Hi folks!

I realise this is not meant to be done but it’s a cut and paste well worth reading. Its part of a much longer discussion between Dave Armstrong and so called "traditionalists" so a link would not be helpful. Most posters will not read this but I urge those who are interested in “ traditionalist” errors to please do so. I have had a discussion via email with Dave Armstong inviting him to contribute on our forum but he no longer engages with so called traditionalists because as he says here “by continuing I would be tacitly acknowledging that this debate is lawful, legitimate, and edifying. It is not.”

Yet again I make a final plea to the moderator of this supposed Catholic moderated board to do his job and control Protestants posing as Catholics, at the very least forcing them to identify themselves as non Catholics when posting.

Take it away Dave…

"1. The Bible is said (by agnostics, atheists, stuffed-shirt professors, and modernists) to be full of many irreconcilable contradictions, which are considered to be evidence of its untrustworthiness and lack of divine inspiration and infallibility.

2. Likewise, infallible Councils and papal pronouncements (especially since "1958" - which seems to be the "magic" year of transformation) are said (by modernists, "traditionalists," Orthodox, and Protestants) to be full of many irreconcilable contradictions, which are considered to be evidence of their untrustworthiness and lack of divine guidance and infallibility.

Where is the difference in principle between the two scenarios? Christians can readily see the folly and insufficiently compelling nature of the first argument. Countless so-called contradictions or "impossibilities" in Holy Scripture have been resolved by textual advances, archaeological discoveries, scholarly exegesis, linguistic analysis, documented fulfilled prophecy, the exposing of unnecessarily and unfairly hostile academic theories, etc. Many "paradoxes" on their face have been clearly shown to be in fact logically complementary. The supposed "contradiction" is almost always merely an outgrowth of a prior prejudice and preconceived notions (oftentimes a flat-out anti-supernaturalism of radical philosophical or textual skepticism).

The point here is that the committed, devout Christian of any stripe, grants to the Bible its inspired status. He has faith that it is indeed God's Revelation, God-breathed, preserved in its text in almost miraculous fashion, canonized by Catholic Councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, maker of Western Civilization and breaker of cycles of immorality and decadence, and of tyrannies and tinpot dictators throughout history. The supposed "errors" are believed to have a solution. The benefit of the doubt is granted to Holy Scripture, while scholars wrestle with the "difficulties" of text and exegesis. One has faith, based on what they have seen by way of positive proofs and indications - a cumulative case which rings true, which is not contrary to reason, but which transcends it; harmonizes with it. I assume we here on this list all agree with that, with regard to Sacred Scripture. In any event, it is Catholic, and general Christian belief.

So why is it different when it comes to the Church and the papacy? Catholicism is a three-legged stool: Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Holy Mother Church, led by the Holy Father, the pope. How is it that self-professed Catholics can deign to summarily dismiss whole decrees of an Ecumenical Council, assuming (with a deluded air of "certainty") from the outset that they contradict earlier pronouncements of popes and Councils? Why is not the benefit of the doubt and suspension of skepticism allowed in this instance?

How can people who claim to believe - with me - in the indefectibility of the Church, and supernatural protection against any error which would bind the faithful, believe such things? What becomes of faith in God's promises? Does such a person actually believe for a moment that God would allow mere modernists, who - by doubting and disbelieving - have lost the supernatural virtue of faith altogether - to subvert an Ecumenical Council, and by implication, the Church itself? The very notion is preposterous!!! It is unthinkable. It is unCatholic. It has never happened, and will never happen. And it is the triumph of private judgment and modernist skepticism within the Church (i.e., among the crowd who accept these ludicrous propositions).

Granted, what I am discussing requires supernatural faith, and God's grace to believe. It is not an airtight logical case. [name] claims to be an optimist rather than a pessimist, vis-a-vis the Church, strongly agreeing with my Chesterton quotes about the marvelous supernatural history of the Church and the demonstration of God's guidance over it. How, then, can he believe what he does about the Council and the present pope? One must persevere! One must keep the faith! One must take the long view of history, if there remains any doubt that God has supernaturally protected His Church. What becomes of one's Christian assurance and trust in the Lord, existing side-by-side with this incessant Protestantized doubt about magisterial pronouncements?

It is absurd to be a Catholic while believing such things. The fabulous joy, hope, and overwhelming feeling of "coming home" which I - along with many converts - have experienced upon entering the Catholic Church could not last a day if I were to adopt the views which "traditionalists" manage to hold. For the life of me, I don't comprehend why such people (or, for that matter, modernists) choose to remain Catholic. If you don't believe that the Church is uniquely preserved - yes, even in this huge present CRISIS - then - I'm sorry - this is pure Luther, pure Protestant ecclesiology. And I am well familiar with the latter, believe me.

I had the "freedom" to accept (sincerely) all sorts of errors in various denominations as a Protestant. I could essentially construct my own religion, with myself as "pope" and arbiter - sole determinant of all "doctrinal" decisions. I decided what was true and good and proper, and then sought to consistently live by it. Then by the grace of God I entered the Catholic Church (that was in 1990), only to discover that there are many people in it who want to selectively accept this and that, according to their own whims and fancies. Catholics do this, yet they don't seem to realize the intrinsic self-defeating nature involved. I understood early on that to be Catholic was not to act or believe in this way at all. Fr. Hardon, who received me into the Church (and who baptized my first two sons), often says that a Catholic must believe in all the Church's teaching, by definition.

So "traditionalists" want to wrangle, nitpick, judge - in some cases mock and deride - popes and Ecumenical Councils, as if it is permitted or proper to do so among professed Catholics. Luther judges Councils and popes alike. So do they. The modernists dissent from Humanae Vitae. "Traditionalists" dissent from Ecclesia Dei and Vatican II, on no basis (ultimately) other than their own private judgment, thus attaining more power and authority in a concrete sense than the pope himself. Trust is placed in mere man or schismatic sects like SSPX, rather than in God's grace and promises, whereby His Church will withstand the gates of hell (which is what modernism surely is). I felt that we had to get beyond all the technical distinctions, hair-splitting, and semantics, and get down to brass tacks, fundamental premises, and an examination of first principles. I believe in the Church, because I believe in the God Who established it. I don't believe it can defect, because Jesus said so, and because history itself more than amply bears this out. I don't believe that the modernists will ever subvert it (including the "halfway" sense which has been discussed in this ongoing debate). Even most critics of Vatican II - wanting to hang on to indefectibility - seek to maintain a schizophrenic approach that it was "ambiguous," that it did not espouse heresy, yet its language encouraged it, blah, blah, blah, along with a host of other ludicrous equivocations and rationalizing word games.

Again, I say let the theologians and canon lawyers work through all the technical distinctions of infallibility and Magisterium. They are above my head (as my confessed error at the beginning of this letter demonstrated). Bottom line is: you must accept the teaching of Vatican II and give it even internal assent.

Obviously, the prejudice against the Council runs deep. I am very used to prejudicial bias, leading to irrationality. And I know that it is useless to try to overcome it by logical argumentation. It must be attacked at the root - dug up whole like a weed. Look at all the errors of anti-Catholic Protestants. They engage in a quixotic, tragi-comic crusade against (as Fulton Sheen said) what they think the Catholic Church is. By the same token, I say that "traditionalists" engage in a futile, wrong-headed, cynical, faith-damaging endeavor to undercut the authority of Vatican II, which I submit that they do not fully understand.

But isn't it part and parcel of obedience to sometimes accept what we don't understand? Isn't that true of a 2-year-old child (my youngest) and their father or mother? Or with all of us and God? Is not any profound tragedy, like the loss of a child or a spouse far more challenging to faith than the supposed "vagueness" and "ambiguity" of Vatican II (assuming for the sake of argument that it is actually present)? And God tells us not to even be surprised by such "fiery ordeals." Can't one's faith in God and His Church overcome such self-generated difficulties of comprehension? Why would we expect to understand everything fully, anyway (more Protestantism)? We're talking about mysteries of divine revelation, of the deposit of faith, of the mind of the Church, as directed by the Spirit of God. And we think we can figure all that out without difficulty? Hence the confusion which has followed all Councils. Don't be duped by the modernist co-opting of Vatican II. Don't accept their lies about what it taught, or its supposed "spirit." Believe that God can protect His Church!

Shall the duty of obedience to the magisterium of the Church now be disputed also, and subjected to the death of a thousand qualifications? Are we too sophisticated to submit to the injunction to offer assent to Catholic teaching? Are us apologist-types exempt from it - as if we are still Protestants? I myself will abide by it (and it is not difficult at all for me to do, because I am not plagued and tormented by the doubts and existential agonies of "traditionalists"). Call that "blind obedience" if you will. Whatever it is, I am honored and privileged to do that - and I've been accused by agnostics and critics of Christianity of being gullible and irrational all along. That doesn' t bother me in the least. Such is the lot of faithful Christians. It's sad, though, when the accusation comes from other Christians.

And all this means that I must cease participation in this discussion, since by continuing I would be tacitly acknowledging that this debate is lawful, legitimate, and edifying. It is not. It has become (or always was) vain disputation. It is ridiculous and tragic to have to argue about Vatican II with fellow Catholics, as opposed to Protestants or Anglicans or Orthodox (who at least are consistent in their objection to it). One can only seek to refute such error and deliberate disobedience. It does not deserve a prolonged consideration. Nothing personal at all, but I think "traditionalists" need to take a long, hard, serious look at their own underlying presuppositions, and the harmful consequences of them. I hope that what I have written here is a catalyst towards that end."

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003

Answers

top it

-- (the truth hurts@truth.com), October 19, 2003.

--Dave Armstrong is defending what -his interpretation of who and or what is Catholic?

Does the Church 'need' his help in this area?

If the issues were not real and the problems were not possible then Canon 750 would not be required -YET it is here:

PROFESSION OF FAITH

Canon 750 provides a clear understanding of what we must profess as Catholics.

§1: A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred Magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2: Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Paragraphs one and two of canon 750 really say the same thing but in different ways. All Catholics must accept fully, without question, the deposit of faith. Only the Magisterium can define what belongs to the deposit of faith. Canon lawyers and theologians, DREs and catechists, laity, priests and individual bishops, must all embrace the deposit of faith as defined by the Magisterium. Those who embrace these teachings are blessed with the bond of profession of faith. The one who rejects any doctrine is opposed to the Catholic Church, and lacks this bond of unity.

The US bishops are NOT obedient to the Magisterium in many instances... Those that intentionally or unintentionally disobey the Magisterium and cloak themselves and thier actions in the garb of Vatican II are a primary reason that the 'traditionalists' focus on Vatican II as the supposed problem... The problem is not Vatican II -the problem is those that do not embrace the deposit of faith as defined by the Magisterium...

Just as the deposit of faith is defined by the Magisterium so is who and or what is Catholic... Dave Armstrong's position is nothing UNLESS inline with the Magisterium... I have not heard anything from the Magisterium regarding this 'big' problem that Dave Armstrong feels he must help our Church with? I have heard of liturgical abuses and I have heard of Tribunal error BUT not this "traditionalist rebellion"...

This issue is a non-issue and probably just rooted in fear -fear of Magisterium, not fear of traditionists... Rome will do what Rome will do...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 19, 2003.

off

-- - (-@-.-), October 19, 2003.

Dave Armstrong is part of that narrow, clustered source of a body of anti-traditional Catholic thought that I was talking about, as is Matt1618. There's many more, but I'm figuring they've probably all found each by now and have consolidated their efforts. There's been a healthy amount of consolidation on both sides of a fence at this point it seems.

The rest of the game imho, again, seems to me a matter of choices. While I cannot at all judge their intentions, their innocence or guilt, their souls... I feel safe enough saying that I think they have a hand in the destruction of the Faith at time. I realize that's quite a charge and I've tried to as careful as possible in throwing around such opinions that would brand people because I know what it feels like; but in general terms, I believe that they do immense damage to the Church.

I'm not buying Armstrong's declining to enter this lowly forum to debate the traditional Catholic vs. neo-Catholic topics. When one boasts clarity of Catholic knowledge in public circles and then declines to follow through in the particular application of it, as in this forum, it runs counter to their stated claim to fame.

Now Armstrong is more intelligent than I am and more researched than I am, but I do not fear him and I am willing to be taken down and embarrassed in the name of truth, because I do not believe he has the truth on his side. If I have to be humiliated in the name of Catholicism, tell him to come humiliate me if he has the time. I'm pretty sure it won't happen, but if it does, bring it on.

As for you on the other hand, though, I don't want to suck you back into something you don't want to take on right now, kiwi, if that's not what you want be doing with your time right now; I can understand that.

Just thought I would mention that.

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

The Mass is the very heart of the Catholic faith. I hope that we can agree on that. So... when has "Many" become "All". That is quite a sleight of hand.

-- (9999@444.com), October 19, 2003.

This has been covered too many times on too many threads because some people wish to continue calling themselves Catholic, but refuse to act that way. If you want to be a Protestant FINE, but find your own forum. To be a Catholic IMO means:

We try to follow Christ and His teachings to the best of our abilities therefore:

We obey Scripture and Tradition.

We obey Ecumenical councils, and ALL their decrees are binding on Catholics, ALL of them. One MUST obey, not come up with some personal rationale not to like a Protestant sect of one. Catholics believe Vatican II was a valid church council, and therefore MUST be obeyed.

We obey the Holy Father, and if or when he speaks infallibly, we regard it as such, and MUST obey.

We recognize that to *deliberately* disobey the ANY of the above represents schism, heresy, or both.

Frank

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

The closing speach of Paul VI, 1965 Vatican council.

The Church of the Council, it is true, was not content to reflect on her own private nature, and on the relations that unite her to God; she was also much attached with man as he really is today, with living man, with man totally taken up with himself, with man who not only makes himself the centre of his own interests, but who dares to claim that he is the principle and final cause of all reality. Man in his phenomenal totality, that is to say, arrayed in all his manifold aspects, presented himself, as it were, before the assemble of the Council Fathers. This is the new religion of man, no matter who declares it.

-- Jackson (Toofie@yahoo.com), October 19, 2003.

"This has been covered too many times on too many threads because some people wish to continue calling themselves Catholic, but refuse to act that way. If you want to be a Protestant FINE, but find your own forum."

I'm sorry Frank, but your continual references to traditional Catholics being protestants, outside the Church or in deviance with the truth is based upon a flaw in your understanding of doctrines and teachings surrounding the nature of papal infallibility, the excercise of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, the nature of true obedience and submission in relation to truth, and the relationship between Faith & reason. I say that ad infinitum because it's true. You've been presented this machination and have purchased it.

It's a conclusion you draw from your own interpretation of Church doctrine and teachings, or more precisely, other people's pre- packaged kit of interpretation that's for sale in the current market, and you assemble it yourself. It contains intellectual dishonesty, and you're not even trying to understand the question itself; you're on auto-reponse. It's stimulus/response. Input: "there's something wrong with this picture"... Output: "you're a schismatic, you're a heretic, you're a rebel".

Let's posit, for the sake of argument that you're right and that I and my traditional kin are outside of the Church looking in due to lack of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Questions:

1. Is pointing this out and making the statement alone going to make us trads say "dang, he's right... let's just drop the whole thing and ignore all the absurdities we see, and consider them phantoms"... does it make sense to get a magic alignment and unity this way?

2. If we take your word for it, then what do we do? Go repeat this magic statement to others like ourselves? After we run out of trad- candidates for these ipso-facto conversions, who do we start on next? Is this going to really make anyone holier?

3. And last but not least... what exactly is it that we've just bought? What is the new teaching that wasn't there before, before as in, let's say, 500 years ago? What is it that we are submitting to?

You see, the goal... the objective; is it holiness? Is it the perfection and union with Christ to which the saints aspired with their every breath, or is just a submission to options? People given an option of roads to travel will generally take the broadest and easiest.

Where are we going with our newfound solidarity, Frank? You know what, traditional Catholics wouldn't be traditionalist Catholics if they didn't believe in apostolic succession, infallibility, and submission to the Roman Pontiff. You can't call that a lie just because you don't understand what's going on in the Church. There is a true view, you know.

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

Emerald,

my traditional kin

You are NOT "traditional". "Traditional" Catholics obey the Pope and Magesterium.

Is pointing this out and making the statement alone going to make us trads say "dang, he's right... let's just drop the whole thing and ignore all the absurdities we see, and consider them phantoms"... does it make sense to get a magic alignment and unity this way?

No. I have yet to see any Protestant who comes here suddenly say "dang, THIS is Christ's church" and convert, so I highly doubt that any of you fallen-away Catholics will come back either. That being said, a Catholic like myself has an obligation to see that you don't tempt anyone away from the Catholic faith, if possible. Not that this is my calling in life, nor do I feel I'm suited for it, but I do see it as an obligation.

2. If we take your word for it, then what do we do? Go repeat this magic statement to others like ourselves? After we run out of trad- candidates for these ipso-facto conversions, who do we start on next?

The first thing you should do is quit trying to tell people to disobey the church. The second is to try and obey the church's teachings yourself, the third is to try and convince others to do liekwise. My suggestion would be to work on yourself first, the fallen-away second, and every non-Catholic third.

Is this going to really make anyone holier?

If you don't believe following Catholic doctrines is going to make you holier or increase your chances of salvation, what are you doing here? OF COURSE I want to try and make people holier by having them obey the church. Your question implies a startling indifference to the truth, implying that "anything is the same". It isn't Emerald, and if you reread this a few times you'll realize why you've left the church. You think something other than the OFFICIAL teaching of the Magesterium is preferential for salvation!

3. And last but not least... what exactly is it that we've just bought? What is the new teaching that wasn't there before, before as in, let's say, 500 years ago? What is it that we are submitting to?

What you've bought is OBEDIENCE. That's what you lack. What you are submitting to is Christ's authority, as legitimately exercised by the Church.

or is just a submission to options? People given an option of roads to travel will generally take the broadest and easiest.

That's exactly what you're doing. Taking the road you want rather than following the church. Drop your sense of pride and self, and pick up the Cross!

