Hbrw means “answer”) is “old answers”, it takes a long time to say, because we do not say anything in it, unless it worth taking a long time to say, and listen to.” Treebeard, The Two towers, JRR Tolkien.

Joking aside what do you mean by:

>>> In the mean time, I put a page a while back on LOTR. I haven't touched it in a long time and it needs updating badly, but let me know if your ideas are similar. >>>

We will take a look while you go through what we gave, and then we can compare notes. Although, we have to admit that we JRR Tolkein’s book as a parable given by Yeshua for those bridesmaids unable to discern the depths of Scripture and the visions of our Blessed Mother or even many visionaries long ago.

>>>Let me be honest; I'm not sure we are on the same page. The closer things get to the point, the opposing sides become harder to distinguish. >>>

What we suspect is that we are reaching toward the same end from different perspectives. You come from a Radical Traditionalist format (from what we can discern) and we come from an ecumenical format, particularly Jewish-Catholic Dialogue and Hebrew Catholic framework; yet we are all three trying to discern the end times. Let’s us just say that as Treebeard and the Ents had accepted Merry (faithful friend) and Pippin (eternal), so too do we accept you (for we agree that you are not an orc either).

>>>It's an interesting conversation though and I would like to pursue it a little more. >>>

We agree.

>>>Tell me more about what the role of the Virgin Mother's role in all this and about the factor of Judaism in all these considerations. >>>

We would prefer that you go through and digest what we already gave, as well as those two links, for we suspect that material figures into the answers of those two questions. We will answer to the best of our ability any questions you may have on that material as you peruse through it, including where in Revelations we perceive our Blessed Mother’s second Fatima vision, to supplement the write up on where we perceive that Vatican II fits into the third vision which is in the first link. Also if you have something you would want us to read to get on your page please let us know. Thanks.

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 27, 2003.

C & C,

Forgive me for taking so long to reply.

You wrote: “please explain to us, whether by Scripture, tradition or even prophecy do we get a license as Catholics to “demand that Rome do the right thing” or the authority to define “what 2000 years of Church teaching has shown to be the right thing”?”

Christ said, “He that is not with me, is against me.” By that, and by the basic human instinct of right and wrong, does every person have the license as Catholics to demand that Rome do the right thing. We do not have the authority to “define” what is right or wrong; this is why we look to the 1900+ years of Magisterial teachings of the Church; but each person, by the fact that we each have a God-given conscience, has the duty to differentiate between right and wrong, even and especially when concerning the Vatican.

“If you do not fear them, then why do you refuse to read them (Scriptures)”

I do read them. I have read them many times. They are not the end- all be-all of Catholic Truths. They are only part of the whole.

“we ACCEPT Vatican II and defend this”

Exactly what about Vatican II do you accept and defend? Please be as short and precise on this question as possible.

“We do not believe that Catholics are to be mindless robots by any means”

Then we agree at least on this.

“there is a right and a wrong way to speak to leadership if you disagree on something they are doing”

Another thing we agree on. Father Zigrang, in Houston, who was kicked out of his diocesan parish recently by Bishop Fiorenza because Fr. Z refused to stop celebrating the Tridentine Mass publicly, was accompanied by several SSPX priests to meet with Bishop Fiorenza to discuss matters after he had been kicked out, to try to find a reconciliation. Fr. Z and the SSPX priests were perfectly respectful to the Bishop and indeed brought him gifts such as copies of books, and some good wine I believe. They also assured the bishop that, as their churches are in his diocese, they pray for him every day in the Cannon of the Mass. However, in the end, since the Bishop refused to admit that Fr. Z is allowed by the pope and Magisterium to celebrate the Tridentine Mass publicly, no agreement could be reached and Fr. Z seems to be now a member of the SSPX, saying Mass in their churches and teaching at their school in Houston (Dickinson). My point is that we are not all bad eggs. It can get rough down here in the trenches sometimes, usually unintentionally or because of letting emotions attain upper hand temporarily, but when it comes down to it Traditional Catholics are no more prideful or arrogant or rude than anyone else is.

“You make claims you seem unwilling to prove and ignore anything others give you that might expose your weaknesses.”

Please prove that claim and do not ignore the fact of the weakness of your argument if you can not prove it.

“You speak with arrogance and pride and chide any call to simple humility, claiming these are censoring them when all we are trying to do achieve is greater civility is this discussion.”

Please prove that; or, just let it go. Like I said, Traditional Catholics are no more prideful or arrogant or rude than anyone else is, and we must each answer for our sins and confess them. We should not be surprised or hurt that Traditional Catholics or anyone else, being human, commits faults and sins. It is sad but unavoidable. The whole purpose for earthly existence is to try to overcome that . . . “Be ye perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect.”

“rhetoric such as yours (like the Y2K, it was discovered to be false, “a boy crying wolf”)”

Well, C & C, at least you are here, at this forum, discussing these matters with those of different opinions, instead of ignoring the issues like so many people do. I give you credit for being more of a truth-seeker than those people who do not even attempt to discuss, learn, argue, or defend their faith.

“we believe our Blessed Mother called Vatican II a “mountain”, for it is an obstacle that we must scale with slow deliberate steps leading to a “cross” that is awaiting us when we reach the top.”

I am not sure that you and I have the same ideas about what you said here, but I certainly do see Vatican II as a mountain . . . a mountain of errors breeding errors. And, yes, it is an obstacle to so many good Catholics who just want to do the right thing and get to heaven! The “cross” is that, even after this current mortification of the Church through Vatican II is over, as long as the earth as we know it exists, there will be more and more mountains, errors, and obstacles, until the end of time.

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

Shalom Psyche,

We are happy to see a response from you. We do understand about slow responses for we often get quite busy ourselves. >>>Forgive me for taking so long to reply. >>>

You had mentioned in your post:

>> We do not have the authority to “define” what is right or wrong; this is why we look to the 1900+ years of Magisterial teachings of the Church; but each person, by the fact that we each have a God- given conscience, has the duty to differentiate between right and wrong, even and especially when concerning the Vatican. >>

Perhaps if we put this in another way- where in the history of our Church can you prove such a schism was allowed by G-d and healed over time because of sins of the Church? All we know of is the Protestant Reformation, but that didn’t bring healing. The Catholic Reformation was initiated by a Catholic saint, not by Catholics walking out the door, so if we have ignorance in history, please enlighten us.

>>>Exactly what about Vatican II do you accept and defend? Please be as short and precise on this question as possible. >>>

We did this in recent posts to Emerald who asked this same question and in the sites we linked you to that as far as we know you have yet to read. We will be as brief as possible, but like Ents, we never say anything to explain any truths we believe we see without talking a long time to say. This is because any speculation we hold should have enough “evidence” to support it, just in case a leader might be reading our words and demand we back this up, if you get our meaning here.

>>>Another thing we agree on. Father Zigrang, in Houston, who was kicked out of his diocesan parish recently by Bishop Fiorenza because Fr. Z refused to stop celebrating the Tridentine Mass publicly, was accompanied by several SSPX priests to meet with Bishop Fiorenza to discuss matters after he had been kicked out, to try to find a reconciliation. Fr. Z and the SSPX priests were perfectly respectful to the Bishop and indeed brought him gifts such as copies of books, and some good wine I believe. They also assured the bishop that, as their churches are in his diocese, they pray for him every day in the Cannon of the Mass. However, in the end, since the Bishop refused to admit that Fr. Z is allowed by the pope and Magisterium to celebrate the Tridentine Mass publicly, no agreement could be reached and Fr. Z seems to be now a member of the SSPX, saying Mass in their churches and teaching at their school in Houston (Dickinson). My point is that we are not all bad eggs. It can get rough down here in the trenches sometimes, usually unintentionally or because of letting emotions attain upper hand temporarily, but when it comes down to it Traditional Catholics are no more prideful or arrogant or rude than anyone else is. >>>

Did Fr Zigrang take this to the next level and get stopped? Also might this wall also be in HaShem’s plan? We say this because we feel this situation will remedied in time by the hand of G-d, but we all must remain obedient to the authority of the Church as Yeshua (Jesus) indeed gave Peter authority, and that seat of Peter still exists today (see Matthew 23). We should be following the example of Sister Lucia, not Martin Luther.

>>>Please prove that claim and do not ignore the fact of the weakness of your argument if you cannot prove it. >>

If we understand your arguments you seem to be saying we must not obey the magisterial authority in the case of Vatican II but in every other case prior to Vatican II we must obey without question. Yet we have shown Emerald that there is one case in our Church’s history when an earlier decision made by the grace of Spirit (Acts.15.28) was overturned because the situation for Church had changed (bull of Council of Florence) and this same argument our Church makes for her decisions of Vatican II being abided. So on this fact of our Church’s history we can find a precedence to her upholding Vatican II, yet as far as we can see you have to provide one to uphold your right to disregard this council and teach others to do so.

>>>Please prove that; or, just let it go.>>>

Which statement is more humble?

Way 1) Therefore, what I said before still stands as true…

Way 2) So please explain how your statements can stand against the evidence I have provided…

Way 1) Some – not all – of the teachings of Vatican II contradicted prior infallible, irreversible teachings of Holy Mother Church. >>

Way 2) So in light of these facts….who does Vatican II uphold in the Church’s doctrines?>

Way 1) Since at least one of Vatican II’s teachings is false, then all of its teachings must be suspect. This is why we should not blindly believe the teachings of Vatican II. >>

Way 2) So from what I see at least one of Vatican II teachings is false…>

This is why we believe our Blessed Mother tends to come to small children and not adults because adults tend to speak unconsciously in a controlling way, but children often speak more carefully. So we may have been wrong for being so abrupt, however you seemed to have missed this point entirely before, so like a mirror, we tried to give you a reflection of what others see. Hopefully you can forgive us for this.

>>Like I said, Traditional Catholics are no more prideful or arrogant or rude than anyone else is>>>

Agreed, as parents have more responsibility in authority than children, so too do our leaders as they are spiritual parents. Still, Yeshua is able to have the lowly bring down the pride of the wise (only when He calls it), and it will be accomplished by the content of the arguments with the power of G-d, not by the demands.

>>>“rhetoric such as yours (like the Y2K, it was discovered to be false, “a boy crying wolf”)”

>>>Well, C & C, at least you are here, at this forum, discussing these matters with those of different opinions, instead of ignoring the issues like so many people do. I give you credit for being more of a truth-seeker than those people who do not even attempt to discuss, learn, argue, or defend their faith. >>

We appreciate your support in our attempts. We do try to be open to the whole world, as our Church teaches, and through this we have learned much about who are our brothers and who are our enemies. As we learn, we find greater understanding to help further take down the lies of the enemies of our faith. Yet an old proverb is also frequently on our minds as we do this: “choose your fights wisely”; and this is because we’ve learned if we don’t and we have even the smallest of errors, our enemy will use those mistakes to make claims that our truths are false. This is something we suspect your group hasn’t yet learned (or merely implemented), thus the rhetoric of your group puts others like ourselves at risk.

>>>I am not sure that you and I have the same ideas about what you said here, but I certainly do see Vatican II as a mountain . . . a mountain of errors breeding errors. >>>

We believe that is only an opinion, not a fact for we believe that Scripture shows otherwise. Also, our Blessed Mother didn’t call this a “mountain of error” but rather a mountain with a cross.

Perhaps by example through Scripture we may help enlighten our position. When one reads the Epistles of Paul, it often causes one to believe that we should give up the law for faith, when it really states we are saved by faith and the laws grow forth from this faith. Thus Vatican II may be a difficult precipice to climb (as is the doctrine of Salvation by faith), yet everything in that same Fatima prophecy states this and the cost of succeeding is equally high.

>> The “cross” is that, >>

Again you speak with absolution, and yet it was a POPE who LED those bishops and laypeople up that mountain, not a “traditionalist”. Thus even the interpretation of our Lady’s visions must include all the details (as we have attempted to do). We see Pope John Paul II as the pope who is guiding us up that mountain with stilted steps, seeing the death you seem disdain, but you do not seem to understand the true root of that death/ apostasy.