Where are we going with our newfound solidarity, Frank

This is a lie, really. There has never been NON-Solidarity in the church. The Church IS solidarity as it follows Truth. There are unfortunately people like you, and the Protestant sects who leave the church over one issue or another, but the church remains as one. You see Emerald, the issue isn't whether the church will "become" one, it already is, and always has been. The issue is whether or not you'll join her.

Frank

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

I think this should be repeated, it seems like a pretty good summary of the situation:

you'll realize why you've left the church. You think something other than the OFFICIAL teaching of the Magesterium is preferential for salvation!

Yep, I think that's it in a nutshell,

Frank

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

"The issue is whether or not you'll join her."

*sigh*...

Frank, I attend the Indult Tridentine Mass this morning.

I received Holy Communion.

Am I missing something Frank?

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

I can press you on this point and make it clear that you won't be able to say exactly how I am in defiance of Holy Mother Church, thus leaving me well inside the fold of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Let's do it.

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

OK; and many of us are receiving Holy Communion today in the Catholic Church of Novus Ordo Missae; and whatever you may think, Emmie --It will please Our Lord and promote union in His Holy Church. Union with the communicants of the Tridentine indult and all Catholics. Perhaps you can't see this. Your loss.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 19, 2003.

Emerald,

Frank, I attend the Indult Tridentine Mass this morning.

I received Holy Communion

Those exact same *actions* could be performed by someone who doesn't even believe in God, so I don't know what they are supposed to prove.

I can press you on this point and make it clear that you won't be able to say exactly how I am in defiance of Holy Mother Church,

Not to YOUR satisfaction, I'm sure. Emerald, when Sola Scriptura believers come here, how many times have they been convinced they were wrong and admitted it? I'm quite sure you won't ever admit you MUST obey Vatican II, and equally sure you will keep trying to use sophistry to get around out and out saying it. So what? You think you're clever here, but God sees into your SOUL, and you can't half- truth your way around it in the end. the only person you're fooling is yourself. You are either willing to obey the letter and spirit of Vatican II, or you aren't. Choose your side, Emerald (but you don't have to post it here, since I haven't seen you un-banned yet).

Frank

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

Well, Gene, determining exactly what my loss is, is what is on the table here. If there's intellectual and spiritual honesty here, then he can state how it is that I am detached from Holy Mother Church.

Note that I never said you weren't part of the Mystical Body yourself.

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

"I received Holy Communion" >>> "Those exact same *actions* could be performed by someone who doesn't even believe in God, so I don't know what they are supposed to prove."

Do you honestly take me for someone along those lines? Be honest.

But let's stay on focus. You identify me as someone outside the fold. This requires seeing into someones heart. Set that aside for the moment, and deal with what's visible.

In which ways have I visibly seperated myself? Because failing evidence here, you must necessarily resort to the reading of my heart; we all know that's a dead end.

You're stuck with the visible. Then, show me the visible deviation. It's simple.

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

This is a man not "excommunicaated", by rome "A catholic in good standing". While we protestants, [as you call us], are schismatics. Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad.

{The following investigative report is excerpted from a much longer article which appears in the July 1996 issue of Catholic World Report.}

When he wrote to applaud President Clinton's veto of a ban on partial- birth abortions, a controversial Jesuit priest was clearly out of step with the thinking of the Catholic Church. But his behavior was perfectly consistent with an ideological pattern that first became obvious when he ran for Congress--in direct defiance of orders from Rome. In the summer of 1992 a Jesuit graduate student at Harvard, Father Paul Mankowski, completed the background research for an article he planned to write on the relationship between the Society of Jesus and the congressional career of Father Robert Drinan, with a particular focus on Drinan's voting record on abortion. With the knowledge and consent of the archivist for the New England Province of the Society, Mankowski made photocopies of the correspondence and office memos pertinent to the issue. For various reasons Mankowski subsequently decided not to write an article. However, he then sought out the opinion of a professional historian, James Hitchcock, in determining how the various documents could be of use for the historical record. With the re-emergence of Father Drinan as a political player in the abortion debate, the documentation has assumed a new timeliness.

* * * In the United States even many liberal Catholics support Church teaching about abortion. It was therefore shocking that one of the president's strongest defenders was a Jesuit priest, Father Robert Drinan, who published articles in both the National Catholic Reporter and the New York Times attacking the bill and praising the President for having vetoed it. Such open partisanship is unusual among American priests, but it was not surprising in view of the fact that Father Drinan himself for ten years (l97l-8l) served in Congress, as a Democrat, and that while there was perhaps the single most reliable supporter of abortion "rights." In l970 Drinan was a well-known priest-lawyer and an official of Boston College. In February of that year, Father Pedro Arrupe, the Father General of the Jesuits world- wide, queried the provincial of the New England Province, Father William G. Guindon, concerning a rumor that Drinan was planning to run for Congress. Arrupe warned Guindon that Jesuits could not endorse the actions of any political party. About a week after Arrupe's warning, Drinan informed Guindon that he would indeed seek the Democratic nomination for Congress from a suburban Boston district. After Drinan's candidacy was publicly announced, Arrupe on February 25 cabled Guindon, saying flatly that Drinan could not run for office, and if elected could not serve. Although the Jesuit order traditionally laid great stress on obedience, an official of the New England province now told Arrupe that he was refusing to act on the latter's orders because such action would violate Drinan's rights. In March, Father Guindon was in Rome and met with Arrupe, who told the provincial that he must develop a plan whereby Drinan would withdraw from the congressional race. Assuring Guindon that he understood the reasons for the candidacy, the General nonetheless ruled that they were not sufficient to outweigh Jesuit policy. In addition to the permission of his Jesuit superiors, Church law also required that a priest in Drinan's situation receive the permission of the bishops in whose dioceses he was working. At the beginning of his candidacy Drinan told his Jesuit superiors that he had received informal assurances of approval from the Archdiocese of Boston and from the Diocese of Worcester, and the New England Province had forwarded this claim to Rome. However, Arrupe now queried the two bishops and reported that he had received letters from Cardinal Richard J. Cushing of Boston and Bishop Bernard J. Flanagan of Worcester stating that their permission had never been sought and thus had never been granted. Arrupe then requested that Drinan come to Rome to meet with him--a request Drinan apparently ignored as he began his campaign for Congress. Following his election in November, Two rules, one for Drinan, and the other for Feeney.

-- (9999@444.com), October 19, 2003.

What is it about the traditionalist way of thinking that some you hate so much??

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

To us, all the Catholic Church shares in Sacred Tradition; not only a fringe which bars the Novus Ordo liturgy, Stephen. It is they who disown us; we get the back of the hand from them here daily. And what for? For obeying our bishops and clergy; for not heaping scorn on Vatican II--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 20, 2003.

Eugene. Why do you think (your thoughts not something you have read) that some criticize the Novus Ordo liturgy? And why should someone criticize the pre Novus Ordo liturgy?

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

I'll answer; but what's the difference? You maintain all Novus Ordo supporters ''hate'' the Traditionists (so called) way of thinking. But we don't. In fact, we don't criticise their love for the Mass of Trent at all. We never downgrade the Mass they love. They smear the Novus Ordo liturgy; for reasons like elitism and snobbery.

It is a parisaical view of the rest of us; and a blasphemous view of Holy Mass in our parishes. A reaction is certainly justified, even if hatred isn't.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 20, 2003.

Steven,

Catholics don't criticize the Tridentine liturgy, in fact many of us go to them on and off even today. For example this Sunday I went to a Novus Ordo mass given by the Bishop in honor of JPII, but the last 2 weeks were Tridentine rites and I enjoyed them both. Catholics LOVE the mass, all approved masses as pleasing to the Lord. That's one thing that makes us Catholic.

It's the schismatics that refuse to follow the Magesterium that hate the mass. That's their problem at Judgement Day, not mine.

Emerald,

Do you honestly take me for someone along those lines

Of course not. I think you are a Believer, but my point was attending mass doesn't show anything other than someone attended mass. A Satanist could do the same with the intent of defiling the Body of Christ. You must say *why* you did something for it to have meaning in this context.

If you want to say you're a Catholic and have a "litmus test", why not say something like: " I try and obey Christ and all His teachings, as represented in Scripture and Tradition, and obey the Church and all her councils and the Pope", something like that.

That would work for me.

In which ways have I visibly seperated myself?

You reject the teachings of Vatican II. This places you "outside the fold" (Now Emerald, I've tried speaking in short, clear sentences, and honestly. If you are responding, try and do the same, and not waste time with something like "I obey the Pope just not what he teaches".)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 20, 2003.

"It is they who disown us; we get the back of the hand from them here daily."

What the... who-- wait just a... I don't bele-- what in the worl...

WHAT?!?

lol. Huh?

WE disown YOU? YOU?!?

Maybe there really are Antipodes after all.

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

I can read all your minds, so here's the answer to your queston.

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

"If you want to say you're a Catholic and have a "litmus test", why not say something like: " I try and obey Christ and all His teachings, as represented in Scripture and Tradition, and obey the Church and all her councils and the Pope", something like that. That would work for me."

The answer to this is simple, but please don't take it as an insult. But it's just straight forward reality:

You won't be the one judging me, so, I need not be proving anything to you. I need to prove my love for the Almighty, and that my friend, is not an easy task.

And thank God it isn't you or any other human being making the judgment calls. I actually think I might do alright by you or Paul, or even Eugene, but could you imagine some of the *ahem* other people in this forum with their hands strapped around the Heaven/Hell track- switcher lever on judgment day? I would have far better a chance with Christ; bring His Mother into the equation and I might have a fighting chance. But in this forum, I would have flames issuing forth from my eye sockets like an JATO unit in an instant.

"In which ways have I visibly seperated myself?" "You reject the teachings of Vatican II."

Did not. Did not... anything in Vatican II which is a restatement of existing doctrine I already accepted, and Vatican II defines no new doctrines to which I must lend my assent. This is made manifest by the fact that no one can come forward with one. I've read them, too. I actually did.

So there. =) Do I reject the fusion of the Church and the World in an unholy psuedo-incarnation which is other than the real Incarnation which we all believe in?

Absolutely. But this is not a defined doctrine of Vatican II. So again, so there. You can't name the teaching that I am not lending my assent to, because, there ain't one there.

Do you get it now?

Now I could venture a guess as to what this mysterious doctrine is, what this new teaching is that I'm supposedly not lending my assent to. Let me take a stab at it. I think it's... (insert drum roll here):

Enthusiasm.

(cymbol crash here)

That's it, Frank. I can't get excited about the New Springtime. I must be immediately burned at the stake for lethargy, it seems.

This places you "outside the fold"

I will now commence with the rending of my garments.

Judge not, lest you be judged. Now this is going to be really irritating, Frank, so bear with me:

I, Emerald, a.k.a. Paul M. (not to be confused with the other Paul M. of the forum), am... INSIDE the fold.

Hate to break it to you.

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

Just what part of Vatican II are these People rejecting?

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

Who knows, Steven. That's what's so funny.

What's more puzzling is the fact that no one really leads people to holiness, to sanctity anymore. It's just this accept this nebulous thing-a-mabob, and be inside the fold, be saved. Talk about having the law and not the spirit. Talk about Pharisee material.

For the love of God, give me some St. De Montfort, some Catherine of Genoa. Some Imitation of Christ, some Alphonsus Liguroi. Some St. Faustina and Catherine Emmerich and St. Theresa of the Child Jesus and Read Me or Rue it or the Litany of the Blessed Virgin or the Litany of the Holy Ghost or "Blessed be God, Blessed be His Holy Name" or Augustine's City of God. What about the story of St. Simon Stock and the graces of the Scapular, and the story of Fatima and the Stations of the Cross. The Secret of the Rosary. Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pope Saint Pius X. Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII. Our Lady's Psalter. Or check out the Rule of St. Benedict. Dante's Inferno. Wisdom's Fool. The humility of Martin De Porres.

The list goes on and on and on of what's really to be had in the glorious, romantic, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Does anybody get helped in this direction anymore?

No...

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

Italics off.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), October 20, 2003.

Watch out, Catholics! Eat hearty to keep those leg muscles strong. You'll need stamina to wade through the thigh-deep B.S. in Emmett Kelly's latest series of posts. What a wily Son of a Beechnut! That there is B.S. the likes of which I have rarely "detected" elsewhere. This flim-flam man puts the Wizard of Oz to shame.

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

Just makes every vein in your forehead bulge, doesn't it, John, when you get smacked upside the head with 10 pounds of truth in a 5 pound bag?

OK. Go ahead & call me some names now.

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

I see people here writing about “loyalty” to the Bishops and to the clergy but what about faith and the true teachings of the church? I know so many people that think that the priest can add live the Mass how ever he wishes and the clergy can not question it because he his practicing the “spirit of Vatican II” (This is what the traditionalists are protesting about). Does any one really know what the “spirit of Vatican II” is? (Hint it is not what is has now become). Now I go to mass and the Priest is afraid to talk about sin Heaven, Hell and God forbid he talk about Purgatory because he might offend someone. I do not get this and no one can explain it.

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

A Modern Master:
(cymbol ((sic)) crash here) the fusion of the Church and the World in an unholy psuedo-incarnation which is other than the real Incarnation which we all believe in? --there ain't one there.'' Precisely what we've been telling you, Genius!/b>

''Do you get it now? (insert drum roll here):

''I must be immediately burned at the stake for lethargy, it seems.'' --Please, let me do it to him. Please!

"In which ways have I visibly separated myself? --Answer: You reject the teachings of Vatican II. Next question, Stage Struck?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 20, 2003.

Let's not needlessly complicate this, Gene.

What are the teachings of Vatican II that I have rejected?

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

I do not understand you post. Are you telling me that I reject the teachings of Vatican II?

-- Steven Schneider (Steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

Eugene,

Do you reject the teachings of Trent, Vatican I, or any of the other Councils large or small?

-- Steven Schneider (Steven @schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

A Voice from (WAY BACK in) the Past:

(Enthusiasm.) ''OK. Go ahead & call me some names now.'' Jake /

Zamboni! Rope Trick! Sound Bite! Miscreant!

Basta? -- OK:

Broken Record!
Vanity!
Useless Dolt!
Marimba!
Tooth-ache!
Old Bread!
Endless Stream of Ego!

PHARISEE! Wow; got a minute of happiness in this otherwise blue Monday! Thanks, My Lord! Lol!!!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 20, 2003.

Sir, step away from the vehicle and drop the html tags. Slowly.

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

No, Stephen; I was really talking to the Emerald Boy and Little Jake, the Elitist. You seem better adjusted to the Catholic Church and her Tradition.

These young partisans are hhaving a crisis of faith which hopefully will pass. It is for us faithful to shake them up on a site like this. Remember; we are not in the Holy of Holies here. This is the street. We have to deal with street kids here.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 20, 2003.

"Stay back. We've got kids, and we're not afraid to catechise them!"

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

Yes, Barrymore. Take your bows. Catholicism was never served so well. In a perverse way.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 20, 2003.

Emerald, Jake,

What is your deal? First are you/do you consider your self Catholic. Second do you accept Trent, or Vatican II? I know to some of you that may sound like a dumb question but I like to ask it.

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

Eugene,

How about you? do accept Trent, or Vatican II?

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

To be Catholic is to accept Trent, Vatican I AND Vatican II as binding, and the other 18 councils as well. That's the problem with schismatics, it's not an either/or thing. Playing games (Emerald's clashing cymbal) won't cut it at your Judgement. You either are attempting to obey God and the Church, or yourself.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 20, 2003.

That is the what I was looking for but I would like to get Emerald's version.

-- Steven (steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

It's not a dumb question at all.

It's a good question. There's a lot of history in the forum, and I'm just one person and there are others. There's a lot of history outside this forum; there's a history of saints who wrote many things, and many things that the Church has taught for 2,000 years.

I'd like to make it easy for you with a quick answer, but would have to say: read and don't stop, think and don't stop, pray and don't stop.

I know that's an irritating answer, but no quick answer will do where the eternal destiny of a soul is concerned. Do you know what I mean? In other words, seek and you shall find.

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

E

You are bouncing around the question.

-- Steven (steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

Alrighty.

I am a Catholic.

I accept Trent as a dogmatic council.

I accept Vatican II as a pastoral council.

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

A faithful Catholic cannot demand or decide what the Church has to do. The Church decides and the faithful take heed without losing faith. Peter is the Captain of his bark the Holy Catholic Church. We aren't afraid on the open sea of this life.

When a new problem arises, as they just do;

Our faithful implore first the Mercy of God. Then the power of His Holy Spirit to repair wrongs; with an act of FAITH in Our Divine Lord & Saviour who said: ''I am with you all days, even to the end of the world.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 20, 2003.

Now wasn’t that EZ. Now do you go to the new Mass or the old Mass? I go to both.

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

See the problem Steven? He can't give a straight answer for anything. What does that tell you? Emerald, the real question is do you believe that ALL decrees of Vatican II are binding on ALL Catholics, the same as with any other council? They are, but will YOU give a one-word "yes" to this, or can't you?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 20, 2003.

When did the Holy Ghost become the Holy Spirit.

-- ME (Me@me.com), October 20, 2003.

Yes I see.

-- Steven Schneider (Steven @schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

Steven,

Since you haven't been here that long, the reason Emerald's statement needs a clarification is that some of the schismatics believe that they can choose what ecumenical councils require obedience, and which don't. What he's trying to do is make you THINK he accepts Vatican II, while subtly denying he has to obey.

The same old half-truths from Emerald,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 20, 2003.

I know this

-- Steven S. (Steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

''I am a Catholic.
I accept Trent as a dogmatic council.
I accept Vatican II as a pastoral council.''

Prevarications of Sly Boy.

He accepts what he wants to accept. The Church can like it or lump it. He gets the last word over councils and his own obligations. Can we see through his facade? He doesn't think so.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 20, 2003.

Emerald,

Do you accept the text of the II Vatican Council as signed by the Pope? Have you read the text?

-- Steven S. (Steven@Schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

I have read the text of about 15 Councils and for the most part they all look good to me.

-- Steven S. (Steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

Yes, I've read them.