Further we see only one “great mountain” in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, the same mountain started with Vatican II through the Eagle in the heart of Fr. Murray who died soon after that council ended. The great light shining from the face of G-d and that first portion of the third Fatima prophecy was done by “other bishops, priests men and women religious” who began that ascent (as we believe) with the righteous white pope to come after, the first among the three prophesied (St. Hilarion). The same mountain of Zech.4.7 that Zerub’babel (whom we see as Petros Romanos from Malachy, Enoch by La Salette) will turn into a level plain by bringing our Church through the tribulation. We see three great men arising in the Catholic Church to end this apostasy (the last three named by Malachy of which John Paul II may be one), all named in Word and in our Blessed Mother’s vision in La Salette, St Hilarion and Malachy and all these details seem to come together is just too much evidence for us to ignore. So we still believe our position holds and that by pulling Vatican II into the issues of the Blessed Mother’s visions without proving your position Scripturally is actually stopping others from getting our Church to look at these prophecies again at a time when she really should! This is why we stand against your position Psyche. It is not because we do not love you or that we disagree with everything you say, but errors that we perceive are doing enormous harm, to not only us and the Church, but also to your movement.

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 28, 2003.

C & C,

I wrote this for another thread, but perhaps it will help you understand my position.

Paraphrasing the extensive quotes below, it can be seen that the present-day Catholic Church is riddled with heresy, even up to and including the Chair of Peter, and directly from this heresy has been birthed (and continues to breed) the Vatican II council and all it’s extensions:

1)Belief in something non-infallibly declared by the Church is not required if one’s conscience is against it;

2) In regard to doctrines that are infallible, the only thing one may not do is to deny or change them;

3) Denying or changing infallible doctrines or asserting the right to do so is an idea of Liberalism;

4) Liberalism is condemned, including the “newest phases of this Liberalism,” which was specifically condemned as Modernism;

5) Modernism is a heresy,

6) Documents of Vatican II show themselves to have embraced Liberalism, specifically Modernism, by denying and attempting to change infallible doctrine, for example in Lumen Gentium which states that Moslems, Jews, and Protestants worship the God of Catholicism and can therefore obtain salvation;

7) This massive Modernist, and therefore heretical faction within the Church, which has indeed taken over the Church from within, is in an ongoing process of denying and attempting to change infallible doctrines of the Church, as evidenced by the latest from Pope John Paul II in (65) of Pastores Gregis on 10/16/03.

Belief is not required if one’s conscience is against it: “From these considerations we are justified in concluding that if Christ really intended His promise to be with His Church to be taken seriously, and if He was truly the Son of God, omniscient and omnipotent, knowing history in advance and able to control its course, then the Church is entitled to claim infallible doctrinal authority. This conclusion is confirmed by considering the awful sanction by which the Church's authority is supported: all who refuse to assent to her teaching are threatened with eternal damnation. This proves the value Christ Himself set upon His own teaching and upon the teaching of the Church commissioned to teach in His name; religious indifferentism is here reprobated in unmistakable terms.

“Nor does such a sanction lose its significance in this connection because the same penalty is threatened for disobedience to fallible disciplinary laws, or even in some cases for refusing to assent to doctrinal teaching that is admittedly fallible. Indeed, every mortal sin, according to Christ's teaching, is punishable with eternal damnation. But if one believes in the objectivity of eternal and immutable truth, he will find it difficult to reconcile with a worthy conception of the Divine attributes a command under penalty of damnation to give unqualified and irrevocable internal assent to a large body of professedly Divine doctrine the whole of which is possibly false. Nor is this difficulty satisfactorily met, as some have attempted to meet it, by calling attention to the fact that in the Catholic system internal assent is sometimes demanded, under pain of grievous sin, to doctrinal decisions that do not profess to be infallible. For, in the first place, the assent to be given in such cases is recognized as being not irrevocable and irreversible, like the assent required in the case of definitive and infallible teaching, but merely provisional; and in the next place, internal assent is obligatory only on those who can give it consistently with the claims of objective truth on their conscience -- this conscience, it is assumed, being directed by a spirit of generous loyalty to genuine Catholic principles.

“To take a particular example, if Galileo who happened to be right while the ecclesiastical tribunal which condemned him was wrong, had really possessed convincing scientific evidence in favour of the heliocentric theory, he would have been justified in refusing his internal assent to the opposite theory, provided that in doing so he observed with thorough loyalty all the conditions involved in the duty of external obedience. Finally it should be observed that fallible provisional teaching, as such, derives its binding force principally from the fact that it emanates from an authority which is competent, if need be, to convert it into infallible definitive teaching. Without infallibility in the background it would be difficult to establish theoretically the obligation of yielding internal assent to the Church's provisional decisions . . .

“Moreover, as in a well ordered state there remains within the law a large margin for the exercise of personal freedom, so in the Church there is a very extensive domain which is given over to theological speculation; and even in regard to doctrines that have been infallibly defined there is always room for further inquiry so as the better to understand, explain, defend, and expand them. The only thing one may not do is to deny or change them. Then, in reply to the charge of intolerance, it may be said that if this be taken to mean an honest and sincere repudiation of Liberalism and Rationalism, infallibilists must plead guilty to the charge; but in doing so they are in good company. Christ Himself was intolerant in this sense; so were His Apostles; and so were all the great champions of historical Christianity in every age. Finally it is altogether untrue, as every Catholic knows and feels, that faith which allows itself to be guided by infallible ecclesiastical authority is less intimately personal or less genuine in any way than faith based on private judgment. If this docile loyalty to Divine authority which true faith implies means anything, it means that one must listen to the voice of those whom God has expressly appointed to teach in His name, rather than to one's own private judgment deciding what God's teaching ought to be. For to this, in final analysis, the issue is reduced; and he who chooses to make himself, instead of the authority which God has instituted, the final arbiter in matters of faith is far from possessing the true spirit of faith, which is the foundation of charity and of the whole supernatural life.” (from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

Liberalism is a sin: “The more theological and religious form of Liberal Catholicism had its predecessors in Jansenism and Josephinism; it aims at certain reforms in ecclesiastical doctrine and discipline in accordance with the anti-ecclesiastical liberal Protestant theory and atheistical "science and enlightenment" prevailing at the time. The newest phases of this Liberalism were condemned by Pius X as Modernism. In general it advocates latitude in interpreting dogma, oversight or disregard of the disciplinary and doctrinal decrees of the Roman Congregations, sympathy with the State even in its enactments against the liberty of the Church, in the action of her bishops, clergy, religious orders and congregations, and a disposition to regard as clericalism the efforts of the Church to protect the rights of the family and of individuals to the free exercise of religion.” (from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm)

Definition of Modernism: “The general idea of modernism may be best expressed in the words of Abbate Cavallanti, though even here there is a little vagueness: "Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion". A remodelling, a renewal according to the ideas of the twentieth century -- such is the longing that possesses the modernists. "The avowed modernists", says M. Loisy, "form a fairly definite group of thinking men united in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral and social needs of today" (op. cit., p. 13). "Our religious attitude", as "Il programma dei modernisti" states (p. 5, note l), "is ruled by the single wish to be one with Christians and Catholics who live in harmony with the spirit of the age". The spirit of this plan of reform may be summarized under the following heads:

• A spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should never be hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas; the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in agreement;

• A spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary;

• A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences. Such are the fundamental tendencies. As such, they seek to explain, justify, and strengthen themselves in an error, to which therefore one might give the name of "essential" modernism. What is this error? It is nothing less than the perversion of dogma. Manifold are the degrees and shades of modernist doctrine on the question of our relations with God. But no real modernist keeps the Catholic notions of dogma intact.” (from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm)

Modernism is a heresy: “The following are the principal decrees or documents expressly directed against modernism.

• The pope's address on 17 April, 1907, to the newly-created cardinals. It is a résumé which anticipates the Encyclical "Pascendi".

• A letter from the Congregation of the Index of 29 April, 1907, to the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan with regard to the review "Il Rinnovamento". In it we find more concrete notions of the tendencies which the popes condemn. The letter even goes so far as to mention the names of Fogazzaro, Father Tyrrell, von Hügel and the Abbate Murri.

• Letters from Pius X, 6 May, 1907, to the archbishops and bishops and to the patrons of the Catholic Institute of Paris. It shows forth clearly the great and twofold care of Pius X for the restoration of sacred studies and Scholastic philosophy, and for the safeguarding of the clergy.

• The decree "Lamentabili" of the Holy Office, 3-4 July, 1907, condemning 65 distinct propositions.

• The injunction of the Holy Office, "Recentissimo", of 28 August, 1907, which with a view to remedying the evil, enjoins certain prescriptions upon bishops and superiors of religious orders.

• The Encyclical "Pascendi", of 8 September, 1907, of which we shall speak later on.

• Three letters of the Cardinal Secretary of State, of 2 and 10 October, and of 5 November, 1907, on the attendance of the clergy at secular universities, urging the execution of a general regulation of 1896 on this subject. The Encyclical had extended this regulation to the whole Church.

• The condemnation by the Cardinal-Vicar of Rome of the pamphlet "Il programma dei modernisti", and a decree of 29 October, 1907, declaring the excommunication of its authors, with special reservations.

• The decree Motu Proprio of 18 November, 1907, on the value of the decisions of the Biblical Commission, on the decree "Lamentabili", and on the Encyclical "Pascendi". These two documents are again confirmed and upheld by ecclesiastical penalties.

• The address at the (Consistory of 16 December, 1907.

• The decree of the Holy Office of 13 February, 1908, in condemnation of the two newspapers, "La Justice sociale" and "La Vie Catholique". Since then several condemnations of the books have appeared.

• The Encyclical "Editae" of 26 May, 1910, renewed the previous condemnations.

• Still stronger is the tone of the Motu Proprio "Sacrorum Antistitum", of 1 September, 1910, declared:

• by a decree of the Consistorial Congregations of 25 September, 1910. This Motu Proprio inveighs against modernist obstinacy and specious cunning. After having quoted the practical measures prescribed in the Encyclical "Pascendi", the pope urges their execution, and, at the same time, makes new directions concerning the formation of the clergy in the seminaries and religious houses. Candidates for higher orders, newly appointed confessors, preachers, parish priests, canons, the beneficed clergy, the bishop's staff, Lenten preachers, the officials of the Roman congregations, or tribunals, superiors and professors in religious congregations, all are obliged to swear according to a formula which reprobates the principal modernist tenets.

• The pope's letter to Prof. Decurtins on literary modernism. “These acts are for the most part of a disciplinary character (the Motu Proprio of September, 1910, is clearly of the same nature); the decree "Lamentabili" is entirely doctrinal; the Encyclical "Pascendi" and the Motu Proprio of 18 March, 1907, are both doctrinal and disciplinary in character. Writers do not agree as to the authority of the two principal documents; the decree "Lamentabili" and the Encyclical "Pascendi". In the present writer's opinion, since the new confirmation accorded to these decrees by the Motu Proprio, they contain in their doctrinal conclusions the infallible teaching of the Vicar of Jesus Christ.” (from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm#XIII)

The heresy of Modernism is embraced by Vatican II: “15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.” (from Lumen Gentium)

The heresy of Modernism is being promoted through the Chair of Peter: “65. . . .In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world the good news of a complete and universal salvation which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.” (from Pastores Gregis, October 16, 2003)

C & C, these are the basic, underlying reasons by which Traditional Catholics are the true Catholics, who reject heresy in all it’s forms, including heresy even if it is embraced by the majority of the clergy of the Church, and including heresy even if it is preached by the pope himself.

I try to live up to my baptismal promise to "reject Satan and all his works and pomps." Heresy is one of his works. So, I reject heresy. The problem I and Traditional Catholics have with Vatican II and a lot of what the bishops and the pope are teaching these days, is because they are by majority Modernists. Modernists are heretics. I am not accusing the pope or any specific bishop of being a heretic, but I am accusing some -- a lot! -- of the things they say, write, and teach, to be tinged with heresy.

In good conscience I can not accept the heresy of Modernism, any more than I can accept any other heresy. This is why I reject Vatican II and it's underlying ideas, and all the teachings which have stemmed from it.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.

So you reject the God-given authority of the Vicar of Christ; you trust your personal interpretations of the Church's current teaching above the authority of the Magisterium; you characterize the Church's teaching as heresy ... and this makes you different from other Protestants ... how??

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

PERSONAL interpretations?!? PERSONAL interpretations?!? Paul, did you even begin to look at all the references I gave, which show that many popes (at least one of them sainted) had forseen and condemned what Vatican II stands for, and forseen and condemned the heresy of Modernism as the "synthesis of all heresies", in order to try to keep it from gaining a foothold in the Church?

I do not "reject the God-given authority of the Vicar of Christ" any more than Galileo did (read the quotes above!!!) and Galileo, having the evidence, knew what was correct and stood up for it, and was demonized by the pope and the pope's men; that is a perfect example of what I and Traditional Catholics are going through now.

When this current pope speaks ex cathedra, I hear and obey. When this pope speaks contrary to infallible and irreformable doctrines of the Church, which, by definition of infallible, is anathema, NO, I do not believe or obey. I do not believe that outside of the Church people can find salvation because such a belief would truly throw me into heresy.

"Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" "Outside of the Church, there is no Salvation". Does this mean nothing to you? That our pope, the Vicar of Christ, is directly contradicting this infallible doctrine? Well, Paul?

I have never gotten a straight answer from any Novus Ordo Catholic on this matter. I think it is because you-all are scared at the possibility that what we Traditional Catholics are saying is true. No matter the reason for your reluctance, answer the question!

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 30, 2003.

For you, Paul, here is a short list of quotes on "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" which I copied from http://www.romancatholicism.org/nosalvat.html

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic and Roman: unique, the Chair founded on Peter. [...] Outside her fold is to be found neither the true faith nor eternal salvation, for it is impossible to have God for a father if one has not the Church for a Mother. Ven. Pope Pius IX

If any man be outside the Church, he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for Mother. Pope Leo XII

Consider, therefore, that whoever is not in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have God. Pope Pelagius II

God's will is salvation, and this is called The Church. Clement of Alexandria

This Church, thus marvellously founded, assuredly could not cease with the death of its Founder, nor of the Apostles who led the way in its propagation, for to it the commission was given of bringing all men to eternal salvation: all men, without distinction of time or place. [...] Now, no one is in this one Church, and no one perseveres in it unless he acknowledges and obediently accepts the power and authority of Peter and his legitimate successors. Pope Pius XI

He who reigns on high, to Whom is given all power in Heaven and on earth, has entrusted His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which there is no salvation, to one person on earth alone, namely: to Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to Peter's successor, the Roman Pontiff, to be governed by him with the fullness of power. Pope St. Pius V

Outside the Church there is no salvation. St. Cyprian

Outside the Church there is no salvation, and therefore if the claims of the Pope be true at all, then he who denies them imperils his soul. If a man take of by himself against an evident truth appearing by the common faith of Christendom, this conscience is very damnable. Whereto I answer that, where there is law of the whole corps of Christendom in a matter touching belief, the difference standeth between beheading and Hell. [...] I would certainly maintain, and I think without any opposition, that whatever is necessary for salvation, that is, the things without which we cannot be saved, have been handed down to us in abundance: first of all by Sacred Scripture itself, then by its ancient interpreters, furthermore by the common practice handed down from the early Fathers, and finally by the sacred decrees of the Church. St. Thomas More

We have on our side the General Councils and all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church for fifteen hundred years. St. Richard Reynolds

I have the rest of the bishops of Christendom with me and thus, having on my part all the Catholic bishops of the world from Christ's ascension until now, am joined with the whole consent of Christ's universal Church. St. John Fisher

For one bishop of your opinion, I have a hundred saints of mine; for one parliament of yours - and God alone knows of what kind - I have all the General Councils for a thousand years. St. Thomas More

Outside the Catholic Church no one is saved. Ancient Statutes of the Church

There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which there is absolutely no salvation. IV Lateran Council

Neither sanctity nor salvation can be found outside the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church. Ven. Pope Pius IX

Rome has spoken, the case is closed. Would that error, too, might someday be over and done with! St. Augustine

Before everything else, fidelity to the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Jesus did not found several churches, but one single Church. Pope John XXIII

Christ has declared the unity of the Church. Whoever parts and divides the Church cannot possess Christ. [...] The House of God is but one, and no one can have salvation except in the Church. St. Cyprian

The Church is only one: the Roman Catholic. And if there were left upon earth but one Catholic, he would be the universal Church. Ven Anna Catherine Emmerich

The Church is the dwelling-place of the saints, the roof over the pious, under which the just have their abode. Indeed, as many as escape from the punishment of fire find their home in her. St. Cyril of Alexandria

Whosoever would be saved, let him come into this House. Let no one talk himself out of it; let no one deceive himself: outside this House, that is, out of the Church, no one is saved. Origen

He who is separated from the Catholic Church will not have life. Pope Gregory XVI

So certain and so clear is the Catholic faith as expressed in these words of the Apostolic See, so ancient and so well-established, that it would be a sacrilege for any Christian to doubt it. St. Augustine

It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church! Ven. Pope Pius IX

You certainly sin if, having heard the decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Universal Church, and having heard that the same things are confirmed in Holy Scripture, you refuse to follow them. St. Wilfrid

If any man does not enter the Church, or if any man departs from it, he is far from the hope of life and salvation. Pope Pius XI

The distinctive mark of the Catholic is to belong to the Church outside of which there is no salvation. On the contrary, he who leaves the Church walks in darkness: he is a heretic. Origen

What is the road which leads us to Jesus Christ? It is before our eyes: it is the Church. It is our duty to recall to everyone, great and small, the absolute necessity we are under to have recourse to this Church in order to work out our eternal salvation. Pope St. Pius X

How can a soul walk aright and not stray, except by following the straight road of the law of Almighty God and of the Church? St. John of the Cross

The Church of God, walking straight in the right and royal road, has condemned all the rest as by-paths. St. Eusebius of Caesaria

I pray that all people may walk on the one true road that leads to God. St. Paul Miki

For there is a King's Highway, and that is the Church of God and pathway of truth. But each of the heresies, having left the King's Highway and turning aside to the right or left and then giving itself up without reservation, is dragged onward into error; and the shamelessness of error knows no limits in any heresy. Come, then, ye servants of God and children of the Holy Church of God, you who are acquainted with the safe rule and walking in the way of truth; ye who are not dragged from side to side by words and by the beckoning of each false sect. Slippery are their ways! St. Epiphanius

No one reaches the heavenly Jerusalem except him who is on the way, although not every one on the way shall reach it. To be a Catholic Christian is to be on the road and walking in the way. And if through some snare of the enemy, he be led astray from the Catholic Church, either into heresy or whatever other kind of superstition, he has already lost the way and returned to wandering. St. Augustine

There is but one plain known road [...] when you wander from this you are lost. You must be altogether within the House of God, with the walls of salvation, to be sound and safe from injury. If you wander and walk abroad ever-so-little, if you carelessly thrust hand or foot out of the Ship [...] you shall be thrust forth: the door is shut, the ocean roars, you are undone. St. Edmund Campion

Anyone who is out of this Church is walking a path not to Heaven but to Hell. He is not getting closer to the home of eternal life; on the contrary, he is hurrying to the torment of eternal death. And this is the case not only if he remains a pagan without Baptism, but even if, having been baptised, he continue as a heretic. St. Fulgentius

There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one can be saved. Pope Innocent III

The Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the only true Church, outside the pale of which no one can be saved. St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori

Q. Is there any other true Church besides the Holy Catholic Church?

A. No; as there is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, there is but one true Church.

Q. Are all obliged to be of the true Church?

A. Yes; no one can be saved out of it. The Irish Catechism

Q. What means: "The Church is Catholic"?

A. "The Church is Catholic" means that she was founded for all men and is spread over the whole world.

Q. Can any one be saved out of the Church?

A. Out of the Church no one can be saved, because she alone was founded by Christ to save men. Catechism for Parochial Schools

It is necessary for each individual to become a living part of the Church [...] to face even death so as not to lose the faith. [...] Whoever does not preserve the faith of the Father and the Son does not have life and salvation. Pope Pius XII

There can be only one Catholic Church, of which I am a member. This, with the help of God, I will profess until my dying hour. Rest assured, outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Ven. Francis Bel

I desire to die in the faith which the Holy, Roman, and Apostolic Church adheres to and defends, in which all the saints of the New Testament have died, and outside which there is no salvation. St. Charles Borromeo

I am come hither to die for my religion, for that religion which was founded by Christ, established by the Apostles, and propagated through all the ages since, to the present day, by a visible hierarchy: a religion that rests on the testimony of the Scriptures, supported by the authority of the Fathers and Councils, outside which there can be no hopes of salvation. St. Henry Morse

Q. How is the Church Catholic or Universal?

A. The Church is Catholic or Universal because she subsists in all ages, teaches all nations, and is the one Ark of Salvation for all. Catechism of Christian Doctrine

The Church is a ship, and even if the ship is in difficulty, it is necessary that we be at least in it. St. Augustine

Unless you stay in the ship, you cannot be saved! Acts 27:31

In Holy Mother Church lies all hope of eternal salvation. [...] If any one is outside the Ark of Noah, he will perish in the overwhelming flood. Pope Benedict XV

The Church is rich with heavenly doctrine [...] sailing like a ship on the high seas of this world, preserving those who come to her safe and sound, while the world outside perishes. Ven. Pope Pius IX

Whoever is outside the Ark of Noah will perish in the flood. St. Jerome

We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one Catholic Church, and that one Apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins. [...] For at the time of the Deluge there existed only one Ark, the figure of the One Church. And we read that all things existing upon earth outside this Ark perished. Pope Boniface VIII

It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood. Ven. Pope Pius IX

The Ark of Noah holds a conspicuous place. It was built by the command of God in order that there might be no doubt that it was a symbol of the Church, which God so constituted that all who enter therein through Baptism may be safe from the danger of eternal death; while such as are outside the Church, like those who were not in the Ark, are overwhelmed by their own crimes. Catechism of Trent

It is certain that all men of Noah's time perished, except those who merited to be in the Ark, which was a figure of the Church. Likewise, they cannot in any way now be saved who are aliens from the Apostolic faith and the Catholic Church. St. Gaudentius of Brescia

The Church is the Ark into which Jesus enters with all His faithful followers. The sinner leaves the Church as the raven once left the Ark. St. Hilary of Poitiers

The contemporaries of Noah would not believe in his warnings as he was building the Ark and thus they became frightful examples for all posterity. Christ our God is now building His Church as the Ark of Salvation, and is calling upon all men to enter it. St. Augustine

There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was no salvation outside the Ark which denotes the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas

What was prefigured in the Flood is now fulfilled in Christ's Church. [...] The wicked are separated from the good [...] the heretic from the faithful. For they are lost, as in the Flood [...] while the Church alone [...] is sustained above the deep. And so [...] we tell you that only those who find shelter in the bosom of the Ark of the Church shall escape. St. Maximus of Turin

It is as impossible for anyone to be saved outside the Catholic Church as it was for anyone to avoid the Deluge who was outside Noah's Ark. Bl. James Duckett

The Lord Jesus goes up only into the Ark of the Church/ [...] This ship [...] preserves safe from harm all those it carries within it. We have a true figure of this in the Old Testament; for, as all whom Noah took with him in the Ark were saved [...] so, when the world shall be destroyed by fire, the Church of Peter will keep safe within her everyone she cherishes as her own. St. Ambrose

The ship of the Church is guided by Christ and by His Vicar. [...] It alone carries the disciples and receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea but, outside it, one would perish immediately. Salvation is only in the Church; outside it, one perishes. Pope John Paul I

Like Noah, we announce to you the coming of the end of the world, and we warn all men to take refuge in this Ark of the Church. St. Maximus of Turin

God has given the world a holy Church in whose safe harbour the lovers of truth seek refuge, as well as all those who desire to be saved and to escape the dreadful wrath of God. St. Theophilus of Antioch

Q. If the Catholic Church is to lead all men to eternal salvation, and has for this purpose received from Christ doctrine, her means of grace, and her powers, what is everyone obliged to do on his part?