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

This is an OK answer it can be good to accept things for what they are. He is just using the whole “pastoral” part as a way out.

-- Steven S. (Steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

And do you accept the text? (Minus the errors already pointed out bye the Pope and some Bishops)

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schneider.net), October 20, 2003.

"He is just using the whole “pastoral” part as a way out."

Well, you're going to have to be more specific. You say "a way out", and obviously, I'm going to respond "a way out of what?"

There is a what.

I'm going to lean on you to provide what it is that I'm trying to get out of, naturally.

Involved is that pesky question of pastoral vs. dogmatic.

Go pull up Guadium Et Spes, the encyclical of Pope Paul VI. What previous, recent encyclical of what previous pope would you say that this encyclical can be matched to?

Let me give you an example: Go back and read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII. Immediately afterwards, go read Lumen Gentium.

What do you see?

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

"I know this"

What can you do with it?

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

Frank and Gene, step back and let Steven do this; he's doing a better job.

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

I attend the Tridentine Mass.

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

You answer all my questions with the simplicity forward way that I asked them in and I will answer yours.

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schneider.net), October 21, 2003.

SSPX? or some ware else? I will not criticize your answer (not that you should need to worry about that if your faith is strong)

-- Steven Schneider (Steven@Schneider.net), October 21, 2003.

Alright then.

My turn:

What was/is the objective of Vatican II?

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

Answer that and then I'll do yours.

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

I am doing a better job @ what?

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), October 21, 2003.

Getting to the point.

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

To day it is said the V II was to bring Unity/ecumenism to the Church but (If the Unity part is true they messed that up) I have a hard time believing this. I believe it was to bring to attention some of today’s (1960s) issues but it was drug out to be more. I will stop @ that BUT I will add more to this in the late AM.

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), October 21, 2003.

So you know

that can be a loaded question (because the true answer is so distorted) and it is late. So here it is.

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), October 21, 2003.

Tomorrow then. Glad you said that; I have to get up at 4am.

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

Emerald,

We are supposed to PROCLAIM our faith, not be evasive about it and hide what we truly believe. Why is it so difficult to answer a simple question? Here it is again:

Emerald, the real question is do you believe that ALL decrees of Vatican II are binding on ALL Catholics, the same as with any other council? They are, but will YOU give a one-word "yes" to this, or can't you?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 21, 2003.

From Pope Paul VI: "as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence." "it was one of the programmed items [of the Council] not to give solemn dogmatic definitions." "Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." "Vatican II is infallible" - Frank One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell which thing is not like the other
Before I finish my sooooonnnnggg
"It is almost impossible to happen that Catholics who mix themselves with heretics or schismatics in any act of worship might be worthy to be excused from this shameful crime." - Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo Bk. VI, Chap. 5, Art. 2, 1748. "It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren." - Decree on Ecumenism, #8. [It is an error to say that] "in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." - Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Error #16, Dec. 8, 1864. "The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion... these actions... can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation." - Decree on Ecumenism, #3 Two of these things are not like the others
Two of these things just do not belong
Can you tell which two things are not like the other
Before I finish my sooooonnnnggg
It is not fitting that the Church of God be changed according to the fluctuations of worldly necessity." - Pope Pius VI, Quod Aliquantum, Mar. 10, 1791. "No man can serve two masters, for to please one amounts to contemning the other...It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men." - Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiæ Christianæ, #6&7, Jan. 10, 1890. "Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world." - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #93. One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
Before I finish my sooooonnnnggg
"They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls...namely that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society.’ " - Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, #3, Dec. 8, 1864. [It is an error to say that] "in this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever." - Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Error #77, Dec. 8, 1864. "Men who really believe in God must... understand that differing modes of worship... cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God." - Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, #31, Nov. 1, 1885. "The human person has the right to religious freedom...this right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right." - Declaration on Religious Freedom, #2. One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
Before I finish my sooooonnnnggg


-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 21, 2003.

I'm sorry. Here it is again in a (hopefully) easier to read format. Must have messed up a tag. From Pope Paul VI: "as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence." "it was one of the programmed items [of the Council] not to give solemn dogmatic definitions." "Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." "Vatican II is infallible" - Frank One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell which thing is not like the other
Before I finish my sooooonnnnggg
"It is almost impossible to happen that Catholics who mix themselves with heretics or schismatics in any act of worship might be worthy to be excused from this shameful crime." - Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo Bk. VI, Chap. 5, Art. 2, 1748. "It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren." - Decree on Ecumenism, #8. [It is an error to say that] "in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." - Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Error #16, Dec. 8, 1864. "The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion... these actions... can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation." - Decree on Ecumenism, #3 Two of these things are not Traditional Teachings
Two of these things just do not belong
Can you tell which two things are not Traditional Teachings
Before I finish my sooooonnnnggg
It is not fitting that the Church of God be changed according to the fluctuations of worldly necessity." - Pope Pius VI, Quod Aliquantum, Mar. 10, 1791. "No man can serve two masters, for to please one amounts to contemning the other...It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men." - Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiæ Christianæ, #6&7, Jan. 10, 1890. "Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world." - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #93. One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
Before I finish my sooooonnnnggg
"They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls...namely that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society.’ " - Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, #3, Dec. 8, 1864. [It is an error to say that] "in this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever." - Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Error #77, Dec. 8, 1864. "Men who really believe in God must... understand that differing modes of worship... cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God." - Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, #31, Nov. 1, 1885. "The human person has the right to religious freedom...this right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right." - Declaration on Religious Freedom, #2. One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
Before I finish my sooooonnnnggg


-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 21, 2003.

Regina,

it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility

And I agree. No extraordinary proclamations were made. So what? The problem for YOU (which has been posted on at least one other thread recently) is that by their very nature of the council, the decisions of ecumenical councils are BINDING on all Catholics. There is no "you can choose to disobey if nothing extraordinary is delcared clause" to weasel out of obedience. Also, the definitions of ecumenical councils are infallible *by nature*, so I don't see why you are trying to use a one-liner to avoid your responsibilities. Try reading the Catholic encyclopedia article on "General counsels" and see what you think.

And I really don't appreciate the foolish song. I've got to confess I didn't read your whole post because of it. If you care that little to treat such a serious matter seriously, why should I treat your response seriously?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 21, 2003.

No extraordinary proclamations were made. So what?

So everything! Your whole argument has been that Vatican II is infallible. Pope Paul VI said the opposite. If you agree that no extraordinary proclamations were made, how can you, at the same time, say that the Holy Ghost guided the Council and prevented the council Fathers from teaching error?

It is a consequence of the Church's infallibility that the doctrine contained in any new teaching must not contradict doctrine that had previously been taught "always and everywhere" in the Church. If a new "teaching" does contradict what was taught before, and I've demonstrated several times now that Vatican II's teachings do, then the new teaching is obviously not infallible. This is confirmed by the infallible proclamation of Vatican Council I on July 18, 1870:

"For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of Faith [Tradition], and might faithfully set it forth."

It doesn't take a theologian or a rocket scientist to conclude from this that if a "teaching" proposed to us by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is contrary to previous Church teaching, then the new teaching is not infallible, not from the Holy Ghost, and is not to be believed or obeyed.

Archbishop Felici, the Council's General Secretary, at the closing of Vatican II, confirmed that we must judge the infallibility of individual pronouncements made by Vatican II by comparing them with previous Church teaching:

"We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic [infallible] definitions; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations."

Where the council re-affirmed what the church has always taught and belived requires our assent. No problem there. But any new teaching has to be taken quite differently. An infallible teaching requires no "reservations" obviously. And if these new teachings do require "reservations" again we can easily see that the teachings don't come from the Holy Ghost, therefore they are subject to error.

And I really don't appreciate the foolish song. I've got to confess I didn't read your whole post because of it. If you care that little to treat such a serious matter seriously, why should I treat your response seriously?

Your arguement has always been that Vatican II didn't depart from Tradition. I've shown it has on more than one occasion now. You've ignored it and repeated your arguement. You've argued that Vatican II was infallible. I've shown it was not infallible and used the words of Paul VI himself to make this point. You've ignored it and repeated your arguement. I've used statements from Popes, Councils and Saints to present my argument. You're ignored those statements and repeated the neo-mantra "obey, obey, obey."

Obviously you're not interested in any sort of concrete evidence standing by itself, so I injected a little humor. Big deal. My weak attempt at humor still makes a point: Vatican II teachings are "not like the others" which came before it.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 21, 2003.

Regina's good for a laugh. However her charge: ''Vatican II didn't depart from Tradition??? / I've shown it has, on more than one occasion now. You've ignored it and repeated your argument.'' --as a non sequitur has no punch lines.

The Church has ''departed from Tradition?'' Or Vatican II ''departed from Tradition?''

Which was it, Regina? If the Council started a new tradition; yet the Council remained our fully valid Catholic council, why has anyone's CHURCH departed from Sacred Tradition?

The CHURCH remains in her line of Tradition, whether Vatican II (her Council) broke new ground or not. Your camp decided the Church is no longer entitled to your obedience in this case. Therefore, YOU break with her living Tradition. You don't realise; it's the old saw, '''Love me, love my dog.'' Is this over your head?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 21, 2003.

Vatican 2, and the popes of V2, are precisely in agreement with previous popes. Pass that pipe kid, I need a few puffs of that stuff.

-- Mad Hatter (ballyhoo@spin.com), October 21, 2003.

Regina,

I tried finding the sources for the quotes you listed, but can't. Paul VI didn't say that during his closing on 12/7/65, and can't seem to find his article in the French publication from 66 that I think that was "quoted" from.

Do you HAVE the source documents you can link here so I can read them and determine their intent for myself, or were you just copying partial quotes from some schismatic website that supported your belief?

I hope you don't find this offensive, but considering Isabel's recent copying a deliberate mis-quote of St. Basil, I can't accept these quotes until I can read what they came from. Please post the links that you used for them (if any) and I will respond. LOL, I have a feeling though that much in the same way as you schismatics in the end were wrong LAST time, you are this time as well.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 21, 2003.

but considering Isabel's recent copying a deliberate mis-quote of St. Basil

Huh? What are you talking about? If it was a mis-quote, I can assure you it was unintentional, not deliberate. Maybe you should be sure of what you're talking about before you just accuse someone of being purposely deceitful. You know, because of your blind obedience, you automatically assume we have dishonest motives. Our motive is the truth. You can find the rest of Regina's quotes easy enough if you look, and yet the only one you address is Paul VI's quote. How do you reconcile the rest? They can't be.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 21, 2003.

Isabel,

I was very careful in how I worded that. You copied something that was purposefully misquoting st. Basil, whether you knew that when you copied it or not, I don't know, and didn't claim to. It's on the other thread.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 21, 2003.

oops, hit the wrong button. I haven't gotten to the rest of Regina's post, I'm trying to address it from the top down. Most people put their most important point first.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 21, 2003.

I am back

-- Steven (steven@schneider.net), October 21, 2003.

Also, the definitions of ecumenical councils are infallible *by nature*.

Of course definitions are infallible. That's what infallibility pertains to.

Frank. You're bouncing back and forth with your terms. Sometimes you use the word decisions, other times you use the word decrees. Now you use the word definitions.

There is a difference, and a huge one, one of a substantive nature. There's no sense in saying we're trying to weasel out of something here when you can't even identify exactly what it is we are weaseling out of. Let alone use the proper terminology!

There weren't any definitions at Vatican II. And no, it's not true that what's in Vatican II is infallible by nature because it's an ecumenical council.

In fact, that's a false teaching. Nowhere whatsoever in the teachings of the Church regarding the deliniation of the infallible is this idea you have expressed implicitly, explicitly, or otherwise taught. It's a common fallicy to believe this in the Church today, and it's not what the Catholic Church teaches about the nature of infallibility.

Just say it what it is that the trads are rejecting, these self- styled interpretations of the documents of Vatican II so often referenced by post-conciliar modernists.

Many say the Church is moving in a particular direction. I believe I've heard you say that yourself; now, I'm asking... what is this direction, what are the principles behind it, and how do we know when we've gotten there?

Frank, you're dodging all the Trads here. You won't identify exactly what it is that is being denied assent to.

Furthermore, without identifying what exactly it is, you're saying that this whatever infallibly requires our assent.

And by the way, where in the wide world of sports are you getting this idea that every ecumenical council is infallible by it's very nature? Man, you've really been sold a bill of goods on this one.

Actually, that's false teaching right there.

There's no resorting anymore to accusations of heresy and schism if you cannot identify the doctrine which is denied or the demand that is denied.

You can't; it's not possible.

Answer that, Frank, and I'll answer yours. What's the new doctrine?

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

Emerald,

You are going to make Frank, punch drunk.:~) He alrady has a boxers nose after that.

-- Roberto Duran (hands@of.stone), October 21, 2003.

Emerald,

How I understand things the objective of V II was for the Church to address the issues on the times and to prepare the church for the future. Y will have to bare with me tonight I did not sleep to well last night so I am beat.

So is it SSPX, SSPV or something else?

SS

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 21, 2003.

Emerald,

I'm still waiting for Regina to post the source documents for her quotes from Pius VI. I'd hate to think that she just copied someone else's work, and don't want this to go "under the radar" in you guys' next attack on the Catholic Church. One thing at a time. After that I'll get to yours. In general though, I've gotten most of what I know on church councils from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Forgive me if I take their generally good writings on things over your unsupported assertions! Perhaps you could speed the process by finding the Pius quotes for her?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 21, 2003.

Emerald,

You knocked the brother out. As well as you asked he still had to blame this on Regina? I didn't read you mention Regina in you're question. Did you?

Eat crow Frankie!

-- Roberto Duran (hands@of.stone), October 21, 2003.

Emerald,

By golly -you got it...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 22, 2003.

Get lost, little housefly, Roberto Duran.

The real Roberto was known as "Manos de Piedra" (Hands of Stone), but you are nothing but "Manos de Mierda." We don't need your B.S. here (nor that of Emmett, Raginga, Isabull, and Jacko either, for that matter).

Hey, Frank and Eugene. You may have thought that Steven was going to do a number on Emmett, but he is in a shaky condition himself. He actually thinks that some pope admitted that Vatican II had errors. (Steven, that's B.S.. Hang in there, and you'll learn from Frank and Eugene.)

My fellow real Catholics, it is patently obvious that the ex-Cath Prots here (Emmett and his fellow Crips) don't really assent to all the teachings of Vatican II and the new Catechism. So, there is only one way out of the impasse in which you find yourselves. What you need to do is wait for these lost souls to go through the Conciliar documents and the Catechism -- so that they can quote, in public, ALL the passages that they say are teaching errors (with an explanation of why they reject those passages). Once you have this material from them, you will be able to go down the list and explain why there rejections are B.S., plain and simple.

Mark my words ... In some cases, they will quote a mere opinion or suggestion as though it were a doctrine. In some cases, they will quote a disciplinary reg as though it were a doctrine. And in some cases, they will reject an actual doctrine that they are required to humbly accept. But you have to have the actual quotations from them before you can straighten their crooked little fallen-away fannies out.

It will be interesting to see if any of them has the guts to lay it on the line and produce the teachings that they reject. Up to now they have been complete cowards (especially Emmett the Clown Kelly), beating around the bush and playing word games. They have been the kind of gutless goofballs that would have apostatized rather than be martyred by the early pagans -- so fearful have they been of speaking right out with specificity.

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 22, 2003.

B.S.D.

quid pro quo

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 22, 2003.

P.S.

"My fellow real Catholics, it is patently obvious that the ex-Cath Prots here (Emmett and his fellow Crips) don't really assent to all the teachings of Vatican II and the new Catechism."

B.S.D.,

I do not know if I am considered one of your "fellow real Catholics" -irregardless, I am interested to see if your declaration has merit... Please delineate...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 22, 2003.

"..So there is only one way out of the impasse in which you find yourselves. What you need to do is..."

Read what Franks answer to to the question is. Its that simple.

-- Roberto Duran (Hands@of.stone), October 22, 2003.

so that they can quote, in public, ALL the passages that they say are teaching errors (with an explanation of why they reject those passages). Once you have this material from them, you will be able to go down the list and explain why there rejections are B.S., plain and simple.

Being as Regina already posted a few quotes that she disagrees with, as well as other quotes reflecting WHY she disagrees with them, maybe then you would like to step up to the plate, John, and tell us how those statements reconcile with previous Church teaching. Here's your chance! Don't wait too long, the Ark will soon be leaving port.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 22, 2003.

Roberto,

The trouble with answering Emerald now is that it allows the prior comments of Regina to go uncontested. You see Roberto, these people post PARTIAL quotes so out of context that they appear to say the opposite of the author's intent -- which is clear to all if the whole passage is shown. You can post whatever you wish, but so far the schismatics have been wrong on everything.

Schismatics, you ALL can help out Regina here! Please post links to the quotes she posted so we can read the whole paragraph and see if we are being lied to by you.

Waiting,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2003.

These are the starters to post links for:

From Pope Paul VI: "as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence." "it was one of the programmed items [of the Council] not to give solemn dogmatic definitions." "Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility."

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@two cents.cam), October 22, 2003.

I tried finding the sources for the quotes you listed, but can't. Paul VI didn't say that during his closing on 12/7/65, and can't seem to find his article in the French publication from 66 that I think that was "quoted" from.

For over a half hour I've been trying to bring up Paul VI's General Audience of January 12, 1966 on the Vatican Website but keep getting a message "Search engine updating. Please try again later." So that's what I'll do.

Do you HAVE the source documents you can link here so I can read them and determine their intent for myself, or were you just copying partial quotes from some schismatic website that supported your belief?

You have a biased position: Any website which criticizes Vatican II and/or puts emphasis on any pope/cardinal/bishop who declared that Vatican II was a pastoral, non-infallible council, will be regarded by you as being "schismatic." So really, what's the point of posting links, anyway? Many of my sources, however don't come from websites, but rather, many of the books I've read on the topic. But again, a listing of those books will be regarded by you as being authored by "schismatics" because they very soundly point out the many, many errors of this council.