A. Everyone is obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to become a member of the Catholic Church, to believe her doctrine, to use her means of grace, and to submit to her authority. A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion

Are there any other direct proofs from Scripture to show that out of the Church of Christ there is no salvation?

First, Christ, speaking of those who were not yet joined in the communion of His Church, but whom he foreknew would make a good use of the graces He would give them for that purpose, says: "Other sheep I have who are not of this fold; them I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (John 10:16): where He plainly declares that all those of His sheep who are not yet of His fold must be brought to it as a necessary condition of salvation.

Second, in consequence of this settled disposition of the divine providence, no sooner did the Apostles begin to preach the Gospel than immediately "the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47), which evidently shows that all who are not added to the Church are out of the way of salvation.

What consequences flow from these Scriptural truths concerning the Church?

First, that the Church of Christ is the sacred rule of faith and the supreme judger of controversy, instituted and ordained ny Him to preserve inviolate to the end of time all those divine truths which He revealed to man, and upon the knowledge and belief of which the salvation of souls depend. [...]

Second, that this Church is one body, having all one and the same faith and governed by one and the same supreme Church authority; so that whatever sect is divided from this body by professing a different faith from her is no part of the Church of Christ, but at best a human invention; and the faith they profess, as differing from hers, is all falsehood and lies.

Third, that the Church of Christ is the only road to salvation, both because it is only in her communion that the true faith of Christ can be found, "without which it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6), and because Christ has declared that all who refuse to hear are condemned by Him as heathens and publicans, and that those who despise her pastors despise Christ Himself and His Father Who sent Him. Manual of the Holy Catholic Church

Amen, amen, I say to you: he who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. St. John 10:1

O Church of Rome! [...] He who seeks another way shall find only perdition. Bl. Giles of Assisi

There is no salvation outside the Church. St. Augustine

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes. St. Louis Mary de Montfort

There is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Ss. Cosmas and Damian

We believe with our hearts and confess with our lips but one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved. Pope Innocent III

We must believe, moreover, that the Catholic Church alone is the true one; that, consequently, those whom it does not contain in its bosom, or who have separated from it, cannot be saved. [...] There is only one true Church, outside which there is no salvation. St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori

Outside the Church there is no salvation. St. Robert Bellarmine

There is no salvation outside the Church. St. Cyprian

This is the faith of the Catholic Church out of which no one can be saved. Pope Benedict XIV

Where should we seek the truth? Among heretics, where everything is foreign and opposed to our truth? Among heretics, whom we are forbidden to come near? Tertullian

Since, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which is easy to obtain from the Church. [...] Every man whosoever desire can draw from her the waters of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. Therefore, it is necessary to obey the prelates of the Church [...] who possess succession from the Apostles. But it is also necessary to hold in suspicion others who depart from this primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever. St. Irenaeus of Lyons

Therefore, let those who wish to be saved come to this pillar, to this foundation of truth which is the Church. [...] We will never spare Ourselves from any pains whatsoever [...] to bring back those who are ignorant and in error to this one and only way of salvation. Moreover, let all those who oppose Us remember that heaven and earth will pass away, but that not one of Christ's words can pass away, nor can anything be changed in the doctrine which the Catholic Church has received from Jesus Christ to preserve, to protect, and to preach. Ven. Pope Pius IX

O glorious St. Peter [...] who wast honoured by Jesus Christ with singular privileges and in particular with the leadership of the other Apostles and the primacy of the whole Church, of which thou wast made the foundation stone, do thou obtain for us the grace of a lively faith that shall not fear to profess itself openly, in its entirety and in all its manifestations, even to the shedding of blood. [...] Obtain for us, like-wise, a sincere loyalty to our Holy Mother the Church; grant that we may ever remain most closely and sincerely united to the Roman Pontiff who is the heir of thy faith and authority: the one, true, visible head of the Catholic Church, that mystical Ark outside which there is no salvation. Pope Benedict XV

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 30, 2003.

Psyche; You are overwhelmingly correct, but one suggestion. When you say that there is heresy fromtop to bottom in the Church, don't start to qualify it,by saying "I don't accuse anyone personally of heresy". Just have your say, and leave it at that. We are a society that has become too politically correct, and apolegetic. Just leave it mute, conncerning the Hierarchy.

-- Alphonse (no apologize@ the way it is.com), October 30, 2003.

"Paul, did you even begin to look at all the references I gave, which show that many popes (at least one of them sainted) had forseen and condemned what Vatican II stands for"

A: CORRECTION - It is your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the writings of p[revious Popes that suggests TO YOU that such writings are in conflict with YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of what Vatican II stands for. However, those who actually have the authority to make such interpretations do NOT interpret the situation the same way you do. Therefore, either GOD was dead wrong in saying "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven", or YOUR interpretations are dead wrong. I favor the latter explanation.

"... and forseen and condemned the heresy of Modernism as the "synthesis of all heresies", in order to try to keep it from gaining a foothold in the Church?"

The heresy of modernism is still soundly condemned by the Church - the actual heresy, not YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of what constitutes modernism.

I do not "reject the God-given authority of the Vicar of Christ" ... When this current pope speaks ex cathedra, I hear and obey. When this pope speaks contrary to infallible and irreformable doctrines of the Church, which, by definition of infallible, is anathema, NO, I do not believe or obey."

A: You contradict your self ... "I do not reject His authority ... I do not believe or obey". What is the source of your authority to critique the teachings of the Vicar of Christ? That is equivalent to a grammar school science student critiquing NASA's trajecory calculations for the space shuttle. No, wait - it isn't equivalent, because NASA has no divine assurance of infallibility. As much as you prattle on about infallibility, you seem to have little understanding of what it actually is. Infallibility means that a Pope CANNOT officially "speak contrary to infallible and irreformable doctrines of the Church". It is IMPOSSIBLE. The Holy Spirit does not allow it. If that is not so, then your quotes from earlier Popes carry no weight. If it is so - and it is - then there CANNOT be conflict between the official teaching of former Popes and the current Pope. You can't have it both ways. If the former Popes were infallible, then the current Pope is infallible, and there is no conflict between their infallible teaching. If the current Pope is not infallible, then neither were former Popes, in which case there could be many conflicts between their fallible teaching, with equal likelihood that the earlier Popes or the current Pope could be wrong.

"I do not believe that outside of the Church people can find salvation because such a belief would truly throw me into heresy."

A: Neither do I - but I believe this doctrine in its full current understanding, the fruit of centuries of study by the greatest theological minds of all time - not in its primitive, simplistic medieval interpretation. The doctrine stands, unchanged. Our current understanding of it is vastly superior.

"Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" "Outside of the Church, there is no Salvation". Does this mean nothing to you? That our pope, the Vicar of Christ, is directly contradicting this infallible doctrine?

A: This is dogma. Therefore a Pope CANNOT contradict it, if you believe in infallibility. A Pope could of course contradict your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the dogma - but so what? Personal interpretation is the surest road to heresy.

I have never gotten a straight answer from any Novus Ordo Catholic on this matter. I think it is because you-all are scared at the possibility that what we Traditional Catholics are saying is true. No matter the reason for your reluctance, answer the question!

A: Tridentine Catholics can cling to the past all they want, but eventually they will either have to return to the Traditional Holy Catholic Church under the authority of the Vicar of Christy, or form their own Tridentine denomination. Until then I guess they will just have to remain miserable.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 30, 2003.

Shalom Psyche,

Thank you for the elaborated explanation of your position. We suspect we can understand where you are coming from, however we are inclined to ask one question before we can proceed. Do you remove the blood from your meats before consuming them?

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 30, 2003.

Tridentine Catholics

So we're Catholics now?

can cling to the past all they want

We will. Don't worry.

they will either have to return to the Traditional Holy Catholic Church under the authority of the Vicar of Christy

Read: speak in tongues & subscribe to all Conciliar nonsense? No Catholic has to do any of that, unless they want to go to Hell.

or form their own Tridentine denomination.

No need. It was formed in 33 A.D. and is called the Roman Catholic Church.

Until then I guess they will just have to remain miserable.

We're not miserable. Quite the contrary. The present may belong to you, but the past, and most assuredly the future, belong to us.

BE NOT AFRAID!

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

...As much as you prattle on about infallibility, you seem to have little understanding of what it actually is. Infallibility means that a Pope CANNOT officially "speak contrary to infallible and irreformable doctrines of the Church". It is IMPOSSIBLE. The Holy Spirit does not allow it....

This is dogma. Therefore a Pope CANNOT contradict it, if you believe in infallibility....

I knew it!!!!! You have a totally errant view of infallibility, and yet this is how you back up your way of thinking!!! Unbelievable.

Infallibility is not assured under the examples you gave above. In fact, infallibility is rarely even excersized by the Popes. Popes can, and have, promulgated false beliefs. It has happened before. Infallibility is not guaranteed to every 'official' Church teaching of the Holy Father. That is not how the Holy Spirit works in the Church.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 30, 2003.

isabel, what to do with you?

Popes can, and have, promulgated false beliefs

you know this is a lie as well as anyone else here does. certain popes can and have promoted false ACTIONS, but we both know that no bad pope has ever created a doctrinal error. that is clearly stated in the bible. otherwise every papal decision ever made could be called into personal interpretation....(see you ARE a protestant). why continue spouting lies when we all know the truth???

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 30, 2003.

popes can and have promoted false ACTIONS, but we both know that no bad pope has ever created a doctrinal error.

She didn't say that a Pope had made a doctrinal error. She said that Popes have promulgated erroneous teaching. So, not only is she not lying, but she's absolutely right. Your notion of what infallability is is completely out of line with Catholic teaching.

...and you call US dissenters.

Be not afraid & stuff.

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

Be not afraid, or else! Or be anathema!

lol. And stuff.

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

Paul M, I have one thing to say to you.

The pope does not have authority to preach heresy.

Period.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 30, 2003.

"Do you remove the blood from your meats before consuming them?"

C&C, I sense that this is a trick question.

What does blood in meat have anything to do with anything we've been discussing?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 30, 2003.

"The pope does not have authority to preach heresy"

A; It goes FAR beyond the question of "authority". The Pope does not have the CAPABILITY of preaching heresy. Incidentally, speaking of authority, YOU do not have the authority to DEFINE heresy. If your understanding of Church doctrinal teaching is so shallow, so primitive, that you cannot distinguish between heresy vs. valid, essential, authoritative interpretation of unchanging dogmatic truth, then perhaps you should do a bit of studying before crying "heresy" at every nuance which the Holy Spirit delivers through His infallible Magisterium.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 30, 2003.

Incidentally, speaking of authority, YOU do not have the authority to DEFINE heresy.

People in this forum, however, not only delude themselves to believe they have that authority, but make free and frequent exercise thereof.

All men are equal, but some men are more equal than others.

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

"The Pope does not have the CAPABILITY of preaching heresy."

WRONG. The pope does not have the capability of defining anything as doctrine that is contrary to the Faith. In other words, he cannot make a heretical statement which issues from within the parameters of an infallible, ex-cathedra declaration.

"Incidentally, speaking of authority, YOU do not have the authority to DEFINE heresy."

A Fortiori, you have zero authority to determine who is in and who is out of the Church. Who have no business, no right and no authority to brand traditional Catholics as being extra ecclesiam.

"If your understanding of Church doctrinal teaching is so shallow, so primitive, that you cannot distinguish between heresy vs. valid, essential, authoritative interpretation of unchanging dogmatic truth, then perhaps you should do a bit of studying before crying "heresy" at every nuance which the Holy Spirit delivers through His infallible Magisterium."

Go look in the mirror, Paul.

You can't even name the new doctrines to which Catholics loyal to tradition are failing to lend their assent.

And no, you cannot borrow the term traditional from us. Unless we can have it back with interest.

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

C&C, it's an interesting conversation and all, but first, just please layout what role the Blessed Mother and Judaism play, specifically, in things that you have come to and understanding of.

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

Sorry, you can't be "loyal to tradition" without being loyal to the Church; and you can't be loyal to the Church without being loyal to the Pope and the Magisterium.

There are no new doctrines. Not now. Not ever. Anyone who claims otherwise simply demonstrates his ignorance of basic doctrinal issues. Of course Protestants would accuse the Catholic Church of inventing new doctrines. But they rely on private interpretation, which carties no authority whatsoever ... oh yes, so do "traditionalists".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 30, 2003.

"Sorry, you can't be "loyal to tradition" without being loyal to the Church; and you can't be loyal to the Church without being loyal to the Pope and the Magisterium."

Trads are all of that.

"There are no new doctrines. Not now. Not ever. Anyone who claims otherwise simply demonstrates his ignorance of basic doctrinal issues. Of course Protestants would accuse the Catholic Church of inventing new doctrines. But they rely on private interpretation, which carties no authority whatsoever..."

Right.

... oh yes, so do "traditionalists".

Wrong. The best way to show that this is not the case is to whip out the works of modernists like Karl Rahner and show how the neo- modernist Catholic way of thinking is a cookie-cutter result of his way of thinking, and of those like him.

Borrowed from another thread, you made a comment that emodies this manner of reflecting on Holy Mother Church:

"I am well aware of the ancient sources which formed the initial basis for a living and evolving theology in an living and evolving Church."

Who else embraced this look and feel of an evolving? Karl Rahner. Martin Heidegger. Teilhard de Chardin. Bernard Haering. From what philosophical direction? Immanuel Kant, Hegel and Hegelian dialectic. Existentialism. I can show you.

Let's say for the sake of argument that I'm completely out of the Catholic loop of understanding. Let's posit that you are right in all these things; if so, it couldn't possible hurt to put you to the test in the defense of Catholic Faith. God brings good out of even evil.

If I'm really a Saul and not a Paul, if I really am attacking Holy Mother Church, your defense is most necessary.

Likewise the case if I'm really a Paul and former Saul. Let God sort it out, but let me press you a bit on some of these topics.

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

(Moderator) Paul,

Would you lay out for me exactly what you think infallibility consists of?

Because from the gyst of things said here, it seems you have molded your idea of infallibility (of which you lay your belief of 'evolving' doctrine on [which by the way was condemned by St. Pius X]) into something that is inconsistent with Church teaching on the subject. Is this why you deleted my 'Pascendi' post? Because it openly condemned the idea of the evolution of dogma, which would also project your idea of infallibility into oblivion?

With all due respect, as moderator of a Catholic forum, it seems you should be all to willing to show you are in accordance with traditional Church teaching.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 31, 2003.

you can't be "loyal to tradition" without being loyal to the Church; and you can't be loyal to the Church without being loyal to the Pope and the Magisterium. This is a good example of the Novus Ordo Church's method of reasoning. What you say is true, at face value. Now, while I may be taking a little liberty by doing this, I am pretty sure what you really mean here is that you can't be a good Catholic without embracing the Modernist errors that were promulgated by and after the Council. Or, as with JFGBSD, you take the "agree with me or go to hell" approach. Sure, you can scream "PRIVATE INTERPRETATION!!!" but it just doesn't take a theologian to see through a nest of lies. All it takes is a little grace /prayer and a lot of willingness to open your eyes, crack open some books, and find out for yourself. Watching Mother Angelica just is not going to make you a good Catholic. The Faith cannot be spoon-fed from your TV set. Modernists (like you) attempt to get people to swallow your poison by chasing it with a teaspoon of sugar. What you propose is 10% truth, and 90% error. That's what has made Modernism such a dangerous, efective, and widespread heresy. It looks like truth. It sounds good. The packagaing looks great. Shouting down people who see it for what it is is just part of the program. They don't teach about this stuff in Deacon school,do they? There are no new doctrines. Not now. Not ever. Again, true on its face, but look at this: Conciliar teaching:
The liturgy of the word is stressed (Sacrosanctum Concilium,2 §9),and the banquet aspect (§10), as well as active participation (§§11,14), and therefore the vernacular (§§36,54). Consequence:
The New Mass Conciliar teaching:
Catholics should pray with Protestants (Unitatis Redintegratio, §§4,8). Consequence
Eucharistic Hospitality Conciliar teaching:
The Church of Christ subsists in (not is) the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, §8), It is also in “separated Churches” (Ut Unum Sint,3 §11) Consequence:
All are in Christ’s Church, so there is no need for anyone to convert. Conciliar teaching:
Seminarians should take into account modern philosophy, progress in science (Optatam Totius, §15), Consequence:
Secular University studies and abandoning Thomism. Conciliar teaching:,br> Marriage and married love equated (Gaudium et Spes, §§48,50). Consequence:
Annulments fiasco. Now, you say there were no doctrinal innovation? That what the Council said is absolutely, completely, 100% in agreement with what the Church has always taught? Please.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 31, 2003.

Yeah!! What they said! (pointing at Emerald, Isabel, and Jake)

Paul, how can you stand with your Modernist errors in the light of the truth?

I hope you never again say that Trads don't back up claims with references and quotes.

Where are YOUR references? Why don't you try to prove YOUR claims now, quoting the documents of Vatican II and/or previous councils, popes, approved Catholic scholars & theologians?

Or why not try to dis-prove what we have proved? Why not start there?

Because it can not be done.

The truth will set you free, Paul. Embrace the truth.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 31, 2003.

The thread I started on 10/25 titled "The Documents of Vatican II" presents an error which says: Server Error The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server. AOLserver/3.2+ad10 on http://greenspun.com

Does this mean that thread has been removed or shut down on purpose? Can anyone else get to it?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 31, 2003.

Dear Psyche,

The thread has not been removed. I cannot access it through usual channels either, but I can through the moderator software. Tonight or tomorrow, when I have a bit more time, I will copy and paste the contents to a new thread with the same name, then delete this dead thread.

Moderator

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 31, 2003.

Dear Isabel,

"Would you lay out for me exactly what you think infallibility consists of?"

A: What I think about a doctrinal issue is utterly irrelevant. However, what the Church teaches is that infallibility is a special charism of the Church whereby the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error in all official and universally binding teaching on matters of faith and/or morals.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 31, 2003.

Dear jake,

Your post is a painfully typical example of the "traditionalist" manner of "reasoning".

When faced with an undeniable statement of fact, you respond "True". To do otherwise would be to immediately reveal your separation from the Catholic Church. Example:

My statement: "There are no new doctrines. Not now. Not ever"

Your immediate response: "TRUE" - which of course, it is. Then you immediately launch a series of legitimate facts followed by unsubstantiated personal interpretations, specifically designed to form the impression that what you just correctly acclaimed as "TRUE" really isn't true after all. Jake, it doesn't matter whether your rejection of Papal and Magisterial authority comes as a blatant opening statement or as a partially masked final conclusion. Either way it separates you from the truth, which the pillar and foundation of truth alone can define. Example:

Conciliar teaching: Catholics should pray with Protestants (Unitatis Redintegratio, §§4,8). - TRUE! - a Valid and valuable teaching of the Council, inspired by the Holy Spirit as a step toward Christian unity.

"Consequence" - Eucharistic Hospitality?? Nonsense! There is not a shred of evidence to support your theory that your so-called "consequence" has any connection whatsoever with the above referenced teaching! This is simply an unsubstantiated personal interpretation.

Conciliar teaching: The Church of Christ subsists in (not is) the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, §8), It is also in “separated Churches” (Ut Unum Sint,3 §11) - TRUE! - "Separated" churches (as opposed to churches without Christian heritage) do indeed possess Catholic truth, which they received from the Holy Catholic Church. Otherwise there is no possible way they could be considered Christian.

"Consequence": "All are in Christ’s Church, so there is no need for anyone to convert". - Utter nonsense! This "consequence" is an absolute non sequitur! There is absolutely nothing in the stated teaching which could possibly suggest or support the personal interpretation you present as a "consequence". Have you noticed that the post-conciliar Catholic Church is still sending missionaries all over the world?? You seem to think that if you preface your remarks by stating a genuine Church teaching, any subsequent statement you make will somehow have the ring of truth. It doesn't. Your "consequence" here is a straw man, totally unconnected to any genuine Catholic teaching.

Conciliar teaching: "Seminarians should take into account modern philosophy, progress in science (Optatam Totius, §15)" - TRUE! We need educated priests, who understand the unshakable truth of God's revelation and the infallible teaching of the Church within the context of what is known to be true in other related disciplines in the modern world. Another profoundly wise teaching of the Holy Council!

"Consequence": Secular University studies and abandoning Thomism." Well, if by "Thomism" you mean approaching theology from the same primitive concept of the universe and the laws of nature as Thomas did, then that is something well worth abandoning. And if by "Thomism" you mean restricting theological thought to Medieval levels of understanding, while rejecting the tremendous contributions of more recent theologians and philosophers, then that too is rubbish well disposed of. However, if you are suggesting that Thomistic thought has in any way ceased to have a profound influence on Catholic theology, you are simply dreaming. Thomistic and Augustinian theology are still and always will be cornerstones of Catholic moral and theological teaching - but understood in the light of centuries of additional scholarship - not restricted to the simplistic, "bare bones" form in which Thomas and Augustine themselves originally offered us their views.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 31, 2003.

Paul,

What I think about a doctrinal issue is utterly irrelevant. However, what the Church teaches is that infallibility is a special charism of the Church whereby the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error in all official and universally binding teaching on matters of faith and/or morals.

Try reading this for starters. I'm busy at the moment, but will post more links later by Catholic sources. It's sad that a non-Catholic publication would have a better idea of what the Church teaches by infallibility that what A Catholic does.

Conciliar teaching: Catholics should pray with Protestants (Unitatis Redintegratio, §§4,8). - TRUE! - a Valid and valuable teaching of the Council, inspired by the Holy Spirit as a step toward Christian unity.

OK, Paul, this makes no sense. Are you saying God changes His mind? That He does a complete aboutface? Wrong, that would be contrary to God.....He is unchangeable. His truths never change. I say this, because as you give the credit to the Holy Ghost for the complete aboutface on the Church's teaching that we should worship with Protestants, then you are saying that the Holy Ghost was with the Popes who condemned this practice (I actually agree on that one) but he did a complete aboutface and changed His mind. God doesn't do that. What was wrong before, is wrong now.

Just wanted to hit on these two points, but will try to be more thorough with them later.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 31, 2003.

"Dear Psyche, The thread has not been removed. I cannot access it through usual channels either, but I can through the moderator software. Tonight or tomorrow, when I have a bit more time, I will copy and paste the contents to a new thread with the same name, then delete this dead thread. Moderator "

Thank you, Paul. I also noticed Kiwi's thread started on 10/30 titled "Moderator" has the same error.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 31, 2003.

I think that error on the Moderator thread was my fault because I copied a cached version of the old thread to it.

Whatever error was in the orginal seemed to bet moved over to the Moderator thread as well. My apologizes; it's not the first time.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 31, 2003.

Shalom Psyche +AMDG+,

Your response to our question was:

>>>C&C, I sense that this is a trick question. >>>

Actually, this has a lot to do with what we’re discussing. However, your response tells us that you really haven’t been reading our posts. Thus, we will be happy to elaborate upon this once you answer the question, or perhaps you can read our previous posts. In either case, we suspect the end result will be beneficial for both of us.