The clearly pastoral (i.e. non-dogmatic non-infallible) nature of the council can be found in the Preliminary Note to Lumen Gentium, which I know can be found at the Vatican's website, if you're interested. Back when I thought I'd start a new thread comparing documents of the Council to past church teachings, I'd compiled much info - info that I got from the Vatican website, and info from other websites which would be regarded by you as "schismatic."

I have a feeling though that much in the same way as you schismatics in the end were wrong LAST time, you are this time as well.

Frank, please stop with the epithet, ok? Each time you use it against one of us, you demonstrate that you don't know what it means.

As for being "wrong the last time" what is it we were "wrong" about?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 22, 2003.

And, btw, Frank, stop using me as an excuse for dodging Emerald's questions.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 22, 2003.

Regina,

This is no inconsequential matter. As I've stated earlier, the quotes you guys present are often very misleading, at a minimum. For example, the website Isabel linked on the "a "banned" topic" thread has St. Basil saying the opposite of what he *really* said. They are trying to use a saint to LIE, Regina, that should bother you (but it doesn't seem to, since none of you condemn them, like you are always trying to do to the Catholic church.

So if you quote the same type of site with fragmentary quotes that support your position, you shouldn't think it unreasonable for me to ask for the originals. I've seen from past quotes of the same type that they are lies. No one would believe them without seeing the source.

As far as calling you schismatics, that's the name I think fits, but am open to suggestions if you have another suggestion such as "dissenter" or something that you think more appropriate. I have no intention of calling you what you are NOT, which is Traditional. A Traditionalist obeys the church.

And on Emerald, he has yet to answer questions of mine, one of which was just a "yes" or "no". Since he feels no obligation to answer me, I'm sure he won't be offended by my putting him off until your errors are refuted.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2003.

This is no inconsequential matter. As I've stated earlier, the quotes you guys present are often very misleading, at a minimum. For example, the website Isabel linked on the "a "banned" topic" thread has St. Basil saying the opposite of what he *really* said. They are trying to use a saint to LIE, Regina,

Ok. I'll avoid using 'snippets'. Why don't we just use *actual* quotes from Vatican II and *actual* quotes from pre-conciliar Popes, Councils, documents, etc? I already started that upthread with regard to Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, etc. All of these can be found where I found them originally - the official website for the Vatican. I started to show how Vatican II's teachings contradict those of the past. I can keep going, but for now, why don't we just stick to what I've already posted so as to keep the debate organized?

As for the issue as to whether or not Vatican II is infallible, again, the answer can be found in writings of John XXIII and in the documents themselves. A portion of the Prelim. Note to Lumen Gentium (found on the Vatican's website) can stand by itself: "In view of the concilliar practice and *pastoral purpose* (emphasis mine) of the present council, the sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the church only when the Synod itself openly declares so."

Frank, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show me where in the documents of Vatican II the sacred Synod declared any of the *new* teachings as binding on the Church. Now, the Prelim note says it will "openly" declare when it is speaking about "binding", so a declaration which binds the faithful, if it exsists, shouldn't be hard to find. Good luck.

As far as calling you schismatics, that's the name I think fits, but am open to suggestions if you have another suggestion such as "dissenter" or something that you think more appropriate.

Why don't we just avoid the labels altogther and use one anothers names when speaking?

Once again, for those who may not know, a schismatic is one who denies that the Pope has the authority to rule. I acknowlege and assent to the doctrine of the Papacy and that Pope John Paul is the sucessor of St. Peter, the very first Pope. Just like St. Peter, JPII has authority to rule. I can confidently speak for my husband and my friends who post here that they agree.

I have no intention of calling you what you are NOT, which is Traditional. A Traditionalist obeys the church.

So where you find contradictions between Vatican II and the past, which do you "obey"? How do you justify your own disobedience to Vatican II by not "dialoging" with me about those "riches and treasures we have in common?" If you believe that every word from *every* council is infallible, how do you justify your disobedience to past Councils, which said, in many cases, the complete opposite of what Vatican II teaches?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 22, 2003.

Because these contradictions are only your opinion, Regina. Frank's correct; you are a dissident. That's your privelege, no one can stop you. But all CAN reject your senseless opposition to the Mass after Vatican II -- and that's our privielege. Our Mass is HOLY. Our Pope approves the Mass in vernacular, Novus Ordo; and we have nothing to justify to you or your elitist camp. (OH; and-- WE HAVE ''DIALOGUED'' WITH YOU.) To no end, because you're always too proud to make any concession. You are totally biased.

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

Regina,

I really want to settle one issue before moving on to another. You've implied that Paul VI said we do not HAVE to obey Vatican II. I think you should either link those documents or retract your assertion. I think I've provided suitable grounds for not trusting the "quotes" of anti-Catholics.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2003.

Because these contradictions are only your opinion, Regina.

Is that so?

Gene, *your* mission, should you choose to accept it is to show me how this:

[It is an error to say that] In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation and can attain salvation. - Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Error #16

is in perfect keeping with this:

The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion...these actions...can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation. - Decree on Ecumenism #3

It takes no one to form a personal "opinion" to see the stark contradiction between the two teachings, Gene.

Frank

You've implied that Paul VI said we do not HAVE to obey Vatican II. I think you should either link those documents or retract your assertion.

I "implied" nothing of the sort. I never said that Pope Paul VI told us we didn't have to obey. The quote I provided demonstrated the strictly pastoral, non-dogmatic character of the council. The quote came from an excellent book I read written by someone you would denounce as a schismatic, and the quote I provided says nothing different than Nota Praevia which can be found at the Vatican website. You're being "disobedient" to Vatican II by claiming it is an infallible, dogmatic council, when it itself says that it isn't. LOL

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 22, 2003.

Well Regina, post the links to the documents those snippets came from, and we'll talk. I guess though that since you haven't, you probably have never read them all, and were just quoting someone else.

Not much credibility there Regina.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2003.

Frank, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show me [etc]

Gene, *your* mission, should you choose to accept it is to show me [etc]

Oh, no, no, no. That is easily detected B.S.!

Raging-a, this is a Catholic forum. Non-Catholics like you are not authorized to give "missions" to Catholics. Do as the Catholics tell or ask you, and progress will be made here.

You're being "disobedient" to Vatican II by claiming it is an infallible, dogmatic council, when it itself says that it isn't. Several times we have witnessed this allegation, and each time it has been detected as B.S.. The documents of Vatican II do NOT say "that it isn't" "an infallible" "council." (That allegation is an invention or a misinterpretation. Either way, it's B.S..)

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 22, 2003.

Our council In her intercourse with other councils may she always be in the right; but our council, right or wrong."

-- Soapy (9999@444.com), October 22, 2003.

Ok. I do not truly believe that any Pope sad that there are errors in V II. I made a mistake and I get to what I truly meant after later.

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), October 22, 2003.

[It is an error to say that] ''In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation and can attain salvation. - Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, / as opposed to:

''. . . brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion...these actions...can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation. - Decree on Ecumenism #3

Capable of providing access? Which actions, Regina? If Baptism is one, isn't it access? And the words never said they DO bring someone to salvation OUTSIDE Holy Mother Church.

The words mean, some actions, such as Baptism, LOVE, martyrdom. great sorrow for your sins, etc., ARE CAPABLE of giving access to the ''community of salvation,'' or: the Church.

You have misconstrued the context & words of , saying ''Men can find the way to eternal salvation and can attain salvation.'' - Pope Pius IX; when you must know his words meant ''ANOTHER WAY to attain salvation''. The 2nd Vatican Council doesn't acknowledge any other way to salvation;

The words you've distorted mean some ___SACRED ACTIONS___ by non- Catholics can lead a soul into the ''community'' or way, of salvation. Mainly BAPTISM; (do you deny that?) and love of God with repentence for all sin. Very worthwhile ''actions''. These indeed can be ''sacred actions''.Conclusion; You haven't discovered a true contradicition between Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, and - Decree on Ecumenism #3 !

Opinions like yours are worth nothing. There's NO ''stark contradiction''; only your demonstrated unwillingness to follow the Church's lead.

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

eugene was that ment for me?

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 22, 2003.

" ..Opinions likes your are worth Nothing!"

Maybe to you, but not to everyone in this forum, bongo!

Might not agree with Regina on everything, but she most certainley is entitled to her opinion.

Go over and tell your new friend on the other thread what a great guy s/he is, and stop trying to bully this Lady.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 22, 2003.

B.S.D: If you are going to argue the post conciliar position, it might add to the persuasive force of your comments to read the oft- quoted Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC 1822 before posting.

"Y will have to bare with me tonight I did not sleep to well last night so I am beat."

Sorry I wasn't around last night either, fell asleep early-early.

"So is it SSPX, SSPV or something else?"

Honest answer: no particular affiliation of any kind whatsoever; just a Catholic.

"The trouble with answering Emerald now is that it allows the prior comments of Regina to go uncontested."

Catch up. I can sit it out while Regina gets it together; I'm confident she'll come up with the goods and do right by you. She wants to know what the truth is, the Catholic truth, and she wants to live the Catholic truth as best she can. I'm sure this is pleasing to God, and he'll supply whatever grace she needs.

It's the Almighty God that moves men and women to the truth, if truth is their hearts desire.

So, dialogue with her. I'll get out of the way.

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

I have read the documents that you talked about in your post and I am not sure why you are having a hard time answering a question with a straight answer. So where do you attend your Latin Mass?

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 22, 2003.

"I am not sure why you are having a hard time answering a question with a straight answer."

I gave you straight answers, but just be sure, ask the specific question again, and I'll give a straight answer.

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

I go here.

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

I am not thinking of any question in particular I just see a lot of answers the do not seem to be any thing about the question. I think you are vary lucky to be able to attend a Tridentine Mass our bishop will nit allow such a thing. I believe the Tridentine Mass is filled with great beauty and reverence.

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 22, 2003.

So why do you feel you have to be specific on how you except V II?

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 22, 2003.

Isn't specificity what has been demanded?

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

What I mean to say is, first I'm seen as dodging; then, I'm being too specific?

Rest assured, the more precise one becomes, and the more specific one becomes, the less ambiguous one becomes, the more focused one becomes, the more traditional they become.

Because the truth is one and the same and eternal.

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

It is not like that, I see many of your answers have nothing to do with the question asked. You seem to get vary defensive when asked a question I can under stand it with some of the people here that you have a history with but I am new here.

“I accept Trent as a dogmatic council. I accept Vatican II as a pastoral council”

This is what I mean about being specific.

I know the doctrine of the Church is so huge and vary specific and we all must try our best to pay attention to all the detail but what are you trying to bring across to others when you say “I accept Vatican II as a pastoral council”?

SS

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 22, 2003.

Let me rephrase that question

What are you trying to bring across to others when you say “I accept Vatican II as a pastoral council” And not just saying I accept Vatican II?

SS

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 22, 2003.

So, dialogue with her. I'll get out of the way. -- Emerald (emerald1 etc.,)

Out of the way? WHEN?

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

This statement...

“I accept Trent as a dogmatic council. I accept Vatican II as a pastoral council”

...is exactly what the case ought to be in order to demonstrate the appropriate submission of the will and intellect to the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

It's simple. Infallibility actually has a meaning; it's not a term for the laity to simply throw around willy-nilly and apply to whatever they wish to apply it to. A dogmatic council is a term that actually refers to something specific. The word pastoral actually means something. Heresy and schism have specific meanings and applications. The Deposit of the Faith is a real thing and it does not change.

All these things mean something.

One ought not make out a pastoral council to be infallible when it is not, and to claim that it is dogmatic when it is not.

One ought not treat a dogmatic council such as Trent as if it were pastoral and applicable only to the unique time period in which it took place.

It's just a matter of being honest.

Believing whatever seems the easiest thing to believe and pursuing the path of least resistance, the modern Catholic has a habit of treating things this way: they weigh all actions and words of all Councils and the current Pontiff and sometimes even Cardinals and Bishops to be infallible at all times.

That's what they think. Everything's infallible unless they don't agree with it.

Everything is infallible all the time? No. This is an error against the Faith. It perverts the dogma of infallibility; it twists it out of it's proper context in order to suit certain agendas.

The agenda is simple: many people find certain Catholic teachings difficult. They want to be able reconcile the Church with the world, as if that were somehow possible without denying the Cross of Christ. They know that to say the truth can change, or that new teachings trump old ones, is a big no-go... so they construct a notion of a development of doctrine so that they can change teachings and make it appear as if they haven't. They use current social phenomena to produce a left/right conflict in order to create a Process of synthesis. This Process produces a dynamic center, or in other words a middle road that is malliable, moveable and changable.

They simply redefine definite terms in order to create the appearance that they have been ever consistant with tradition.

Then they say all this is infallible, and that if you don't buy it as such, you are one of the rare people that can actually be damned; everybody else can be saved.

But God cannot be tricked. Servants of God are known by their willingness to do His will.

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

"So, dialogue with her. I'll get out of the way. -- Emerald (emerald1 etc.,) Out of the way? WHEN?"

As soon as she gets back. It's not like she's interupting you.

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

Just asking; since you told us so: You are out of the way. But are you? Oh, well---

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

Steven might want to start a new thread then and we can discuss this there.

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

So whould it be safe to say that Trent uses dogmatic theology and V II uses pastoral theology?

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 23, 2003.

Well Regina, post the links to the documents those snippets came from, and we'll talk. I guess though that since you haven't, you probably have never read them all, and were just quoting someone else.

I didn't get the quotes on-line, Frank. I told you that in my last post. The quote came from Pope Paul VI's General Audience of January 12, 1966, in Inseganmenti di Paolo VI, volume 4, page 700. Is that specific enough for you?

Not much credibility there Regina.

Neither is engaging in ridiculous arguements to cover-up your own dodging of more important inquiries.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 23, 2003.

I think you are vary lucky to be able to attend a Tridentine Mass our bishop will nit allow such a thing.

That's because he's disobedient to the Pope, accoring to that document that Novus Ordos love to wave in the face of Traditional Catholics, which states:

"Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 23, 2003.

If Baptism is one, isn't it access?

Let's see what the Council of Carthage says about baptisms (and other sacraments) performed by those outside the Catholic Church:

"Primus of Misgirpa[2] said: I decide, that every man who comes to us from heresy must be baptized. For in vain does he think that he has been baptized there, seeing that there is no baptism save the one and true baptism in the Church; because not only is God one, but the faith is one, and the Church is one, wherein stands the one baptism, and holiness, and the rest. For whatever is done without, has no effect of salvation."

The words mean,

Private opinion, anyone?

- Pope Pius IX; when you must know his words meant ''ANOTHER WAY to attain salvation''.

Private interpretation/opinion, anyone?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 23, 2003.

Frank, I found one of the documents from which the following quote from Paul VI appeared: "...as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic..."

The speech from which this quote came from can be found here.

I'll keep looking the other(s)

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 23, 2003.

I just tried the link I provided. If you have trouble, use this URL

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6tolast.htm

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 23, 2003.

Link.

-- fix (link@working.now?), October 23, 2003.

***that there is no baptism save the one and true baptism in the Church; Are presumably your ''silver bullets'' Regina? -- And:

--For whatever is done without, has no effect of salvation.***

We see the Nicene Creed acknowledging One Baptism for the forgiveness of sin. It is the sacrament best preserved in faith for most protestants; and is valid. So much so, if an Anglican converts to Catholicism, only conditional baptism is administered. Which must mean this baptism is a sacred work.

As for the phrase ''whatever is done without'' also begs the question: is a baptised Christian non-Catholic altogether WITHOUT? No-- he is Catholic enough by baptism. If he dies in infancy, he'll be saved. It's only when he reaches the age of reason & subscribes to heretically-based belief he will become ''without'' the ''community'' or way, of salvation.

In essence you've hardly produced any such ''stark contrast'' as you would like to. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, we can agree. But the way into the Church is not as recondite as you put it. I mean as Pharisees would put it, excuse me.

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

Regina,

Will get to this this evening.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 24, 2003.

SS, you asked Emeraldus, What are you trying to bring across to others when you say “I accept Vatican II as a pastoral council” And not just saying I accept Vatican II?

SS, what you really need to hear from him is not "I accept Vatican II" (which is ambiguous and would let him B.S. you). You need to hear him say, "I assent to, and hold, all the teachings found in the Vatican II documents."

Let's see what the Council of Carthage says about baptisms (and other sacraments) performed by those outside the Catholic Church: "Primus of Misgirpa said [etc]"

We can pour that B.S. right down the drain. First, the "Council of Carthage" was a synod of African bishops, not an Ecumenical Council, so it has no effect on us. Second, the quotation was an opinion expressed by a single bishop (Primus of Misgirpa), not something that the synod even tried to teach. Third, the bishop quoted was probably speaking in a specific context. He probably knew that (either because of improper form, matter, or intention) "every man who comes to" him from a heretical religion of the time was not validly baptized. Such is frequently not the case today, as the Catholic Church reliably tells us.

... if an Anglican converts to Catholicism, only conditional baptism is administered.

Actually, I think that the practice of the Church has now changed, and conditional baptism is rarely given to someone converting from a "mainstream" Protestant denomination, wherein valid baptisms (proper form, matter, and intention) are the norm. I think that conditional Baptism is now used only if a convert was "baptized" by a non-mainstream sect and he/she cannot state with certainty that the proper form, matter, and intention were present.

{Emeraldus dixit,} If you are going to argue the post conciliar position, it might add to the persuasive force of your comments to read the oft-quoted Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC 1822 before posting.

In making this snide comment, the man deposits still more B.S..
CCC 1822 reads, "Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God."

From this we see two things:
=1= The "pot was calling the kettle black," for no one could ever be as unCharitable as has been Emeraldus, the Tormentor of Catholics.
=2= I do follow CCC 1822, showing my love for neighbors (even those as horrible as Emeraldus) by correcting them and trying to rescue them from their current road to damnation. I practice the Spiritual Work of Mercy: "Instruct the ignorant."

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 24, 2003.

Speaking of lies; Why is the bible being subtly changed?

Why the put down of Our Lady? When will we stop placating Protestants?