Shalom, C & C

-- C>Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 31, 2003.

Vatican II

Shalom Emerald,

We’re not sure if you have made your way through all the material we gave you, however even if you did we can understand your confusion on these issues. Still we do have some questions that may help enlighten to what you are seeking and we’ll give a summary of what we think after them:

1) Why did our Holy Mother ask our Church to reveal the third secret no later than 1960? What was going on that year that would be so important for the flock to know? 2) Why was there a flaming sword at the beginning of this prophecy and how did our Blessed Mother convince her Son to hold back that coming judgment and seek repentance instead? 3) What evidence existed in 1960 that Yeshua (Jesus) could have relented from that rage and simply called for change? What change was He demanding, and if Vatican II was the fall, then why did He have that flaming sword in the first place? 4) That change that follows His call for repentance is described in three ways: a. an immense light that is God b. ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' c. a bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. What do these three symbols mean and what connection do they make to the events of the nineteen sixties? 5) Further, after the vision above we read “Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain,” but no mention of a pope. Why, where is the pope? 6) What is this mountain that follows repentance and also holds back that sword in 1960? 7) What is the “big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark;” at the top of the mountain?

We answer the above questions with Vatican II and pointed out in our write-up on Vatican II that the above order matches Zech.11.4-7 with a prophecy in La Salette, including matching 4-6. Please compare those verses to her words:

“The priests, ministers of my son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honors and pleasures, the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Yes, the priests are asking vengeance, and vengeance is hanging over their heads. Woe to the priests and to those dedicated to God who by their unfaithfulness and their wicked lives are crucifying my son again! ”

In La Salette, our Blessed Mother does move toward a foretelling of a great apostasy and yet this prophecy above was revealed in 1858, not 1960 and to us that explains the need for that sword she would later turn away because our Church repented with starting Vatican II. Further of the Holy Father she predicted did not sin but that cross- mentioned above at that mountains top:

“The Vicar of my Son will suffer a great deal because for a while the Church will yield to large persecution and will witness a frightful crisis… The Holy Father will suffer a great deal. I will be with him until the end and receive his sacrifice. The mischievous would attempt his life several times to do harm and shorten his days, but neither he nor his successor will see the triumph of God.”

What pope has suffered more attempts on his life than our beloved Pope John Paul II? There are people who stand like vultures over him waiting until he dies, and growling when he recovers with strength, then condemns those who stand by him in love and support as “traditionalists”, even as they stand against your extremes. Further, she said, “I will be with him until the end” just as Yeshua said of His Church, “I am with you always, to the CLOSE of the age.” Matt.28.20. So how could Pope John Paul II be so far off (as many of you are claiming) with both the Son and His Mother standing with him through this great crisis; not only in his life but also in His Church. This is why we see judgment coming down upon the FLOCK of his Church in 2005, as our understanding of Rev.12.1-6 seems to confirm. Of course only time will tell, just like the last time we thought we saw a time frame, and the flood did come! Therefore we suppose the lot here can wait until then, to see whether a similar flood comes down on Europe and America as we suspect.

As for your other question on Israel coming to life and Judaism, we will answer that after the weekend, if you don’t mind.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 31, 2003.

Isabel,

Thanks for the more detailed version of the definition of infallibility I previously provided.

"Catholics should pray with Protestants" ... Paul, this makes no sense. Are you saying God changes His mind? That He does a complete aboutface?"

A: God??? You think that forbidding prayer with other Christians was a divine revelation? How about abstaining from meat on fridays? Fasting from midnight before reception of the Most Holy Eucharist? Women covering their heads in church? Divine revelation? Articles of the Faith? Of course not! Such issues are rules created by the Church, and require assent by the faithful until, and only until, such time as the Church sees fit to change them. One urgent reason requiring changes in such opinions and disciplines is deeper understanding of the issues involved, the inevitable result of centuries of ongoing study by qualified scholars and theologians of the Church. "God's truths never change". True! But Church disciplines, including guidelines for worship, do not fall under the heading of "God's truths". The statement "what was wrong before is wrong now" is correct where basic morality is concerned; but it is certainly NOT correct where Church disciplines and regulations are concerned. It used to be WRONG to eat meat on any friday of the year. Today it isn't wrong at all.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 31, 2003.

You mean that all those friday meat eaters are in hell now, while their counterparts today are having steak every Friday?

-- John (john grossen@yahoo.com), October 31, 2003.

Uh-huh.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 31, 2003.

Hi, Paul.

Your post is a painfully typical example of the "traditionalist" manner of "reasoning".

Painful as it may be for you, you might want to pause & re-evaluate your own "reasoning." According to the Magesterium, it's fatally flawed:

Catholics should pray with Protestants (Unitatis Redintegratio, §§4,8). - TRUE! - a Valid and valuable teaching of the Council, inspired by the Holy Spirit as a step toward Christian unity.

Conciliar teaching: The Church of Christ subsists in (not is) the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, §8), It is also in “separated Churches” (Ut Unum Sint,3 §11) - TRUE! - "Separated" churches (as opposed to churches without Christian heritage) do indeed possess Catholic truth, which they received from the Holy Catholic Church. Otherwise there is no possible way they could be considered Christian.

Your above personal interpretations of the Conciliar errors were CONDEMNED by Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical Moratalium Animos, which states:

"Conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons (ecumenists), at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. 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.

Assisi, anyone? Wait. It gets better:

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non- Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.

Here's my favorite part:

To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.

Have you noticed that the post-conciliar Catholic Church is still sending missionaries all over the world??

Actually, no. I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever. Anyway, let's continue:

if by "Thomism" you mean approaching theology from the same primitive concept of the universe and the laws of nature as Thomas did, then that is something well worth abandoning.

Your personal interpretation (which, for some odd reason, is permissable with Conciliar documents, but not for pre-Conciliar ones) was CONDEMNED by at least 2 Popes and the 1917 Code of Canon Law! St. Pius X, in Pascendi, that Giant Killer (unpopular, in this forum, anyway) Encyclical that sliced & diced Modernism into a million pieces and hung it out to dry, says thusly:

"We warn teachers to bear in mind that a slight departure from the teaching of Aquinas, especially in metaphysics, is very detrimental. As Aquinas himself says, 'a slight error in the beginning is a great error in the end."

Then, Pius XI, not too long after that, says in his Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii:

"A learning adequate to the requirements of the age ... there is required both instruction and education in scholastic philosophy according to the conceptualization, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor."

His Holiness takes the principle for this teaching from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which warns us to:

Let professors handle the studies of rational philosophy and of theology and the education of students in these disciplines utterly according to the conceptualization, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor, and religiously cleave thereto." (Canon 1366, n. 2, 1917 Code).

Enough for now.

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

Jake,

A Pope may freely express his opinions on education, ecumenism, assemblies, metaphysics, philosophy, or any other subject in encyclical form. Such statements present his personal position on a topic, but do not constitute infallible teaching. Some of the extreme, rigid views expressed in early encyclicals such as those you quoted are understandable in view of the limited scholarship of the time. However, current views must take into account the increased level of knowledge and understanding which the Holy Spirit has continued to pour into His Church over time. To make 21st century decisions on the basis of 9th century encyclicals would mean taking 12 centuries of God's ongoing guidance and throwing it back in His face.

The sticky little problem "traditionalists" run into is this - in quoting encyclicals, apostolic letters, and other non-infallible statements of past Papal opinion, they reveal their apparent belief that such documents are authoritative - and indeed they are, or were, to the limited extent inherent in such instructional tools. However, there is absolutely no valid reason to suggest that such documents produced in centuries past carry any more weight than similar documents produced by Popes of current times. Therefore when differences of opinion are expressed by various Popes, as frequently happens, using ancient positions to "disprove" current ones, is no more valid than using the current documents to discredit the older ones. In the final analysis though, neither Pope's expressed positions and opinions are necessarily "wrong". However, more recent documents, while no more authoritative than similar documents of times past, can generally be expected to reflect an increased depth of understanding of the issue as it relates to the universal Church in the world at large.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 01, 2003.

Everytime people here are confronted with documentation that is irrefutable, they say "Well it is only his opinion". The Catholic church is being "opinioned" into near extinction. True it won't die, because Our Lord is not one of opinions, but facts.

-- Soapy (9999.@444.com), November 01, 2003.

Oh, yeah. One more:

From the Syllabus of Errors by Blessed Pius IX, the following ERROR is CONDEMNED:

Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.

Infallible or not, you seem awfully cozy with the fact that your Conciliar nonsense stands in direct opposition to every authentic teaching that preceded it.

I take their side.

Nothing personal.

-- jake (jake@remove.net), November 01, 2003.

"your Conciliar nonsense stands in direct opposition to every authentic teaching that preceded it"

A: If that were a valid statement, then a necessarily equally valid statement would be "your pre-Conciliar nonsense stands in direct opposition to every authentic teaching that followed it". Which clearly shows the folly of such an approach. The facts are simple. Doctrine does not change. There is no current doctrinal teaching of the Church that is in any way oppositional to any earlier doctrinal teaching. If it appears otherwise to you, then you are interpreting the situation erroneously, and would do well to set aside your preconceived predjudices and study the matter objectively and honestly.

On the other hand, non-doctrinal changes have occurred in the Church in every generation since the Apostles, and will continue to do so until the end of time. This is normal, expected, and necessary for the ongoing health of the Church in an ever-changing world. You can't live in the past. Indults can only carry you so far. Sooner or later you will have to either live in the Church as it is, not as it was - or leave it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 01, 2003.

C&C,

Unfortunately I don't remember everything you wrote in your posts to me, whether or not you mentioned blood in meat included; if you mentioned it in a post that was not to me, well I don't carefully read posts addressed to others but rather skim them to "get the gist". If you did mention blood in meat in a post to me, I apologize for not remembering, or for not paying enough attention.

I can see why I wouldn't be paying as much attention if you were discussing food because that is something which is not directly related to Catholicism.

OK. To answer your question, no, I do not remove the blood in meat before I eat the meat, unless cooking it well counts. (I never eat raw meat!)

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 01, 2003.

Now we are interpreting things wrong. First the hierarchy expresses their personal opinions, and now we just don't get it. I'll give you one thing, you sure don't run out of reasons, just credibility. As long as you stay away from those pre-conciliar documents, you'll do OK.

-- Soapy (9999@444.com), November 01, 2003.

I believe that there is a bit of confusion at some of the new masses.

People here have talked about clowns, nymphs dancing, etc. Are they sure that they don't have Calvary confused with the wedding feast at Cana?

-- (Riley78@earthnet.com), November 01, 2003.

C&C:

"We’re not sure if you have made your way through all the material we gave you..."

Exactly. I need more than that though; do you know the titles of the threads you have posted a lot on? Dig them up for me maybe?

Thanks.

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

Doctrine does not change. There is no current doctrinal teaching of the Church that is in any way oppositional to any earlier doctrinal teaching.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. The Council of Florence, an ecumenical Council which, by your own standards and definitions as you've spelled them out in this forum teaches infallibly, stated:

"It [the Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, or heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Now, contrast that with the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states in paragraph #841 that:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

If it appears otherwise to you, then you are interpreting the situation erroneously Is that right? So then you mean to say that the above two statements mean exactly the same thing, or are at least in perfect harmony with each other? That "logic" can only be arrived at by taking one of the following leaps:

1. The Council of Florence was fine for its time, but we're smarter now.

Assuming for a moment that's true (it's not), it's still a change in doctrine, if seen through the eyes of anyone with a midicum of common sense and knowledge of his faith.

2. We now have a clearer understaaaaaaanding of what Pope Eugene meant when he said that.

This would mean that through a "development in understanding," something can be bastardized into meaning the exact opposite of what the Church taught it had meand for 500+ years. Is that your contention?

3. The New Catechism is not infallible.

I KNOW you're not gonna go there.