Sign of Contradiction, page 65: "I shall place enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed: "HE" will crush your head and you will trap him by the heel." (Genesis 3:15) (This is the quote given by the pope. contrast that with the Douay-Rheims; Genesis 3:15: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: "SHE" shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. This mistranslation was also carried into the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine translation, and several Protestant translate this pronoun as either he or it. Traditionally this verse is held to refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

-- Tropicana (zilch@wilch.com), October 24, 2003.

Third, the bishop quoted was probably speaking in a specific context. He probably knew that[etc]

Private interpretation/opinion, anyone?

Friends, did you ever notice that when dealing with these people, they have to come up with "he probably thought" or "he actually meant" or "what he was really trying to say" in order to make their point work?

Sounds like B.S. to me...

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 24, 2003.

Hey, that's pretty interesting tropicana. I like it.

You need to hear him say, "I assent to, and hold, all the teachings found in the Vatican II documents."

B.S.D., please list those teachings of the Vatican II to which you wish me to answer an affirmation or denial of.

To make it easier, by all means, subtract any teachings which were already known to all the Faithful in the entire Church before Vatican II, as I can assure you that to those doctrines and teachings which were always held by Holy Mother Church, I will lend my assent. It would never hurt to publicly assent to these again. It would be sort of like a renewal of Baptismal vows.

In other words, extract those teachings, if you would, that are unique to Vatican II.

When presented with this list, I will affirm or deny them.

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

Dang it, Regina, I am so sorry. I was going to get out of your way, and I forgot that this was the thread I made to promise on until I scrolled up after posting.

I'm serious, I really did.

Backing away...

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

/ ''. . . in order to make their point work? Sounds like B.S. to me...

What's a point? We discuss the Catholic faith here. To demand TRUTH is making ''your'' point ''work''-- ? ? ?

''ever notice that when dealing with _ _ _ these people,_ _ _ they have to come up with "he probably thought" or "he actually meant" or "what he was really trying to say,''

Sounds like BS, Regina? Quote the words in their _ _ _proper context,_ _ _??? An impossibility for you? BS, for you? Context is for the simpletons; you're an elite? Don't apologise, Regina; no mea culpas please. We understand; ''we people''.

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

You are not defending the Catholic faith; You are defending V2. You never quote anything from any dogmatic bull or encyclical prior to V2. You give lip service to the priors, but that is about all.

-- PI Rocky (Bookemdano@Hawaii55.com), October 24, 2003.

Gene,

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm really and truly not, but I have one request: Your last post didn't really make any sense at all, and I've noticed that your posts get sort of strange when you're clearly angry or upset about something. Would you please wait until you've calmed down and/or gathered your thoughts before you post? Again, if you feel insulted by what I asked, I don't mean to come across that way. Honestly. These discussions can be of great benefit, but only if we can understand each other. Thanks, Gene.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 24, 2003.

I was not angry; I was baffled, Regina. You think when someone questions your quote because of its context they are pretending to make some other point? You make others out to be prevaricators. I'm marvelling at how well you package your BS and presume others are full of it.

''your posts get sort of strange when you're clearly angry,'' Is it because of: 'We discuss the Catholic faith here, and-- To demand TRUTH is making ''your'' point ''work' '' (this comment) --you think I'm angry?

Oh; just making you pay attention to what you're saying. Anger is for losers.

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

You think when someone questions your quote because of its context they are pretending to make some other point? You make others out to be prevaricators.

Not at all. The point I was trying to make is that the last few times I quoted church documents, both you and JFG a.k.a BSD defended your side of the discussion using and inserting your own interpretations/opinions about what the quote(s) "probably meant." My friends and I have been accused of doing the same thing with regard to the V2 documents and we've been told it's wrong to do that. So why is it permissable for you two to do it?

Secondly, and more importantly, IMO, is that to the best of my knowledge, none of us have had to insert such phrases into our rebuttals for this reason: none of the preconciliar writings were ambiguous. They said what they meant and meant what they said; requiring none of us to insert what they "probably meant to say." It's only when those of you on the other side of this debate can't draw a straight line between pre and post V2 teachings, that such phrases are necessary for you to make the square peg fit into the round hole.

I'm marvelling at how well you package your BS and presume others are full of it.

I know you're sincere, Gene. Others? One specific other person? No. JFG/BSD wreaks havoc on what could be very beneficial discussions and opportunities to learn a thing or two with his insulting, condescending, childish behavior and pretends he is actually performing a "work of mercy" by "instructing the ignorant." That's pure B.S. Anyone with a modicum of honesty in his/her heart would see that he is infuriated that someone would dare disagree with him and show him that he might not really know all he thinks he does. For months now both myself - and Emerald to a larger degree - have been asking him patiently and respectfully to explain what new teachings of V2 we aren't obedient to or dissent from. He comes back feigning exasperation that he won't because it's been done over and over again. The truth is, it hasn't been done at all. I told him on two occasions that if he was willing to explain, I'd give it serious condsideration. Rather than truly practice the work of mercy and actually provide the answers we ask of him, he prefers to make fun of our screen names, invent alter-egos, and engage in other sorts of ridiculousness at our expense, contributing nothing, and "instruct [ing]" no one. *shrug.* When he's ready to unload his B.S. and actually offer something constructive, I'll be here - ready, willing, and able to listen.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 24, 2003.

Whatever your grievances with John may be; I am basically one with the Catholic Church. So is John. I can't help the deliberate malice he demonstrates toward you; it makes me sad to see it.

Yet, the good part is, he isn't fooled by Emerald & you & Jake. His insistence that you've created a schism is unfortunate. Maybe he's wrong. But you certainly create division and strife. Not by quoting a papal speech out of context, necessarily. By preening around here these many months, acting the Pharisees. It seems you consider yourselves our judges. Worse, you blaspheme against the very Church we love; as if she were your step-mother. That makes us step-brothers and sisters. You naturally,/u>, are better than the orphans. Richer and handsomer and holier.

Now it strikes you necessary to mollify me? ''I know you're sincere, Gene!''

Yes; where's a bone, then; to toss the Church I attend? The Holy Mass consecrated for the faithful in there? Am I terribly upset at you? Actually, No. I pray for you, asking God to have mercy on you. He loves you, I realise. But why are you constantly tempting Him, Regina? You are daily tormenting the Mystical Body of Christ.

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

"You are not defending the Catholic faith; You are defending V2. You never quote anything from any dogmatic bull or encyclical prior to V2. You give lip service to the priors, but that is about all."

hmmm... simply stated...

One can't see the forest for the trees...

Vatican II is but forest, the fruit comes from the trees...

-some trees:

Draft of the June 1995 U.S. Bishops' Statement Calling the Vatican to Collegiality

"The Vatican is clearly rejecting collegiality as the means for accomplishing the church's mission, as it was spelled out during the Second Vatican Council."

Draft of the June 1995 U.S. Bishops' Statement Calling the Vatican to Collegiality

< b>Ex Corde reversal another slap at U.S. Bishops

"Another area where we might take initiative has to do with concerns about the "reinterpretation" of Vatican II. There is a widespread feeling that Roman documents of varying authority have for some years been systematically reinterpreting the Vatican II documents to present the minority positions at the council as the true meaning of the council."

-sound familiar... -Vatican II this, Vatican II that...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 25, 2003.

Yow! Big-time B.S. posted here since my last visit! Where to begin?

Why is the bible being subtly changed? Why the put down of Our Lady? When will we stop placating Protestants?

Three examples of B.S. in three consecutive sentences. The Bible ain't being changed (subtly or otherwise). Our Lady ain't being put down. No one is placating Protestants. Only hanging around with non-Catholic morons could prompt you to ask such question, pal.

"HE" will crush your head ... This is the quote given by the pope. contrast that with the Douay-Rheims ... "SHE" shall crush thy head ... Traditionally this verse is held to refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

That's just an error on your part, something less than B.S.. Actually, the passage was written in Hebrew, which does not make clear the sex of the person doing the head-crushing. It is therefore acceptable to use "He" or "she." When "He" is used, it shows that Jesus defeated the devil by his death and resurrection. When "she" is used, it means that she crushed, not with her own power, but with her Offspring, Jesus. It is not accurate to say that "traditionally," the verse is held to refer to Mary, because that would imply that it is an actual teaching of Apostolic Tradition, which must be believed. Instead, the thought that the verse refers to Mary is only based on a choice that St. Jerome made when he translated the scriptures into Latin.

I see that a heretic wasted her time making B.S. comments about this following line from my previous message: "Third, the bishop quoted was probably speaking in a specific context. He probably knew that [etc]."
Horrendous B.S. from Raging-a!!! So typical of demon-pleasing heretics, to try to make people peer at a specific detail that is of no moment at all, while they fail to admit their MASSIVE blunders that I unmasked last time -- the facts that (1) the Council of Carthage from which they quoted (c. 250 A.D.) was merely an African synod and not binding on us and that (2) the quotation was a comment from a single now unknown bishop. (Those two revelations render of no moment any speculation about what that bishop may or may not have meant.)

Last time, I told SS, You need to hear [Emeraldus] say, "I assent to, and hold, all the teachings found in the Vatican II documents."

Clearly SS hasn't heard him say those words -- and may never hear such a thing from the heretic Emeraldus, who instead says B.S. like: "please list those teachings of the Vatican II to which you wish me to answer an affirmation or denial of."

What a stupid request! One doesn't ask me for a "list" after I ALREADY gave the simple, necessary, 14-word statement that must be made: "I assent to, and hold, all the teachings found in the Vatican II documents." Case closed. Just do it, or be accurately labeled a heretic. That's all there is to it.

I won't bother to repeat, and rip to shreds, all the other totally ridiculous list-related comments made by Emeraldus, the consummate B.S. artist -- in fact, the Michelangelo of B.S..

For months now both myself - and Emerald to a larger degree - have been asking him patiently and respectfully to explain what new teachings of V2 we aren't obedient to or dissent from. He comes back feigning exasperation that he won't because it's been done over and over again. The truth is, it hasn't been done at all.

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 25, 2003.

{Conclusion of the above post follows -----}

MONSTROUS, STEAMING, B.S.!!! As any sane Catholic here knows, everything needing to be done has been done time and time again for two years -- by Mateo, by Chris Butler, by John Gecik, by Frank Someone, by Eugene Chavez, and by others. But Regina's Raiders were either too dense to understand what intelligent people told them -- or they forgot what they were told -- or they were drunk -- or they are lying -- or SOMETHING. But it is pure B.S. to say that they haven't been told. It is very hard to keep remembering that we Catholics are talking to complete human beings here, instead of some kind of burping dorsal orifices (so putrid is their verbal stench).

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 25, 2003.

Regina,

Thank you for the link. Let's look at Paul VI's actual statemnent then:

this universal synod

Vatican II is stated to be a universal synod. Is this the same as an ecumenical council that requires obedience? Let's see.

This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the "deposit" received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity.

Paul Clearly states Vatican II is a part of Tradition, consistent since Christ.

Still fresh in our memory are the words uttered in this basilica by our venerated predecessor, John XXIII, whom we may in truth call the originator of this great synod. In his opening address to the council he had this to say: "The greatest concern of the ecumenical council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be guarded and taught more effectively.... The Lord has said: 'Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice.' The word 'first' expresses the direction in which our thoughts and energies must move" (Discorsi, 1962, p. 583).

Another statement that Vatican II was to gaurd and teach "the sacred deposit of Christian council. He ALSO states this was an ECUMENICAL council. It therefore BINDS all Catholics.

time in which the fundamental act of the human person, more conscious now of himself and of his liberty, tends to pronounce in favor of his own absolute autonomy, in emancipation from every transcendent law

Paul is talking really about secularism, but this could also apply to someone who puts their own views of what is correct for the church over what the Magesterium thinks.

God is -- and more, He is real, He lives, a personal, provident God, infinitely good; and not only good in Himself, but also immeasurably good to us. He will be recognized as our Creator, our truth, our happiness; so much so that the effort to look on Him, and to center our heart in Him which we call contemplation, is the highest, the most perfect act of the spirit, the act which even today can and must be at the apex of all human activity.

Secularism has entrenched itself so far into society that Paul felt he had to state this. Sad, but remember this was the environment that they were in (while the Tridentine was being practiced), and one of the reasons for the council.

Men will realize that the council devoted its attention not so much to divine truths, but rather, and principally, to the Church -- her nature and composition, her ecumenical vocation, her apostolic and missionary activity. This secular religious society, which is the Church, has endeavored to carry out an act of reflection about herself, to know herself better, to define herself better and, in consequence, to set aright what she feels and what she commands. So much is true. But this introspection has not been an end in itself, has not been simply an exercise of human understanding or of a merely worldly culture. The Church has gathered herself together in deep spiritual awareness, not to produce a learned analysis of religious psychology, or an account of her own experiences, not even to devote herself to reaffirming her rights and explaining her laws. Rather, it was to find in herself, active and alive, the Holy Spirit, the word of Christ; and to probe more deeply still the mystery, the plan and the presence of God above and within herself; to revitalize in herself that faith which is the secret of her confidence and of her wisdom, and that love which impels her to sing without ceasing the praises of God. "Cantare amantis est" (Song is the expression of a lover), says St. Augustine (Serm. 336; P. L. 38, 1472).

The church had in some way not been folowing Christ's plan as well as it could. (You'll recall in the Reformation times, things were pretty bad too, so this does NOT mean that the Holy Spirit wasn't guiding the church up until now, but things could be better). What was Vatican II supposed to do? "it was to find in herself, active and alive, the Holy Spirit, the word of Christ".

Never before perhaps, so much as on this occasion, has the Church felt the need to know, to draw near to, to understand, to penetrate, serve and evangelize the society in which she lives; and to get to grips with it, almost to run after it, in its rapid and continuous change. This attitude, a response to the distances and divisions we have witnessed over recent centuries, in the last century and in our own especially, between the Church and secular society -- this attitude has been strongly and unceasingly at work in the council; so much so that some have been inclined to suspect that an easy- going and excessive responsiveness to the outside world, to passing events, cultural fashions, temporary needs, an alien way of thinking . . ., may have swayed persons and acts of the ecumenical synod, at the expense of the fidelity which is due to tradition, and this to the detriment of the religious orientation of the council itself. We do not believe that this shortcoming should be imputed to it

Paul knew there were people who would accuse the council of Modernism, (like you have in the past) and said they are incorrect. The church has felt that with the changes in society in the 20th century, new effort in new ways must be made to serve and evangelize society.

We prefer to point out how charity has been the principal religious feature of this council. Now, no one can reprove as want of religion or infidelity to the Gospel such a basic orientation, when we recall that it is Christ Himself who taught us that love for our brothers is the distinctive mark of His disciples

Do what Christ commands and love your neighbor and quit looking for errors in the church -- they aren't there.

And what aspect of humanity has this august senate studied? What goal ******under divine inspiration****** did it set for itself?

Read that? Under DIVINE INSPIRATION? That's not something you ignore Regina.

We can now speak only too briefly on the very many and vast questions, relative to human welfare, with which the council dealt. It did not attempt to resolve all the urgent problems of modem life; some of these have been reserved for a further study which the Church intends to make of them, many of them were presented in very restricted and general terms, and for that reason are open to further investigation and various applications.

But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force

The line you partially quoted. The council also dealt with some current problems of modern man. They aren't making *extraordinary* claims, but ARE using the teaching authority of the church in these areas.

In this way the Catholic religion and human life reaffirm their alliance with one another, the fact that they converge on one single human reality: the Catholic religion is for mankind. In a certain sense it is the life of mankind.

Doesn't that seem consistent to you with previous teachings?

And so this council can be summed up in its ultimate religious meaning, which is none other than a pressing and friendly invitation to mankind of today to rediscover in fraternal love the God "to turn away from whom is to fall, to turn to whom is to rise again, to remain in whom is to be secure . . . to return to whom is to be born again, in whom to dwell is to live" (St. Augustine, Solil. I, 1, 3; P.L. 32, 870).

A summary of the purpose of the council. Seems good to me.

To this end we again invoke the intercession of St. John the Baptist and of St. Joseph, who are the patrons of the ecumenical council; of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, the foundations and columns of the Holy Church; and with them of St. Ambrose, the bishop whose feast we celebrate today, as it were uniting in him the Church of the East and of the West. We also earnestly implore the protection of the most Blessed Mary, the Mother of Christ and therefore called by us also Mother of the Church. With one voice and with one heart we give thanks and glory to the living and true God, to the one and sovereign God, to the Father, to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Calling on the saints, especially noting John and Joseph patrons of the ECUMENICAL council.

Sorry Regina, it didn't work. Paul clearly states this was an ECUMENICAL council, and ECUMENICAL councils require obedience from the faithful. He also notes this was done UNDER DIVINE INSPIRATION! How you can say you don't have to obey is beyond me.

Oh, and I agree with BSD's response on the council of Carthage. It wasn't an ecumenical council, so wasn't binding on the church. Sorry.

Frank

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

Whatever your grievances with John may be; I am basically one with the Catholic Church. So is John.

All the more reason to behave, at the very most like Catholics; at the very least like adults. This name-calling business: pharisees, elitists, whatever. It has no basis and offers nothing helpful to anyone.

I can't help the deliberate malice he demonstrates toward you; it makes me sad to see it.

It makes no difference. I'm going back to skipping his posts. I've said this before and it's still true now: I believe something guides him as he writes. Something sinister. I want no part of it. Do I believe him possessed? Of course not. But anyone as mean, nasty and self-righteous as he is, isn't being guided by God. That's for sure. Bad begets bad, and I don't want to get caught up in whatever his problems are. I'm not judging him, I'm just offering an opinion based on his public behavior which is...irrational, to say the least.

By preening around here these many months, acting the Pharisees. It seems you consider yourselves our judges.

When have I *ever* judged you or anyone else on this forum, Gene?

Worse, you blaspheme against the very Church we love; as if she were your step-mother.

It's my understanding that you're in your 60's. If I'm advancing you in age, please correct me and accept my apologies. Assuming for a moment that I'm correct about your age, please consider this: The sacrament of Matrimony which jake and I received was the *same* as the one you probably received (assuming you were married before the changes began taking place.) The Mass we attend is the *same* Mass which served as your strength and comfort and consolation in your youth. Our children were baptized in the *same* way you were. By God's Grace, our children will receive their First Holy Communion in the *same* manner you did as a child. Ditto Confirmation. After that it's up to God: Marriage? Holy Orders?