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

The dogma which is expanded upon in each of the above paragraphs is: "There is no salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church". This dogmatic statement is accepted as firmly today as it was in the 15th century. But today we know that this unchageable dogmatic statement does not require us to run around playing God, condemning most of world to the fires of hell. The explanation provided in the current Catechism, the result of an additional 500 years of divine guidance and ecclesial scholarship, is far more in keeping with all that God has revealed about Himself, His justice, and His mercy, than the simplistic, hyperliteral interpretation offered 500 years ago - Thank God!

The fact that a dogmatic statement, in and of itself, is true and unchangeable does NOT mean that every explanation of the dogma, every treatise written about the dogma, every insight into the dogma, or every interpretation of the dogma - ESPECIALLY the older and less developed treatments of it - are accurate and/or unchangeable. The fact that inconsistencies may exist between the Church's fullest understanding of a doctrine at different times in history does NOT mean that the doctrine itself has been changed. That's why dogmatic statements are brief and to the point. A two-page treatise on a dogmatic issue is almost certain NOT to be 100% accurate, and will no doubt require subsequent adjustment on some points. But a clearcut, straightforward statement like "Salvation is only through the Holy Catholic Church" is always true and correct, in light of whatever interpretations the Holy Spirit guides the Church to profess.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 02, 2003.

This dogmatic statement is accepted as firmly today as it was in the 15th century.

Meaning that we still believe Jews and Moslems, etc. can't go to Heaven if they die as Jews, Muslims, etc.? Because that's what the teaching says, in crystal clear, precise, unambiguous terms.

But today we know that this unchageable dogmatic statement does not require us to run around playing God, condemning most of world to the fires of hell.

No need for us to do that. The teaching does that all on its own.

The explanation provided in the current Catechism, the result of an additional 500 years of divine guidance and ecclesial scholarship...

...has resulted in a teaching that says the exact and irreconcilable opposite of the teaching you claim that it refers to. If that's evidence of Divine guidance, it must mean that God changes His mind about doctrine, but you already said that He doesn't.

simplistic, hyperliteral interpretation offered 500 years ago

That wasn't an "interpretation," that was the text of the dogma itself, which you said is accepted as firmly today as it was then. Scroll up & read it. If you can read that first quote from the Council of Florence and "interpret" it to mean that Jews & Muslims have salvation without Christ, then you're seeing something that is not there. It doesn't ass up, no matter how you juggle it, and despite the backpedaling, tapdancing, and outright lying to try to jam a theological square peg into a round hole.

The authentic teaching and the New Catechism are at odds.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), November 02, 2003.

Oops! That's ADD up. ADD. A-D-D. Add.

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

You know, you schismatics should actually read the Council of Florence documents sometime, and not just the clips the schismatic websites post.

The first thing you should note is (for the day you are quoting) is just HOW MANY schismatics or heretics there were then! LOTS of them, and clergy. The church therefore is obviously not accountable for the acts of individual clergy, regardless of rank. There have always been, and will always be, plenty of human heretics. That's why there are ecumenical councils like Vatican II to show you the correct path.

Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

Circumcising children causes a loss of salvation, whether or not you place your hope in it. A lot of Americans are circumcised for medical reasons, I hope you realize this caused you to lose your salvation! Bummer for you, but that's what the council said. How bout it schismatics? How many of you are already damned to Hell from something your parents did? Boy, that doesn't make sense, does it? Hmmm, where could we get the correct interpretation of this? The church, maybe? That's the trouble with all your interpretations, they are only your own. By this you could say that anyone who is circumcised is going to Hell, just like you are trying to do with the schismatic and Jews section below. The trouble is, it's not for YOU to interpret.

and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest

Kind of neat they recognize that a laywoman (such as the child's mother) might be the only one around to baptize the child in distress, and approve of it! Early equal rights.

It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food.

Well look at that. At the same time Catholics aren't told to assemble with others (by the schismatic interpretation) the church is saying that practices were made to allow for the coming together of the Jews and Gentiles. Ecumenism, anyone? Oops, best not to read that part, it doesn't jive with your "church of all except you going to Hell".

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives

A bummer for those that die in a state of schism. ALSO a bummer for those who can't even bring themselves to obey an ecumenical council, Vatican II. Instant schism, and by this, a sure ticket to Hell. You are really up a creek with this, either it is true as you understand it, and you are therefore going to Hell, OR, your understanding is wrong, and thus you have no reason for your beliefs. Tough call.

and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church

The UNITY of the church, without it you can't be saved. Kind of dumps on the idea of going one way while the Pope and Magesterium have gone another. Note there is no exception listed for "I believe I'm right and the church is wrong", UNITY.... or else.

Yeah, good to read this stuff, one more reason to trust the church and not it's heretics or schismatics.

Frank

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

Good stuff too from the the council of Basel, not for an ecumenical council's views (there was apparently a turf battle between the Pope and those loyal to him and other Bishops, etc. at Basel who were apparently forcing people to stay, but good as an idea of some of the problems the church was facing at the time (if part of the church holding priests at a council against their will isn't a good enough idea)

This holy synod decrees that, notwithstanding any prohibition, even from the Roman pontiff, there is freedom for absolutely all persons, of whatsoever status or condition they may be, even if they are cardinals of the Roman church, to go to general councils; and that the Roman pontiff is bound to grant permission to those who wish to go to general councils, especially to the aforesaid cardinals, if they request it

Everyone's free to go.

Those elected simoniacally and those who take part in such a simoniacal election, as well as the electors and those confirmed shall automatically incur the penalty of excommunication in horror of so great a crime.

Simony was still a problem during the time of the Tridentine mass.

This holy synod exhorts the supreme pontiff, since he should be the mirror and standard of all sanctity and purity, not to demand or accept anything at all for confirming elections referred to him.

This simony extended even to the Pope during the time of the Tridentine mass.

Session 13—11 September 1433

[In this session there was read out, Accusation of contumacy of the pope made by the promoters of the sacred council; the time-limit already intimated to Eugenius IV for him to come to Basel and to abrogate his decree dissolving the council was deferred; finally a new Decree for the protection of members was approved. ]

Pretty big divide in the church, which "ecumenical" council was valid? Tough on the Catholics then.

We invited in all charity to this sacred council, through our letters and envoys, first the Bohemians, since they are nearer, and then the Greeks, so that the holy union might be achieved.

The Eastern churches were invited to attend to work on unity. Outsiders!

They should compel infidels of both sexes who have reached the age of discretion, to attend these sermons under pain both of being excluded from business dealings with the faithful and of other apposite penalties

Speaks for itself of the general attitude of the times.

Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents. They are to be forbidden to buy ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses and other ornaments of churches under pain of the loss of the object, or to accept them in pledge under pain of the loss of the money that they lent. They are to be compelled, under severe penalties, to wear some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians. In order to prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches

Jews should wear identifying garments, and stay away from Christians! Sounds like what the Nazis were saying.

Any cleric of whatsoever status, condition, religious order or dignity, even if it be episcopal or some other pre-eminence, who, after receiving notice of this constitution, as he may be presumed to have done, for two months after its publication in cathedral churches, which bishops are bound to arrange, after the constitution has come to his notice, still persists as a public concubinary, shall automatically be suspended for three months from the fruits of all his benefices. These fruits shall be consigned by his superior to the fabric or some other evident need of the churches from which the fruits come. His superior is bound to admonish him, as soon as he is aware that he is a public concubinary, to dismiss his concubine within a very short time. If he does not dismiss her, or having dismissed her takes her again or another woman, this holy synod orders his superior to deprive him of all his benefices.

and

By "public" is meant not only someone whose concubinage is made notorious by a judicial sentence or a legal confession or by a notoriety that no subterfuge can conceal, but also anyone who keeps a woman suspected of incontinence and of ill repute and who, after being admonished by his superior, does not dismiss her

So what if you kept a concubine in secret? Show's a lot about how celibacy was practiced if an ecumenical council had to address this.

Because in some regions there are persons with ecclesiastical jurisdiction who are not ashamed to accept bribes from concubinaries for allowing them to wallow in their filth, this holy synod commands, under pain of eternal malediction, that henceforth they shall not tolerate or dissemble such conduct in any way by agreement, composition or promise

More of the same, and to hear our schismatics, this is CAUSED by the Tridentine rite of mass!

Whoever has been in possession for the last three years, not through violence but with a specious title, peacefully and without a lawsuit, of a prelacy, dignity, benefice or office, or shall have possession of them in the future, cannot be disturbed afterwards in his claim or possession by anyone, even by reason of a newly enacted law, except in the case of warfare or some other legitimate impediment

Finders keepers losers weepers.

Any holder of a benefice in a church, especially of a major one, if he is seen wandering around inside or outside the church during the divine services, strolling or chatting with others, shall automatically forfeit his attendance not only for that hour but also for the whole day. If after being corrected once he does not stop, let him be deprived of his stipends for a month, or, if he is obstinate, let him be subjected to a heavier penalty so that in the end he is forced to desist. Also, noisy comings and goings in the church should not be allowed to impede or disturb the divine service.

Ah yes, the reverential Tridentine mass, wherein so many people are wandering around chatting with others it needs to be addressed in an ecumenical council!

There are abuses in some churches whereby the "I believe in one God", which is the symbol and profession of our faith, is not sung to the end, or the preface or the Lord's prayer is omitted, or secular songs are sung in the church, or masses (including private ones) are said without a server, or the secret prayers are said in so low a voice that they cannot be heard by the people nearby. These abuses are to stop

The Tridentine in some places was abused horribly. People didn't even finish the Creed. Gee, the reverence.

This holy synod forbids chapters and other meetings of canons to be held, or chapter business to be transacted, at the same time as the principal mass, especially on solemn feasts, unless an urgent and manifest necessity suddenly occurs

People were performing other buisness during mass?

In some churches, during certain celebrations of the year, there are carried on various scandalous practices. Some people with mitre, crozier and pontifical vestments give blessings after the manner of bishops. Others are robed like kings and dukes; in some regions this is called the feast of fools or innocents, or of children. Some put on masked and theatrical comedies

clowns

O.k., so to sum up.

The Tridentine rite caused all these abuses

In exactly the same way that the current rite of mass causes the current abuses of the mass.

Frank

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

"Oops! That's ADD up. ADD. A-D-D. Add."

Yep, I've got that I'm pretty sure. Never had it diagnosed, but I'm just relying on my own private interpretation.

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

How do you get from this:

In some churches, during certain celebrations of the year, there are carried on various scandalous practices. Some people with mitre, crozier and pontifical vestments give blessings after the manner of bishops. Others are robed like kings and dukes; in some regions this is called the feast of fools or innocents, or of children. Some put on masked and theatrical comedies

to this:

O.k., so to sum up. The Tridentine rite caused all these abuses

Bridge the gap for us Frank.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVE@pngusa.net), November 02, 2003.

"But today we know that this unchageable dogmatic statement does not require us to run around playing God, condemning most of world to the fires of hell."

Basically what I hear you saying here is that a former pontiff was, you know, getting a little heated under the collar and whatnot, and saying something that we now know better than to do.

I know that I'm not running around playing God, condemning most of the world to hell, and neither are the rest of the traditionalists. Heck, I'm just adhering to what the Church has always taught to the best of my ability.

That's just some people talking, trying to distance themselves from us. We smell bad.

Look, face it. That's what the Church has always taught. That's an Ex Cathedra statement.

Don't mind me being blunt, but I think it's as simple as this:

It's embarrassing.

You don't want to come off looking bad in front of other people from other religions who, for who knows what reason, we're all trying to kiss up to.

There is an alternative, you know. You go in, drop yourself before the Blessed Sacrament, grab your Rosary, and start praying for the salvation of people's souls. Like it's so complicated, man. All this posturing and bargaining and soft-selling and endless re- designing of the packaging of our Faith for marketing purposes... it's all the stuff of human endeavor. Personally, I don't think all of heaven really cares about that, I think up there all they're looking for is someone to do the things they asked for.