My point is this: Why are we so wrong for wanting the *same* Catholicism and all it's riches that you (and Frank and JFG/BSD) had as children and young adults? I've already explained the liturgical and educational wasteland my childhood/young adult parish was. I want better for my children. I need better for my own soul. The post- conciliar debacle and those responcible for it are making this difficult. How? By pitting us against sincere Catholics like yourself, by reminding you incessantly that Trads are "divisive". That we are "disobedient" because we want more for ourselves and our children than effeminate priests preaching heresy, clear, sound catechism, and above all a doctrinally clear, aesthetically beautiful Mass which will inspire deeper adoration to Our dear Lord.

Have I ever once boasted that I'm better, smarter, *holier* than you or anyone else on this forum? I defy you to try and find where I ever said anything even remotely like that. Have I ever said we're better, smarter, holier than all of you because we go to the Traditional Mass? Be honest and admit I've never said anything like that. Now, am I better, smarter, and at least make an attempt at holiness compared to who *I* was at, say, 21 years old, in the NO? Yes. Do I believe this change for the better had anything to do with going to the Traditional Mass and staying there? Yes. But do I believe that mere attendance at the Traditional Mass makes one better, smarter, holier? No. But I do believe that anyone seeking truth, and who finds it at the Traditional Mass, will be inspired so much by the supernatural awe of it all that they will find themselves craving to know more about the our Faith. You find solace, comfort and peace at the NO? Wonderful!

Now it strikes you necessary to mollify me? ''I know you're sincere, Gene!''

It has nothing to do with that. I just didn't want you to think that I lump you in with the likes of JFG. It wouldn't be fair. When you post to me, I know that the things you say are made in good faith and out of a spirit of care and concern. And I appreciate it. That's all I meant.

But why are you constantly tempting Him, Regina? You are daily tormenting the Mystical Body of Christ.

How?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 25, 2003.

Regina,

Going to answer a bit (pardon Eugene)

This name-calling business: pharisees, elitists, whatever. It has no basis and offers nothing helpful to anyone.

What about the people who *started* the name-calling, such as "neo" this and that, calling our church an abomination, "clown mass", etc. It's less painful for me to bear personal insults than the insults you hurl at Christ's church. That's what started all this Regina, your disrespect for the Catholic church, no one started calling you schismatic until your (and I mean a collective you here) unrelenting hatred of the mass, the central act of our worship.

Why are we so wrong for wanting the *same* Catholicism and all it's riches that you (and Frank and JFG/BSD) had as children and young adults? I've already explained the liturgical and educational wasteland my childhood/young adult parish was. I want better for my children. I need better for my own soul

It's o.k. for you to attend a Tridentine rite, if that floats your boat. It's NOT o.k. to continually defame the church because you don't like the current rite of mass. Because YOU don't like something, doesn't mean it's wrong. Because some priests are child molesters, celibacy isn't wrong. Because some priests abuse the rite of mass, the rite isn't wrong. If there's a problem, it needs correcting, not people turning their backs and leaving those stuck there to have some priest's error inflicted on them. If anything you should be taking your grievences public with the intent of restoring the Novus Ordo rite to the way it's supposed to be said, not bolting. Think about it Regina, are you acting Christlike? When Christ saw sin did he run away? No, he tried to save people. Why not see it as your mission to restore the mass in your old parish (assuming something really is wrong there)? Doing THAT would be following a call from Christ!

Have I ever said we're better, smarter, holier than all of you because we go to the Traditional Mass?

By inference, of course you did. When you call the current rite of mass an abomination, and your husband says he wouldn't even receive the last rites (or confession, I don't remember which sacrament he was insulting) from a "novus ordo priest", what would ANYONE think but that you think you are superior to the people who don't know to leave what you consider an inferior mass? Of course you feel superior, IMO. You guys have said on multiple occasions you feel the current rite of mass is INFERIOR to the Tridentine. What's the opposite of inferior? Superior, right? Whether you say something directly or not, it sure seems to me you feel superior, which is why (I bet) Eugene calls you Pharisees. Christ died for us ALL, Regina, he didn't die for some more than others.

Frank

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

John. Dude. Bad day?

I actually tried to reason with you, man-to-man. I expected better than you gave in return. Your reply was totally ridiculous, just as Paul H explained. Come back to the forum when you gain more knowledge and maturity, please. But leave now.

People need to know who you really are and why you don't belong here.

Only hanging around with non-Catholic morons could prompt you to ask such question, pal.

demon-pleasing heretics

either too dense to understand what intelligent people told them -- or they forgot what they were told -- or they were drunk -- or they are lying -- or SOMETHING.

I can just picture how you must be tighter than a drum inside, experiencing the tension of knowing that you are on a gigantic sliding board, headed down-down-down to where the furnace of Gehenna is burning very brightly

and a one, and a two and a….

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 25, 2003.

your husband says he wouldn't even receive the last rites (or confession, I don't remember which sacrament he was insulting) from a "novus ordo priest"

That's not entirely true. I would receive the sacraments at the hands of a Novus Ordo priest if I was in danger of death, and there was no Traditional priest available, since Canon Law allows for the reception of the sacraments from even an excommunicated priest when there is danger of death. I believe what I said was that if my death were imminent, and there was a sedevacantist priest and a Novus Ordo priest in the room, that I would crawl over the Novus Ordo priest to get to the sedevacantist. I have major problems with the sedevacantist position, but I could be absolutely certain that he would use the proper matter, form and intention. With a Novus Ordo priest, I would have quantifiable reservations.

Under normal circumstances, though, you're right. It would be unthinkable for me to take part in Novus Ordo anything.

You guys have said on multiple occasions you feel the current rite of mass is INFERIOR to the Tridentine. What's the opposite of inferior? Superior, right?

Right. We weren't talking about ourselves, though. We were talking about two rites; the Traditional Latin Mass which expresses the Catholic Faith, and the Novus Ordo Mass, which does not.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 25, 2003.

There is no such things as a "Novus Ordo" priest, any more than there are "Tridentine" priests. These terms refer only to the order of Mass, not to anything or anyone else. There are however obedient priests and disobedient priests, and while the sins of the priest do not affect the validity of the sacraments, I feel much more secure with a priest who celebrates Mass in accord with the teaching and diciplines of the Church - Current Order or Former Order - than with one who celebrates unauthorized Masses in open defiance of the Bishop, the Pope and the Magisterium, and therefore of God Himself.

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

Now, am I better, smarter, and at least make an attempt at holiness compared to who *I* was at, say, 21 years old, in the [Novus Ordo]? Yes.

That's B.S. galore! It would be impossible for you to be better in any way, since you are now horrendously mired in mortal sin, due to your schism and heresy. While you may not have been terribly holy at 21, you didn't have the gross burden of the sins of schism and heresy, and the hundreds of mortal sins of bad example given to everyone here.

(When I say "mortal sins," I mean "objectively speaking." Some or all of your guilt may be taken away if you are, for example, mentally ill -- which is quite a good possibility, I must admit.)

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 26, 2003.

a one, a two, a one, two, three, four...

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

The Elite speaks:

''With a Novus Ordo priest, I would have quantifiable reservations.''

The Pharisees reserved some quantifiable disgust for Jesus Christ and the holy apostles. I think the Roman Empire was quantifiably reserved about Christians, Jake.

Not having taken holy orders, I can't speak for the ''Novus'' priest; but ordinarily he should be free from reservations about you. It's almost certain.

He will simply absolve you of any sins you repent of; because he's an ordained Catholic priest! And, our religion is a religion of love; which you & the elites never take to heart. Yours is always the religion of ''quantifiable reservations''. Which is probably why BSD (might even be JFG, we can't say) calls you full of it. Your trad Catholicism forgot Christian charity, LOVE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 26, 2003.

BSD (might even be JFG, we can't say)

'Ya think?

Your trad Catholicism forgot Christian charity, LOVE

...and about each of those things, we could say that JFGBSD is:

"Full of it?"

Careful about those with whom you claim some sort of alliance. He'd just as soon smear you as he would me, if you took him to task on anything. People so filled with hate are equal opportunity haters. They don't need a reason, just a target. Stay out of the crosshairs.

You do know that, right?

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

People so filled with hate are equal opportunity haters.

This is complete B.S..

I don't hate anyone, whether Eugene or Jacko or Emeraldus or Raging-a, etc.

I only hate SIN. I try to get people who are mired in sin out of their predicament. The last three just mentioned are ex-Catholic Protestants who are in deep spiritual trouble. I hit them hard with "word-weapons" because I give a damn about their souls, not because of any personal hatred. Ironically, I care more about their souls than they do themselves.

But Eugene is still a Catholic, a fervent and (I think) orthodox one. He is not publicly sinning like the other three (and sundry sidekicks), so Eugene doesn't need any reprimands from me.

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 26, 2003.

Your last post again very typical, jake. Everywhere you can, you try to divide Catholics. Never unite, or bring understanding.

Instead of calling the charge false, you detract someone for their actions.

You've no love for John or me, your neighbors. All is detraction and false pride. You announce to the world only animosity and alienation. No way for a Catholic to serve God. One day it will become necessary to confess these faults. I pray for you today, and for Regina & and your children. May His Holy Spirit drive the devil out and give you peace.

-- eugene c. chavez (lsochavez@pacbell.net), October 26, 2003.

I pray for you today, and for Regina & and your children.

Thank you.

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

Hey JFG/BSD:

instead of some kind of burping dorsal orifices (so putrid is their verbal stench).

Methinks thou dost readeth too much Shakespeare.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 27, 2003.

What about the people who *started* the name-calling, such as "neo" this and that, calling our church an abomination,

What is a neo-Catholic? Someone who maintains that every single one of the postconciliar novelties must be accepted and defended as legitimate developments of Catholic Tradition, even though they are utterly without precedent in the history of the Church. The only test for neo-Catholics to to determine whether the novelty is legitimate is if the majority are already doing it. Neo-Catholics believe that because the church approves of something, than that something automatically becomes "traditional." In essense, for the neo- Catholic, whatever the Pope and/or hierarchy say or do is ipso facto "traditional" and incontestable by us. Wouldn't you say this description explains your (collective) entire point of view, Frank?

As for the whole "abomination" thing, I really regret having said it. Not for reasons you may hope, but because it left way too much wiggle room for you (collectively) to twist it around and manipulate it into meaning something I never said, nor meant. It allowed you all to be dishonest. Do I think Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and/or His Supreme Sacrifice on Calvary is an abomination? Perish the thought! But that's *exactly* what you (again, collectively) are insisting that's what I meant. If a celebration of the new Mass is celebrated validly, it is the watered down, ambiguous doctrine and irrevence which surrounds Our Lord's Presence and His Supreme Sacrifice which is the abomination. If I didn't believe the new Mass was valid, I wouldn't care if you folks did the Chicken Dance during your "masses." Our Lord wouldn't be there! But as long as He is, He has every right to demand better than what the new Mass offers.

"clown mass", etc.

You're not going to deny that Clown Masses are a reality, are you?

It's o.k. for you to attend a Tridentine rite, if that floats your boat.

There is no one more dishonest to me as the ones who claims to attend the "Tridentine rite" out of a so-called "preference" and the folks here who say they have no problem with folks who attend out of "preference." They are unwilling to admit publicly that there is usually a deep-seated reason for this "prefence" which they don't want to discuss and you probably don't want to hear. If was a new- comer to this forum and introduced myself as someone who attends the Latin Mass strictly out of "preference," I don't doubt for one moment that I'd be bombarded with hostile questions such as, "WHY do you 'prefer' it?! You think there's something wrong with the new Rite?! You're probably a schismatic in your heart!" In all honesty, it would be interesting to see how one who merely "prefers" the old Mass would answer the question, "Why?" If the answer has anything to do with nostalgia, perhaps they ought to take stock of their real priorities.

The point is, Frank, anyone attending the Latin mass exclusively for whatever reason, is a real thorn in the side of most NO Only Catholics. Look how most Bishops treat the indult. They reserve it to maybe one or two Sundays a month at a rather inconvienent time. The listing for these Masses often can't be found on any diocesian bulletin or website. That way, when folks don't show, or show in very small numbers, the bishop can say, "See? No one's interested. Might as well drop it." And dropped it gets.

It's NOT o.k. to continually defame the church because you don't like the current rite of mass. Because YOU don't like something, doesn't mean it's wrong.

The new Mass isn't doctrinally and aesthetically inferior because I say it is. Anyone with time and sliver of intelligence when comparing the two Masses side-by-side can see that the new Mass didn't organically evolve from *anything*, doesn't present Catholic doctrine clearly, and allows far too much room for those to do what they wish with it.

As for trying to restore tradition in my dioceses and not "abandoning" it, looking at what the bishop allows/ignores/embraces in my dioceses, fat chance he's a traditional minded sort of fellow.

You guys have said on multiple occasions you feel the current rite of mass is INFERIOR to the Tridentine.

Correct. When, however, did I say *you* were inferior?

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

Neo-Catholics believe that because the church approves of something, than that something automatically becomes "traditional." In essense, for the neo- Catholic, whatever the Pope and/or hierarchy say or do is ipso facto "traditional" and incontestable by us. Wouldn't you say this description explains your (collective) entire point of view, Frank?

By using "neo-Catholic" you again show your separation from the church. The Catholic church is composed of Catholics. And on the second part you are of course incorrect. What IS Tradtional is to obey the Pope and Magesterium. I want to do that, you apparently do not. Obedience to church authority is traditional, it was so when the Latin rite supplanted the Greek, and is now that the current rite supplanted the Latin.

As for the whole "abomination" thing, I really regret having said it

You misunderstand why I keep bringing it up. It isn't because you said it, but because you still MEAN it.

He has every right to demand better than what the new Mass offers.

You're just being foolish. The new mass was constructed and approved by the Pope and Magesterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you don't like it it is YOU that is wrong, and your lack of wisdom that makes you think what you do, and fail to see what you don't. You should pray for guidance, especially to the Holy Spirit who guided the council.

You're not going to deny that Clown Masses are a reality, are you?

Honestly, I don't know. I've never heard of one outside what people who are trying to hurt the church have posted on this forum. If there was one and it was at a children's hospital, would I mind? No, not really. If it gave some dying child comfort, and was valid and licit, I'd be all for it. I know you'd rather have them die in the hospital without being able to go to mass one last time, for the sake of "tradition" but that's not me.

There is no one more dishonest to me as the ones who claims to attend the "Tridentine rite" out of a so-called "preference" and the folks here who say they have no problem with folks who attend out of "preference

Well, your wrongness is batting a thousand. I don't care if people only go to Tridentine rites, the important thing is that they show equal repsect to the current rite of mass. You just don't get that part, respect and faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The new Mass isn't doctrinally and aesthetically inferior because I say it is

Oops, I take it back, you DID get this sentence right.

As for trying to restore tradition in my dioceses and not "abandoning" it, looking at what the bishop allows/ignores/embraces in my dioceses, fat chance he's a traditional minded sort of fellow

You are in the wrong religion Regina. No matter how hard you try, you will NEVER be good enough to enter Heaven. You will ALWAYS be a failure -- and yet you hope for God to overlook your failure and admit you anyway. Do you try and mirror this by your actions in this life? NO! You say "fat chance" that they'll change, and don't bother. Remember the (prayer) Our Father instituted by Jesus Himself, you'll be forgiven the same way you forgive others. If you say "fat chance" to your Bishop and fellow Catholics, when you feel they REALLY need correction and your help, what do you think will be said to you at Judgement Day? You should really think about this, IMO.

Frank

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

What IS Tradtional is to obey the Pope and Magesterium. I want to do that, you apparently do not. Obedience to church authority is traditional, it was so when the Latin rite supplanted the Greek, and is now that the current rite supplanted the Latin.

Agreed. It is God's Law that we submit to the Roman Pontiff and the Magesterium. No arguements there. But when was it *ever* "traditional" to follow bad or ambiguous teachings simply because they come from the pope? Did we not learn anything from the examples of Sts. Catherine of Sienna, Robert Bellarmine, Athanasius, Paul, to name a few? These Saints saw the errors of their Popes, how those errors which were corrupting the Church, rebuked them and "disobeyed" their commands.

You misunderstand why I keep bringing it up. It isn't because you said it, but because you still MEAN it.

And you "keep" being dishonest about what I really meant and still mean.

If you don't like it it is YOU that is wrong, and your lack of wisdom that makes you think what you do, and fail to see what you don't.

And you should take off the rose-colored glasses and realize that simply because a Pope and a pastoral council approves something, doesn't mean God does. God will never leave His Church. We know that. But He is allowing this debacle for reasons unknown to us for now.

I just finished reading a really good article with regard to the ambiguities of Vatican II. In it, the author asks if God had anything to do with this council, and if He did, why such ambiguity and turmoil? The author compares the Council with events in the Old Testament which were given to us as a warning not to repeat the same errors. God punished the Israelites by giving them "what they wanted" when they wished to remove themselves from His Divine Program.

Who was clamoring for a council and a new Mass? Those who wished to bring the Church up to date in the "modern" world. Just as the Israelites grew tired of the manna God gave them and wanted the meat of Egypt, weren't churchmen complaining that truths God gave us in the past were inadequate and needed new visions and perspectives? What about how the Israelites wanted to worship the Golden Calf and set up idols in the temple, much as the way the Pope has embraced other belief systems and encourages us to do the same? What about the specticle of interdenominational ceremonies taking place in His House? Putting Buddah on top of the Tabernacle, etc., etc? And what of this "ecumenical venture?" It's only goal is to have all of us sit around all friendly-like agreeing with one another - meaning us Catholics will have to shelf their beliefs so as not to offend Protestant sensibilities. All of these things I've mentioned have been declared accomplished in the name of Vatican II.

The point is when the Israelites wanted to change God's law (like Vatican II) did He say NO? Nope. He actually added more laws that He said were not good for them. Why? So that in the end God could expose them for the rebels they wanted to be. "I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live The Jews thought they were being *blessed* by God because they were getting what they asked for. Churchmen wished to open the Church up to the modern world. "careful what ya wish for."

I know you'd rather have them die in the hospital without being able to go to mass one last time, for the sake of "tradition" but that's not me.

And I know that some comment about the new Mass from a forum participant whom you only know as "Regina" is more offensive to you than an *alter-Christi* re-enacting Our Lord's Sacrifice on Calvary in a clown get-up. Glad to see your priorities are in order.

Really, Frank, that comment about a dying child and me not wanting him to have one last Mass was uncalled for and really hateful. Why don't we just stick with what we've written and not try to assume we can read one anothers minds and hearts?

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

Hi Regina re your book, who is the author may I dare ask (*shudders*)? Im betting the ol saying "garbage in, garbage out" will ring true, but who knows perspas youll surprise me with a Newman or Cheterton like author. Theres always a first eh.

Ill get back to you on your most recent post esp this whopper "simply because a Pope and a pastoral council approves something, doesn't mean God does" as I strongly disagree with you.

Its taken me all night to try and boil this post down to an understandable level, as the language used by most Catholic scholars isn’t really suitable for general lay discussions. I hope it makes sense and helps you at least to understand Paul VI’s words a little better. (apologies to anyone who has already corrected Regina and I double up as I havent had the time to read this thread in total yet)

You quoted Paul VI…

"as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence." "it was one of the programmed items [of the Council] not to give solemn dogmatic definitions." "Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility."

I am unsure about the first two quotes but the final quote you provide is indeed accurate but needs to be understood in context.

'There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration…given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (General Audience, Jan 12, 1966)

It would be helpful to consdier John XXIII words at the start of the Council also

“The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously . . . from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council . . .”

However Pope Paul VI also (to show his mindset on the matter) made the following pronouncement about what the Third Session would be completing with regards to doctrine:

“In this way the doctrine which the Ecumenical Council Vatican I had intended will be completed.... It is proper for this solemn Synod to settle certain laborious theological controversies about the shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully flow from the episcopate, and to pronounce a statement on them that is certain. We must declare what is the true notion of the hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt.

The wording of this paragraph especially is very important if you consider the following quotes and thoughts it may help clarify why, but Ill get back to why later if I get time.

The authoritative Relatio from Vatican I of Bishop Gasser (defining infallibility) makes it clear that when the Pontiff "directly and conclusively pronounce his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals", he is involved in areas where he possesses a unique charism in settling controversies and is infallible. It is clear that the Fathers of Vatican II concurred with the sense of the definition propounded by the deputation, Gasser, as it was voted on by the Council Fathers, promulgated by Pope Pius IX, and explained in Humani Generis §20 by Pope Pius XII. It was also referenced extensively in LG 25.

Dr. Ludwig Ott in THE theological text of dogma says (in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) that "in the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Church is infallible"

The Pope is not constrained to having to use any formulary (ex cathedra) in order to teach definitively, Gasser also makes this very clear. No Council can impose such a form on the Pope without falling into heresy and there have been countless dogmatic judgments down through the centuries which have not adhered to any foolproof formulary. The Trent Session XXIV Decree on Reformation chapter 4 outlined the infallibility of the bishops taken together in union with the Pope when they agree that a teaching on faith or morals "is to be held definitively and absolutely"

More importantly I want to look at the issue you raise of the first quote of the lack of “extraordinary manner” as on the surface this appears to support your argument and line of thought.

Look Ill be honest its finding out just what Vatican II taught authoritatively is not always so clear as it was with, say, Trent. If not every jot and tittle of it is infallible in the extraordinary sense, then certainly it is nevertheless entirely binding on the Catholic faithful. If you doubt that, then please tell me which portions of the Council of Trent you reject, on the basis of your private judgment. Or how about Nicæa or Chalcedon or Vatican I? The idea idea is simply absurd.

It is however properly stated that VCII did not intend to teach infallibly by the usual norms of the Extraordinary Magisterium.Instead it intended from the start to use the norms of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (or the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium), which is just as infallible although not as definitive or formal. Pope Pius IX's Apostolic Letter Tuas Libenter from 1863 - which was the first magisterial document to explicitly refer to the infallibility of the "ordinary and universal magisterium" One only needs to look at Canon law 749/1 and 749/2 to understand the scope of infallibility, something you(and I admit myself) can not even begin to understand the complexity of. But it doesn’t stop me from trying either. The language of the Code emphasizes the charism of infallibility as it pertains to teachings "to be held”.. The Latin word dogma (credenda) signifies that the teaching is not only to be held but also believed by contrast doctrines (tenenda) was simply to be definitively held. They are thus referring to infallibility as it applies to both defining and non-defining acts of the Magisterium: the latter of which do not require any technical formulations of particular solemnity.

When speaking of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and its infallible teaching, Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Bertone made the following very important distinction:

"It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context."

One final thought if youre still no convinced from Pope Paul VI

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

What emerges here Regina? You’re faced with the choice of deciding whetehr either the Council or the Pope invalid(or both), if history is anything to go by that is an impossible task. Perhaps youll be the first! Either way your position as a Catholic collapses.

Gotta get some sleep this has taken me a while, Ill be back to discuss the other issues with you tomorrow, say hi to sailor boy from me will you

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

'' --more offensive to you than an *alter-Christi* re- enacting Our Lord's Sacrifice on Calvary in a clown get-up. etc., your priorities are in order.'', says our critic.

Reginsia refers to the Novus Ordo rite as ''this debacle''. ''Anyone with time and sliver of intelligence when comparing the two Masses side-by-side can see that the new Mass didn't organically evolve from *anything*, doesn't present Catholic doctrine clearly,''

Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam. We long since grew tired of this Regina. Don't you have the charity in you to desist; go somewhere else? You & Jake are no example to good Catholics, nor will your approval ever mean much to us. Knowing this, why can't the two of you take stock; say it once finally and depart? That's if there's nothing constructive you can give here. Really; I for one don't have any love for this repetitive animosity. We are the people who are called to love one another. That's not a debacle. Not inferior, not un Christ-like. Not even ''neo''.

You have some dull-witted ideas of what Mass is; and take yourself nonetheless for having ''slivers of intelligence'' by which to compare masses ''side-by- side''--? Holy Mass is neither an 'enactment'' of our priests, nor ''evolved organically'' from some cute idea you entertained today, nor is it meant to ''present Catholic doctrine''. This is what I meant by ad nauseam. Where have you dreamed up these banalities? Mass is Christ WITH us! He is with His people, and He alone makes the Eucharistic celebration holy; I can't do it for the church, neither can you or Jake. Clowns can't turn Jesus out, make His presence banal or excite Him to anger, as you WISH it would. Jesus is LOVER, above everything else.

Yes, it's very important to please Him. Mostly we do; I'm convinced of this. When there's a sad incident, we are expected to PRAY, have faith, and offer Him our sacrifices as indemnification for our brothers & siters. We atone, not against our brethren; FOR them!

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

/ / /

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

Kiwi,
I liked your last post; you came at just the right time. I hope mine doesn't have a distracting effect; Regina definitely needs to read yours carefully. -- Ciao, keep it up, Laddie!

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

I am not nearly as erudite as the writers in these posts, but can anyone answer this simple question for me.

What did Pope Paul VI mean when he said,

"I have the feeling that the smoke of Satan has penetrated the Temple of God"

-- Robert (Bobby35@aol.com), October 28, 2003.

Your question is sure to get an answer here; but I pass. Somebody else will forward some opinions.

I'll ask you, Robert, this one:

What could Jesus Christ have intended when He said to Peter and the apostles: ''And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,'' (Matt 16 :18). / ???

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

Robert; This may give you an idea of what that might mean, in part anyway. Confusion is rampant in the Church, at this time.

In the first category, those who apply Baptism of Desire to a limited number of people, there are varieties of opinions. Some claim that explicit Faith, that is Catholic Faith, is necessary for salvation, some claim that non-Catholics "of good will" may be saved through Baptism of Desire. In this latter category, the more radical, and the only one properly called heretical, of the two opinions fall the vast majority of theologians in the Church today who call themselves traditionalists.

So what we have is a tiny minority of people who say that explicit belief in the Catholic Faith is absolutely, totally, and completely necessary for salvation, but the reception of Baptism is not, then a larger category who say that neither Faith nor Baptism is actually necessary, then the largest category, who think nothing is really necessary for salvation, other than being a human — and some of them don’t stop there.

Add to this a fourth category. These people believe that both Faith and Baptism are necessary for salvation. That is, they believe that to explicitly believe the Catholic Faith, and to be sacramentally baptized with water are both unconditionally necessary for salvation since Pentecost, because these things make you a member of the Church, and after all, there is no salvation outside the Church. So take your pick, if you have not already done so. Hope this helps.

-- Catherine (Kittypie@newpress.com), October 28, 2003.

Catherine:
You've segregated Catholics into groups. ''the first category we have is a tiny minority of people who say that explicit belief in the Catholic Faith is absolutely, totally, and completely necessary for salvation, but the reception of Baptism is not; then a larger category who say that neither Faith nor Baptism is actually necessary, --then the largest category, who think nothing is really necessary for salvation, other than being a human, -- a fourth category. These people believe that both Faith and Baptism are necessary for salvation. That is, they believe that to explicitly believe the Catholic Faith, and to be sacramentally baptized with water are both unconditionally necessary,,/i> etc., and so on.

Because, you think, ''Confusion is rampant in the Catholic Church at this time.''

Is your view brought about by what the Church is teaching, or by what you observed in Church, or read in the magazines?

I'm here to tell you; the Church has NOT been confusing anybody. We do not break down into groups or factions.

In the Catholic Church the faithful today hear the Holy Gospel. (Not very confusing,) and receive grace in the sacraments; (Marry, baptise, confess, receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, pray, adore and worship God, love Mary and the saints; pray-Pray--PRAY. (Not very confusing.)

We need a spiritual center for every day of our lives. Not confusion. The Church serves us as her faithful. We love Christ in His Church.

Why would you dwell on controversy or quarrels between parties simply unfaithful to Christ & His Church; and describe that controversy as part of the Catholic faith?

The faith is alive and vibrant. The Creed still commands our trust and unity; the saints are still active, living and departed; interceding for us, and setting examples for faithful souls. The Pope and his fellow prelates are present and accounted for, through many trials. JESUS still lives amidst His people; and yes, some still sin. We sin because we are human. He understands us, He brings us around to Himself with time.

We have faith in Him. Faith can't be confused, Catherine. Catholics don't fall into categories when they have the holy faith. Faith unites God's people.

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

"...the Church has NOT been confusing anybody."

Of course not. The Church has always been exceptionally clear, precise and concise.

People confuse themselves.

It's a very tough life, being Catholic, but it should be clearer and easier as you move along.

Unless you don't live it; if you don't live it, it seems to be a clearly easy life. But it only seems that way.

Is / seems; reality / appearances; truth / decepion.

It should be easy to see how it's hard to be a good Catholic, and it should be hard to see how it's easy to be a good Catholic.

Is that confusing?

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

Hi Gene thankyou, Ive never quite recovered from your post some time ago calling me "boring", so Ill take a compliment this time ;)As ever your powerful words could touch even the most hardened of hearts with their clarity and beauty, theres no need to apologise!. Personally while I love your humour, when you speak from the heart about the essence of our faith and without the sarcasm you reflect the meaning of the Cross in a way few can express(theres probably a lesson in their for myself somewhere). Its just awesome and rather humbling to soak up. Im sure I speak for all when I say your passion and love is an inspiration . Huh Im getting all sappy, "pull yourself together man"... the stiff upper lip english thing is a curse! God Bless

Regina re Council and Popes authority from God a few thoughts to consider before we discuss, perhaps you can more clearly outline your position for me

Catholic Encyclopedia 1913

“All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope…. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church...The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct;….The same presence(Christ) strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility. “[16]

Second General Council of Constantinople (553) : Profession of Faith

We profess that we hold and preach the faith which from the beginning was given to the apostles by our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and was proclaimed by them to the whole world. The holy Fathers professed, explained and handed on this faith to the holy Church, particularly those Fathers who took part in the four holy Councils which we follow and accept entirely for everything . . .

The Council of Lateran (649): Canon 17

Whosoever does not confess, in accordance with the holy Fathers, by word and from heart, really and in truth, to the last word, all that has been handed down and proclaimed to the holy, catholic and apostolic Church by the holy Fathers and by the five venerable General Councils, condemnatus sit.

Profession of Faith of Pius IV (Bull Iniunctum Nobis: 1564) I unhesitatingly accept and profess also all other things transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical Councils, especially by the most Holy Council of Trent . .

St. Athanasius

"the word of the Lord pronounced by the ecumenical synod of Nicaea stands for ever"

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

their = there

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.

Hi Robert your question is a staple quote from all anti Catholic tradionalists so be careful where you gain your information; off the top of my head, it means what it says, but I forget in what context the Pope said it, I think in regard to the dissent over the encyclical on birth control. Your point being??? That there are sinners in the Church? That there is a crisis of obedience amngst the faithful?. No one will deny this but be not afraid Robert the Church reamins indefectible. The Church has seen much much worse over her history, this challenge will be overcome but only though unity obedience and faith.

God Bless

Try googling the quote with the words "Chris Butler" and see if it turns up anything I get the feeling he said something on it a while back

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

Why would you dwell on controversy or quarrels

It's not dwelling on them Gene. It's being aware that they are there, because it is a reality Gene. We must always be aware that there are those (Satan, esp.) who will try and divide the faithful, try to cause discord, try to make people lose the faith. And they will do it so cunningly that very few will see it when it does happen. So we should never have our eyes closed so tight that we cannot and do not see this when it happens. This only accelerates the process.

Being aware of it, recognizing it when it happens, and rejecting it as such, is the greatest stumbling block to the devil and his allies.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 29, 2003.

Isabel,
You probably want for me to have my eyes closed tight; to render whatever you think as reasonable and unassailable. (Assailable; Hmm. *Isabel* is in that word. Your very name?)

However, please see the context of my words to Catherine --WHY describe that controversy as part of the Catholic faith? We all know what the FAITH really is.

It's also necessary to repeat to you & others; that many of your so-called ''abuses'' in the Catholic Church aren't abuses at all. (Not that there never ARE abuses, I realise.) With all due respect, too many times you've lambasted things that are no such fault. They just tick some people off. Like those annoying things (???) about Christ and His followers that ticked off the Scribes and Pharisees.

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

Assailable; Hmm. *Isabel* is in that word. Your very name?

Yea, I'm sure it means something, Gene. A little superstitious, are we? I can also pull your name out of gynogenesis.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 29, 2003.

That's right. Even degenerate. I'm not superstitious. Just caught a coincidence about the word I was using. Nothing bad intended.

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

Hey, there's another Catherine here?

You know, I thought the original post said almost everything necessary. I hadn't seen it in such clear terms before.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), October 30, 2003.

Cardinal says that the pro-abortion, pro-sterilization/contraception, anti-Catholic, murderous, COMMUNIST Chinese "Patriotic Association" is PART OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

Be not afraid.

And stuff.

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

The original heretic returns, making the usual winsome winning noises much like an endangered scree skink yet with considerably less class. More than anything you’re interesting, Jake . Fascinating in fact. We hang on your every word, we wait for more of your links in the way we’re all curious to lean about potato farming in Bulgaria. Keep it coming we all need a reality checkpoint now and then.

Im looking out my window and the rain has hung the trees with tears... you know the feeling all too well. One of the unhappiest men alive returns with his usual bout of misery, lucky us. Sadness hangs in your soul and you wonder why we can only take so much? Give up on all illusions of control in life and hope for the best. You and your equally banal buddies are all the same, its like trying to talk to someone you love who has Alzheimers. Maddening and sad spring to mind. My advice to you is to continue to bathe even less frequently, ignore the doctor Regina wants you to see and get the body wax you’ve always wanted. Remember to drink alone to calm your nerves and ,above all, stock up on live ammunition.

Your contribution is a breathtaking, stupefying and appalling record of the truth but it will undoubtedly operate as the perfect model for any potential traditionalists out there. Bye Bye Sailor Boy

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 31, 2003.

Or, you could consult Ephesians Chapter 4:

He exhorts them to unity, to put on the new man, and to fly sin.

1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called:

2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity.

3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling.

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.

7 But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ.

8 Wherefore he saith: Ascending on high, he led captivity captive: he gave gifts to men.

9 Now that he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens: that he might fill all things.

11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the word of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ:

14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.

15 But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity.

17 This then I say and testify in the Lord: That henceforward you walk not as also the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind:

18 Having their understanding darkened: being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts.

19 Who despairing have given themselves up to lasciviousness, unto the working of all uncleanness, unto covetousness.

20 But you have not so learned Christ:

21 If so be that you have heard him and have been taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus:

22 To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error.

23 And be renewed in spirit of your mind:

24 And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth.

25 Wherefore, putting away lying, speak ye the truth, every man with his neighbour. For we are members one of another.

26 Be angry: and sin not. Let not the sun go down upon your anger.

27 Give not place to the devil.

28 He that stole, let him now steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need.

29 Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth: but that which is good, to the edification of faith: that it may administer grace to the hearers.

30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption.

31 Let all bitterness and anger and indignation and clamour and blasphemy be put away from you, with all malice.

32 And be ye kind one to another: merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ.

Don't stop there; keep reading the rest of the chapter.

This seems like better advice when it comes to fostering unity.

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

It's like I told Frank upthread, kiwi: You're on auto-reponse. It's stimulus/response. Input: "there's something wrong with this picture"... Output: "you're a schismatic, you're a heretic, you're a rebel".

Jake posts a link to a glaring absurdity. There's something wrong with that picture.

You don't have a ready means to explain it away.

So now jake's a heretic, which clearly implies he's hording ammunition. No doubt about it.

Alright. And then, I take it as proposed that doing the work of God is to belittle jake in the name of defense of the Faith. Let's belittle all of the traditionalists this way, right, and vindicate our cause. Is this the Catholicism that we are so very uninformed about?