Try the Chaplets of Mercy. I just love the way some modern Catholics extract something of eloquence from a devotion and bend it into their lifestyle like skimming the icing off a cake. You want to get red in face? Read the diary of St. Sister Faustina and find out she was 100% hardcore TRAD without a trace of compromise. It'll drain all the modern from the 2% milkfat popular idea of this devotion that's in circulation today. Faustina would roll in her grave to see what's become of her concept of the Divine Mercy.

"The explanation provided in the current Catechism, the result of an additional 500 years of divine guidance and ecclesial scholarship, is far more in keeping with all that God has revealed about Himself, His justice, and His mercy, than the simplistic, hyperliteral interpretation offered 500 years ago - Thank God!"

Son of a gun. Look what you just said. An ex-cathedra statement is "simplistic, hyperliteral interpretation".

Who doesn't follow the pope? Who? Me?

And it's 500 years old too.

We know better now. We're modern men. We have rockets.

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

Ultimately, Frank, the angle you employ in the above case you're making will serve ultimately to weaken your own case, which is, and always has been, a deviant understanding of the nature and excercise of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Because if you try to take us down that way, your argument collapses as well.

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

Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

Oddly, this would not appear to conflict with the Novus Ordo religion: The 1994 Catechism, paragraph 2297 states:

"Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

Uh oh.

But it's us Catholics who are trying to get you Modernists/Liberals to bridge the gaps. Are the teachings of an ecumenical Council of the Bishops under the Pope binding on all Catholics, or does that only apply to Vatican 2? Could some future Council reverse the V2 teachings and bring the Church back in line with Herself? Can infallibility expire or be revoked?

Paul (the forum's moderator Paul) said:

Doctrine does not change. There is no current doctrinal teaching of the Church that is in any way oppositional to any earlier doctrinal teaching.

Every Church Council (until V2, of course) all had one thing in common: They condemned and anathemized the errors of the day, and upheld Catholic Tradition. V2 sought to take the prevelant errors of the world, and marry them with the ideals of the Church. The result was the bastard child called the Novus Ordo.

Sure the earlier Councils addressed the problems of the time, but only in the contect of condemning them, as in the snipped quotes above.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), November 02, 2003.

Ex cathedra has a new meaning, It now means Ex Catholic.

-- (9999@444.com), November 02, 2003.

Shalom Psyche,

Thank you for answering our question. To give a hint, we actually referenced this from a post we gave to Emerald (just above what we posted that day), but we understand why you may have missed this, so we will try to be brief, yet thorough enough to bring understanding to this context of blood.

In a quick outline we have:

- Saint Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven with the right to bind and loosen (Matt. 16.19) - Salvation is given unto the Gentiles (the nations), as shown in Peter's vision (Acts 10.9-16, with the interpretation at Acts 10.24- 48); yet only requiring them to believe, repent and be baptized - In the First Jerusalem Council, it was deemed "good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols AND FROM BLOOD and from what has been strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15.28-29) - The Council of Florence loosened the requirement of the blood (we quoted this in an above post).

So, if we understand your premise correctly of binding, but not loosening, then you are (by your own standard) required to abide the abstaining from blood, which you admit not doing. Therefore, you are either acting in a hypocritical manner or you are relying upon the authority of "Peter" to loosen, as he did in the Council of Florence.

We believe that Scripture is clear about this authority to loosen and bind, and that there is a promise that "the powers of death shall not prevail against" this authority of the Church. Therefore, we need to trust in this promise, even though we may not always understand the why of what the Spirit has called our Church to do.

Shalom, C &C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), November 03, 2003.

Shalom Emerald,

Have you gotten the chance to read our two posts on our Blessed Mother visions? The two sites below are in regards to how we see parts of these in prophecy. One explains in greater depth our views of how her visions confirm Vatican II is good and should be followed while the other link deals with the claim that Vatican II brought the apostasy:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BNJR http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BNXI

Also, we have a link to a site on E'phraim, Judah's brother and how they play a part in our Church's mission (which we believe is the third link to the reforms of Vatican II). This is found here:

http://www.angelfire.com/ny/Yeshuaslight/Is.28.1-4.html

Finally, we have an Ecumenical site where we are trying to explain why our Church is seeking reconciliation with Jews and Protestants and how this figures into her previous mission. Although we have gained a lot of insights here that will expand this site greatly, it is still in the works of being rebuilt. Still, you read most of this stuff already, but the other stuff on our site you might have missed so you can get to them here:

http://www.angelfire.com/ny/Yeshuaslight/Ecumen.html

We realize there is a lot of reading, so please take your time perusing these and then we can continue our discussion when you are ready. In the meantime, we will continue going through your site, which you probably already know we have gleaned different insights with a few points as being the same.

Shalom, C &C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), November 03, 2003.

C&C,

It is a quite interesting bit of history concerning the blood in meat and the council of Florence.

I haven't taken the time to look up what that council said so I'll just take your word for it.

You wrote: "So, if we understand your premise correctly of binding, but not loosening, then you are (by your own standard) required to abide the abstaining from blood, which you admit not doing. Therefore, you are either acting in a hypocritical manner or you are relying upon the authority of "Peter" to loosen, as he did in the Council of Florence."

I'm afraid you've gotten it incorrect about the binding and loosening.

First of all, it is all-important to recognize the difference between binding in beliefs (infallible, irrevocable, "un- loosenable") and binding in discipline. The issue of the blood in meat is a matter of discipline. The Church has the authority to write, re-write, change, throw out, and do whatever with Her own disciplanary rules, as long as those rules are in line with the rules of God (Ten Commandments, etc.) and infallible truths.

The Church has, and has always had, the authority to bind and loosen things like the eating of meat on Fridays; observance of Holy Days of Obligation; in what manner a person may be excused from the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday; etc.

The Church does not have, and never has had, the authority to change those irrevocable truths which have already been given to Her by God; i.e., the Church can not change (and may not attempt to change) the Ten Commandments; the Church can not change the required belief in the Immaculate Conception, "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus", and that "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder" i.e. divorce does not exist.

Do you see the difference? The issue of blood in meat is of the disciplanary type, therefore the Church has the authority to bind and loosen it as a stricture.

Vatican II, as a council, did have the authority to loosen the disciplanary strictures it did, i.e., it is no longer a sin to eat meat on Friday, though if we do we are "asked" or "requested" or maybe "required" (not sure) to make some other sacrifice instead. We are no longer required to fast from midnight or even for 3 hours before going to Communion. And so on.

However, none of this can be taken to mean that we are forbidden to attend the Tridentine Mass (evidence Quo Primum); nor does it mean that Vatican II was binding in beliefs (it wasn't, and it actively [accidentally? purposefully? unintentionally? who knows] promulgated heresy).

So, as for the statement, "you are either acting in a hypocritical manner or you are relying upon the authority of "Peter" to loosen, as he did in the Council of Florence,": I am not acting in a hypocritical manner, because there is a huge difference between beliefs and disciplines; and "Peter" has the authority to loosen ONLY disciplanary matters, NOT infallibilities.

It astounds me that the term "infallible", which causes a teaching to be irrevocable, is misunderstood so widely. It almost seems like a popular lack of belief that anything is infallible . . . and yet so many modern, pro-Vatican II Catholics use a mistaken notion of infallibility as a "proof" that whatever the pope says/declares/writes/publishes/teaches-in-any-way is absolute truth (at least until the next pope comes along and totally contradicts what this one is saying, eh?).

This discussion and others I've had on this forum also cause me to wonder why so many people do not recognize the difference between discipline and beliefs, and the fact that infallible doctrines can never be "loosed" while practices such as whether women must wear head-coverings in church may be bound or loosed at the Church's discression.

C&C, what do you believe "infallibility" means? And do you agree with me about the loosening & binding of disciplines rather than beliefs?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 03, 2003.

Shalom Psyche,

Actually, since we cannot find in Scripture any limited parameters, we believe the correct definition of infallibly belongs to our Church alone. However, we can find three passages in the Catechism on this subject that teach this doctrine explicitly:

“The power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church through the ministry of the apostles (Cf. Matt.18.18) and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys.” Cat.553

“The office of binding and loosening which was given to Peter was also assigned to the collage of the Apostles united to his head. (LG 22 paragraph 2)” Cat.1444 (I.e. Council’s of Bishop’s like Vatican II)

“The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with G-d; whoever you receive anew into your communion, G-d will welcome back into His. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with G-d.” Cat.1445

You had mentioned discipline, and we feel that may be confirmable in Catechism 553, but Vatican II calls for reconciliation: mercy (kindness) and unions (pledges) with our brethren in Christianity, Judaism and beyond (ecumenicalism), which we see affirmed in Cat. 1445! This makes sense to us in light of our exegeses on the Scriptural, and visionary support we see for this council, which we posted here on this site.

>>>The Church does not have, and never has had, the authority to change those irrevocable truths which have already been given to Her by God; i.e., the Church can not change (and may not attempt to change) the Ten Commandments; the Church can not change the required belief in the Immaculate Conception, "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus", and that "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder" i.e. divorce does not exist. >>>

Perhaps the simple answer here is to redefine what are irrevocable truths, since much is derived from interpretation, which is also the right and authority of the Church. It may be suggested that the test of Scriptural evidence could be the roadmap (this is not to imply the Church hasn’t already done so).

In regards to Scriptural evidence, we believe we have been able to show strong arguments to support the two doctrines you mentioned above (we have one on the Immaculate Conception up on our website), however how do we reconcile the second point that SHE has every right to define who is in our family? And if she echoes Yeshua (Jesus) in saying, “I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice”, who are we to tell her no?

Therefore, we see Vatican II reforms much like the early Church’s reforms that were built for those non-Jews who entered into the fellowship of faith with just at few parameters because she knew if she could only get them through her doors to hear her teachings they would in time come unto full fellowship with her. Yet what are these minimal beliefs in our day that we must hold that will bring in all those sheep? And how can she secure her own sheep within her fold as she opens that door to try to bring these other sheep in?

Further, if the sword of Yeshua (Jesus) stood above our church in 1960 (when our Holy Mother requested strongly that third vision be revealed), then why didn’t that sword come down then if Vatican II is the heresy you claim? We believe this is further evidence that it is not heresy, but rather righteous because our Holy Mother stood in the way of that sword (as she said she would) as the call of repentance was heard and abided. Thus, the Church listened to Yeshua about those two staffs and took these into her hands in that council and began her ascent up that mountain with that cross at its top.

Put simply, Psyche, we worry about the outcry against Vatican II reforms as we often have heard the rhetoric of the “One World Religion”, or even those who use these to justify lawless behaviors. We need to remember that hasatan (satan) is an imitator of what is righteous, and then twists it to lead others away from the truth. In this particular case we know Yeshua (Jesus) called for us to be one as He and the Father are one; yet hasatan has servants who cry out this is the step towards the one-world religion. During all these attacks, we waste our time to the benefit of the enemy as the clock ticks away. Why is this important? We wonder if we have stumbled across a forty-year time clock that has been set since Vatican II, which we suspect ends in the spring of 2005 and we fear it will go off with judgment coming down on all those who reject and stood in the way of her attempt to reform.

So what might that judgment entail? We can only draw our conclusions from history: 40 years after Vatican I was ended (but never formally closed) nationalism rose in the Americas and Europe that would later fuel the Nazi movement. Why might this be so? We believe this was because our Church demanded her flock abide in her call and G-d’s Kingdom and not their nation’s overall autonomy. And those taters went bad because of materialism and greed, which we believe fueled the sin of nationalism over the needs of humanity (conclusion we draw from La Salette). The fruit of this thirty years later from our Lady’s warning to those Catholic “taters” (for ignoring her as they did His Church) would be the world interests would win over G-d’s with disastrous results. So what will come after these 40 years calling for mercy and unity have passed? Only Yeshua knows for certain.

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), November 06, 2003.