I'm not buying it.

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

Its ok Emerald, Sailor Boy likes being on the recieving end, its a hangover from his navy days.

He gives the Chruch today no respect, ever. He constantly mocks the Catholic Church, both the laity and its leaders and has nothing but evil intent here. In this case the Pope(a sarcastic "be not afraid") he deserves it, but his real punishment will be far greater. Is my behaviour Catholic??? Probably not, he deserves to be burnt alive, preferably with slow burning greenwood, or at the very least have an ear or two lopped off.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 31, 2003.

The original heretic returns

Did the link I posted make you uncomfortable? If so, I'm glad. If not, I'm not surprised. That goes for all of you.

much like an endangered scree skink yet with considerably less class.

At least you're obviously back to writing your own material again.

One of the unhappiest men alive returns with his usual bout of misery, lucky us. Sadness hangs in your soul and you wonder why we can only take so much?

What, then, will make me happy? Can you tell me how to be happy?

has Alzheimers.

Maddening and sad spring to mind.

continue to bathe even less frequently, ignore the doctor Regina wants you to see and get the body wax you’ve always wanted. Remember to drink alone to calm your nerves and ,above all, stock up on live ammunition.

**whispering**(psst. No need. You're giving me plenty.)

stupefying

appalling

Bye Bye Sailor Boy

he deserves to be burnt alive, preferably with slow burning greenwood, or at the very least have an ear or two lopped off.

Kiwi. Mate. Anything I can do? You sound so.....unhappy : (

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

Tsk, tsk, Kiwi! Don't be so childish!

Mind your manners, young man, or I'll have to speak about this to your Father Who Art In Heaven!

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

BTW, Kiwi, when I click on the thread "The Documents of Vatican II" on which you and I were going at it, I get a "Server Error" saying that thread is no longer contained on that server. This is why I have not replied there.

However, your two latest posts (10/29/03) showed up in my email. In reply to those posts:

1)you didn't pay attention to what you were quoting. There was a bunch of personal conversation on other topics going on that you posted. Shows how much you care.

2)that stuff you quoted was trying to show that the Magisterium must be obeyed. What you and the guy who actually wrote all that stuff don't understand is that the Magisterium isn't just in the present day. It goes back to the year 33, and you and all your fellow N.O. Catholics ignore the Magisterial teachings prior to Vatican II, while accusing us Trads of ignoring the NON-magisterial teachings of Vatican II and the Modernist clergy. Basically, both of your long posts were preaching to the choir, because we Trads are the people who really obey the Magisterium. You and your N.O. friends are the people who don't.

Please join the Catholic Church, Kiwi. It's the only way to save your soul.

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

Kiwi was counting on your bullwhip reply, Jacob. It's predictable; we realise it soothes you to mock us. Feel free.

Kiwi only mocks you folks in return; and you don't find happiness in it as he does; you come back shooting from the hip.

As for Emerald, he laments, ''And then, I take it (as proposed) Yeah! I propose! that doing the work of God is to belittle Jake in the name of defense of the Faith.''

Of course it isn't Emmie. Kiwi is only having some fun. We have YOU here to do the work of God. Must you suggest we worry about you so much: ''Let's belittle all of the traditionalists this way, right, and vindicate our cause.'' Boo-hoo ! / ???

Nothing there to belittle, Emmie. If you folks were traditionalists you would take a place next to us in church. You would love us; and one another, I mean.

It wouldn't be a belittling assembly, you'd become loveable to us, trust me! It would be Communion; not comedy.

That's why, at very least --we can't take your self-assumed title, Traditionalist too seriously. It's so ostentatious; need we say-- Phariseeist?

At most, it's Catholics you are. That's a laudable enough title. You seem always intent on shedding it. Come now; even the Pharisees had moments of great faith. Saul became Paul; he gave up that Pharisee megillah. You could write some new epistles some day, giving us all lessons. From the apostle Emmaus (change that name, EMERALD--); to the Rubes. Or Emmaus to the Corruptians. Or to the Galoots. You're hiding your talent under a trads basket, My Friend!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 31, 2003.

/ /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 31, 2003.

we realise it soothes you to mock us.

HA!

Gene, I'm not sure what you do/did for a living, but if you aren't/weren't a criminal defense attorney, you missed your calling. People pay good money for that calliber of B.S..

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. I realize that there's no human hope of any of you people ever coming around & holding the Catholic faith. I'm not going to change any of your minds, nor is it my intent (not anymore, anyway) to do so. I'm here (for the time being, anyway) for that lurking poster who never realized that there was more to the Faith than Hospitality Ministry and quacking in tongues and gatherin' 'round the table, and all that garbage, which has been heaped on Catholics for 40 years as a substitute for theology, doctrine, and morals. It's my hope that someone will see all this and be led to actually rad something like Pascendi and realize that the Novus Ordo religion is completely irreconcolable with Catholicism.

You're too old and too far sunk. There's no more hope for you to climb your own way out (not humanly speaking, anyway). Sometimes God does intervene in an extraordinary way, (as with Robert P - more on that later) but you and your cronies have long since been left for dead. Your vitrol only edifies the correctness of the Traditionalist position.

Keep it coming.

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

Wow! A sound and a fury; signifying nothing. I take it good lurkers are hard to find on Tridentine.com? It's only here we see a Catholic lurker these days?

You give us the shivers, Jake. Oh, NO! A lurker might be steered in the right direction; that wouldn't do !

We'll serve up BS. Hurry up, before Jake arrives and carries the day! --It's just so long ! since any of us heard about theology, doctrine, and morals in this parish! Now what'll I do? I'll dash into Tridentine.com and crib some! OK!!! Here, Bozo the Clown. Hold my guitar & tambourine for a minute. Thanks!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 31, 2003.

We'll serve up BS. Hurry up, before Jake arrives and carries the day! --It's just so long ! since any of us heard about theology, doctrine, and morals in this parish! Now what'll I do? I'll dash into Tridentine.com and crib some! OK!!! Here, Bozo the Clown. Hold my guitar & tambourine for a minute. Thanks!

Good stuff! Got any more?

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

More, Jake?

I think so; yes. We have theology, doctrine, and morals; we have prayer & the sacraments, we have the saints, the feast days, the creed, the Holy Bible, novenas, nocturnal adoration, medals & sacramentals, faith, learning AND Tradition. We love God, and His angels and His saints, Mary, particularly! We also encourage love of our neighbor, without which there is no ecumenism. --What you hardly ever see here is false pride.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 31, 2003.

Hey you Trads! You are a mean bunch. If these people are happy in "Never,Never, land" why are you trying to wake them up?

-- Soapy (9999.@444.com), October 31, 2003.

You are a mean bunch

I prefer to think of us as endangered scree skinks, only with considerably less class.

-- jake (jake1REMOV@pngusa.net), October 31, 2003.

Thanks, Soaps. In you we have a friend, Mot I say-- You are the friend of Jesus and Pharisee alike. You're right. Jake and the traddies make it too much fun. Now a soap bubble gives them good advice. It doesn't get funnier.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 31, 2003.

None of you has weighed in on This yet. Unless you want to count Kiwi's tirade.

What say you, Church of Love?

-- jake (jake@jake.jake), October 31, 2003.

None of you has weigned in on This yet. Unless you want to count Kiwi's tirade.

What say you, Church of Love?

-- jake (jake@jake.jake), October 31, 2003.

Did you ever belong to the Church, Jake? The Church of love for one another?

About the weigh-in: You may weigh in if it pleases you. So may the others. For myself, I might reply to your think-piece; after I've thought it over. Isn't that a proper way of contributing? I hope it is. Ciao . . .

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 31, 2003.

Stop it everyone; I keep spitting coffee all over my keyboard here. Thank you God, for comedy.

Gene:

"We have YOU here to do the work of God."

Me? You want me to do it? I was kind of figuring on getting you to do some of it. What are you leaning on me for?

"If you folks were traditionalists you would take a place next to us in church."

Well jeepers, Gene, we're sliiiiding right up next to you and you, like, want us to leave. Which is it? lol.

"You would love us; and one another, I mean. It wouldn't be a belittling assembly, you'd become loveable to us, trust me! It would be Communion; not comedy."

Well, we'll all know the real answer to this question soon enough I hope, from the same angle.

"That's why, at very least --we can't take your self-assumed title, Traditionalist too seriously. It's so ostentatious; need we say-- Phariseeist?"

That'd be fine. It'll work out well for both of us. There's a reason why Dante called his work The Divine Comedy.

There's hope for you yet; that's maybe one area of disagreement I have with jake, but it's a happy enough one. In the mean time, it's one missed step and you'll slip before you know it, so keep the Faith or rediscover it, whichever is necessary.

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

Emmie: ''Jeepers, Gene, we're sliding right up next to you;'' That's good news, Emerald. You'll be attending the Mass in English again? Holy Mass, and in our company? Well, nobody can call you a dissident anymore.

''There's hope for you yet;'' Fine; you're doing me favors! You mean I was hopeless, 'til--?

''you'll slip before you know it, so keep the Faith or rediscover it,'' Slip before I know what? I'm in the faith, I hope to keep it, Emmie. Let us hope you rediscover your roots. You weren't always a divider, were you?

Really, Emmaus the apostle; this is a strange post!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 31, 2003.

What else is new.

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

"You'll be attending the Mass in English again?"

No...

"Holy Mass, and in our company?"

If you show up, then yeah, sure... anytime.

"Well, nobody can call you a dissident anymore."

Never should have. ''There's hope for you yet;'' Fine; you're doing me favors! You mean I was hopeless, 'til--?

Til Christ offered you salvation, and til you took it and when you finally perseverre in it to the end, in the only place one can find it, which is in the Catholic Church.

''you'll slip before you know it, so keep the Faith or rediscover it,'' Slip before I know what?

What that means is keep the Faith. This modern thing will strip you clean of Faith if you allow it. Especially the illusions of the power of dialogue; dialogue without prayer is worthless... it's just an argument.

"I'm in the faith, I hope to keep it, Emmie."

Then disown the modernists, not the traditional Catholics.

"Let us hope you rediscover your roots."

Did that / doing that. Hope it all works out in the end.

"You weren't always a divider, were you?"

No, I gave it up a while back and have been attempting to give it up ever since.

"this is a strange post!"

See the other strange post above this one and below yours; there's nothing new under the sun.

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

But come to think of it, I'm distracting you from commenting on jake's link. Sorry jake, I lost a good focus for you.

I want to see you comment on that link, Gene. If you would.

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

No problem. I've a feeling the focus will be a little.....blurry, anyway. They'll either continue to ignore, or call me a Pharisee or a skink or something. *shrug*

Did you ever belong to the Church, Jake? The Church of love for one another?

You mean the Novus Ordo church? No. I mean, I used to, but thanks be to God for leading me out of that quagmire and into the Roman Catholic Faith.

I might reply to your think-piece; after I've thought it over.

Waiting to see what JFGBSD has to say about it? Never mind. Your silence is speaking loudly enough.

So yeah, the link is a story about how a Cardinal, a Prince of the Church, has said that the "Patriotic Association" in China, a Communist, murderous, pro-abortion, pro-sterilization sect which has consecrated HUNDREDS of Bishops without Papal mandate

...Wait. Where have I heard that before........

Is, in fact, a part of the Roman Catholic Church.

Ready? Set? Discuss.

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

What's to discuss? The guy has stated his opinion, nothing more. Cardinals are not infallible. At least he isn't in open defiance of Church authority like bishops who "ordain" women or celebrate unapproved Tridentine liturgies.

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

There's just to much of that "opiniatin' goin' on around here, from those bishops, and cardinals.

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

A Novus Ordo presbyter in a conservative (not traditional) Catholic publication just two months ago painted an horrendous picture about what has happened to the Church in less than forty years:

an entirely new Worship Service in the vulgar tongue and facing the people was imposed the Sacraments were converted into the vulgar tongue, and their form was changed, leading many to question their very validity dirty unconsecrated hands are being allowed to touch the Sacred Host and the sacred vessels the Eucharistic fast has been reduced to a triviality the "cup" has been introduced so that Catholics can receive communion just like Protestants communion is received in the haughty standing position instead of the humble kneeling position communion rails have been removed so that the "sanctuary" has been "desanctified," with supernumerary laypeople running about and even daring to touch the Sacred Species altar serviettes have been introduced, spurning a doctrine and practice of over 4,000 years Friday abstinence, going back to Apostolic times, and the Lenten fast have been virtually eliminated, sending more souls to Hell for lack of penance in this world wholesale abandonment of the priesthood, brotherhood, and sisterhood, so that Catholics can have not priests and religious, but mere "preachers," just like the Protestants discarding of religious habits death of many holy societies, sodalities, and confraternities gutting of the Legion of Decency, contributing to the proliferation of filthy movies neglect of the Most Holy Rosary and other time-honored Marian devotions neglect of adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament through the virtual discontinuance of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament allowing "Catholic" weddings in Protestant churches, leading to a non- Catholic attitude toward marriage wholesale "annulments" of Catholic marriage, smacking of "Divorce, Catholic Style" dropping of the ancient ember days, rogation days, and vigils of great feast days, leading to diminution of public prayer and penance and consequent civil calamaties complete mangling of the traditional ecclesiastical calendar, so that Catholics no longer know anything about Saints' days, lives and examples Sounds like a disaster, doesn't it? And what is the Novus Ordo presbyter's comment: "none of these things are bad in themselves...." Well, if they weren't bad in themselves, we wouldn't have the disaster to the Faith that the presbyter admits.

What is his recommended solution? "We should follow the rubrics of the Novus Ordo...." That is the Novus Ordinarians' solution to all the problems of the Church: if everyone would just follow strictly the new rules, everything would be A-okay.

Furthermore, "Mass should be an exact translation from the Latin." In other words, the use of the vulgar tongue to worship Holy God is perfectly acceptable; it's just the translation that's bad! Even the Jews wouldn't accept that one, nor the Mohammedans, nor the Hindus, nor the Buddhists -- all of whom use only sacred languages in their worship.

-- John (Johngrossen@yahoo.com), November 01, 2003.

What have you got against Cardinals of our Church, Jake? If you had been a Cardinal, we would hear you. And; why are you assuming the third party reports of something one prelate says in China are acceptable to the Holy See? Aren't you jumping to conclusions?

NO-- you are reaching for the available brickbat, anything will do. As for me, I'd just wait until the controversy is cleared. And, I'll pray. I haven't an agenda, as you have. I have faith in the Holy Spirit.

You hang a pretty teal- colored message up; making your's better than other posts, I see. Still the show-off. Explain please: If it's true and you found this sect, which has consecrated HUNDREDS of bishops without Papal mandate;

Are you saying the Papal mandate is an imperative; so that Catholics may realise what's true and what isn't? If so, why don't you uphold the Papal mandates that established the Rite you disparage as bogus, and ''garbage''--? ? ? Show some consistency, Little Jake!

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

As for John Gross;

After TRYING to sift through your laundry-list of liturgical and theological abuses'' I might arsk YOU: are you a Catholic, or one of those beadles from ancient British vicarages; the ones who stalked around in the church with a rod in their hands, ready to club any poor Christian who showed signs of dozing off?

Haha!!! The faithful are always under attack from fanatical spooks like you. Instead of minding your business during Holy Mass, you are taking everybody else's temperature and prescribing his/her medicine; nasty medicine! A SELF-APPOINTED caretaker of the Catholic faith. What hypocrisy.

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

Why would a language which was not spoken by the early Church other than the community at Rome, and which was in fact the language of the Church's earliest and most violent pagan persecutors, be considered "sacred"? Latin was chosen only because it was universal, not because it was "sacred" - and it was universal only because the Pagan Roman Empire forced it upon the peoples they conquered and subjugated.

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

At least he isn't in open defiance of Church authority

Well. That's a relief.

Oh.

Wait.

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

What have you got against Cardinals of our Church, Jake?

Well, against this one in particular, the fact that he sold out thousands of Catholics who risk their lives and freedom to go to Mass in secret, by saying that, as a Bishop, you can vow obedience to the goverment, advocate abortion, sterilization, and the persecution of Catholics (including imprisonment & murder), and still be considered in full-on Communion and solidly within the Roman Catholic Church. That's what I have against him.

Contrast that with Joe Q. Catholic who takes his wife and 6 kids to the Latin Mass at....GULP!...and un"approved" church.

Gasp!

Heretic!

Evil-doer!

Minion of Beelzebub!

Out of the Church!

schismatic!

excummunicated!

Am I getting through here? I'm not, am I?

why are you assuming the third party reports

Scroll to the bottom of the article. It's verifiable on other news sources, including Zenit.

of something one prelate says in China are acceptable to the Holy See? Aren't you jumping to conclusions?

The prelate is the retired President of the Pontifical Council for Justice & Peace (whatever that is), and was sent as the personal envoy of the Pope. So, no. I'm not jumping to conclusions.

As for me, I'd just wait until the controversy is cleared.

Or until JFGBSD tells you what to think about it?

why don't you uphold the Papal mandates that established the Rite you disparage as bogus, and ''garbage'

I uphold nothing that causes the destruction of the Faith, but we weren't talking about me. We were talking about the nefarious Cardinal. Sure, he's not infallible, but what do you think about what he said?

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

Latin was chosen only because it was universal, not because it was "sacred" - and it was universal only because the Pagan Roman Empire forced it upon the peoples they conquered and subjugated.

So?

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

We don't know, since much is withheld, how much obeisance is made in the bug-eyed monster church you've described; to the state, to abortion practices or other un-Christian things. We have your word, and the words of biased reporters. We see only what they want us to see. I might hope the Cardinal has had clandestine information about this church. If he hasn't, then the fiasco is to be blamed on him; for over-stepping.

You, Jake, are someone with an axe to grind. Before I worry about what you ''discover'', I'll wait for the Church to censure her bishops. That will command my assent. Not worry, ASSENT. You may follow your intuition if you care to.

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

Before I worry about what you ''discover'', I'll wait for the Church to censure her bishops.

Don't hold your breath.

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