I have been involved with young people as one of them and facilitating groups for the past 10yrs. My experience is that most young adults today want to know the truth of the Church. In other words what is God asking of me? Why am I Catholic? People who went through Vat. II think that their opinions are greater than the Magisterium of the Church, greater than 2000yrs of Christian truth guided by the Holy Spirit.

A good example is the liturgy at Mass. A lot of parents push for bands playing at youth Masses. Of course there is a place for this in the liturgy, however, why is it that parents don't suggest Gregorian chanting as another option? My experience again is that young people love greg. chanting. Where is the balance, why always focus on "the church must change" when we don't even know the church we come from.

I believe that liberals are the actual conservatives by not accepting the whole church, only their own views that are actually exclusive.

What do you think?

-- Francois Joseph de Fleuriot de la Coliniere (francois.de-fleuriot@unilever.com), November 11, 2003

Answers

why is it that parents don't suggest Gregorian chanting as another option?

Because they are disobedient to Vatican II.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

Francois,

People who went through Vat. II think that their opinions are greater than the Magisterium of the Church,

I agree completely. Here in the United States we have Schismatic followers of the excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre who believe that they shouldn't follow the Pope and Magesterium's instructions and don't believe Vatican II is binding on them! I know it's shocking, but true. There must be something in the air to make people put their own beliefs over the Church's instructions, but there you are. (BTW, in what is a true irony they consider themselves "traditionalists", while turning their back on their church's Tradition of obedience.)

I believe that liberals are the actual conservatives by not accepting the whole church, only their own views that are actually exclusive.

The church is not a pick and choose grab bag, it is man's access to the Truth. People in the 20th century have a great deal with placing their own views over that of a legitimate authority, they shouldn't be encouraged to do this further, but rather to believe, learn, and obey.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2003.

Let's amend that post

have a great deal with placing their own views over that of a legitimate authority

to

have a problem with placing their own views over that of a legitimate authority

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2003.

Frank:

His beef is with people like you, not people like me.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

Some of us call the Vatican II generation, the "Bob Hope's" of their time. They add lib the Mass, the music, the doctrines .(no doctrines from V2, by the way) This week's Mass, is not necessarily next week's Mass. It's what "moves" Father Jim at the time. Thats entertainment, as the song says. Gotta keep them coming back.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 11, 2003.

And you I suppose have personally experienced this? Or did you read it in a Trad version of Chick Publications?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 11, 2003.

I could name names, sure.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

Jake,

That's not what I read. He said he had a problem with people placing their own views over the direction of the Magesterium -- that means you, bub.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2003.

why always focus on "the church must change" when we don't even know the church we come

Familiar?

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

Let's see:

You've said you were brought up not in the pre-VatII church, but under the current rite of mass, so that when you say:

why always focus on "the church must change" when we don't even know the church we come

You must obviously be refering to people like you who want to CHANGE back to the prior rite of mass rather than truly understanding the church and the current rite of mass the way the Pope and Magesterium gave it to you. Is that about right? You agree you are the subject of his post? Thanks for that at least, and feel free to start reposting nonsensical pictures whenever.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2003.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

COOL! Priests getting out and reading to children. Now THERE'S a role model for you!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2003.

If we have to be so obe then quote to me in the documents of vatican II where it was stated to turn the altars around take Our Lord out of the midle of the church take away the sacred language of latin the church held dear for so many years, which was said in vatican II should still be used, where sis it say we need altar girls and women and men that are not ordained to bring comunion to the sick?? Thats the job of the Preist thats are to lazy to go do anything now adayy, Half the priest in our town if called at 3 min the morning because someone needed last rites would tell them no iam sleeping.

So tell me what am i being disobedent to? To the american peopel who decided they wanted to change everythign on their own because we had a very very weak pope who couldent stand up for the church?

If the pope tell you he doesnt see anything wrong with you jumpign off a bridge will you go becasue he doesnt see a problem with it??

KeV

-- kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 11, 2003.

< img src="http://www.chnonline.org/2003-04- 03/ginny_k_dahlberg.jpg">

and just in case you think I am posting a picture of a Protestsnt sevrice, I checked more thoroughly this time.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

and just in case you think I am posting a picture of a Protestsnt sevrice, I checked more thoroughly this time.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

"COOL! Priests getting out and reading to children. Now THERE'S a role model for you! " And what about the dignity of the Apostolic Office?

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 11, 2003.

"sacred language of latin."

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 11, 2003.

To me, the beauty of the Latin Mass was that you could go anywhere and the Mass would be the same. It is not that Latin itself is a better language per se, but that it was the common (i.e. universal) language of the Church. Mass in any other language is not wrong, it just means that if you don't happen to speak that language, you miss out on things.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 11, 2003.

GT;
You CAN go anywhere. Mass is the same; and these potshots the so called trad is posting aren't Catholics at Mass. This is the way he pushes the envelope around here; with deceiving info.

Jake is a phony. It's been evident for some time. Now he's grasping for any straw to try to discredit the Catholic Church. He's helping Satan mislead the faithful. Especially today.

Jake is easy to resist. Each day that goes by he sinks deeper, poor soul. Let's pray for him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

Eugene, what I meant was that when you don't understand the language being spoken, it is very easy to "zone out" and not pay attention, in other words, what is being spoken very quickly becomes "background noise" and your best bet is to just pray on your own while you're at Mass.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 11, 2003.

My current parish uses some chant, and all classic hymns from the Catholic and Anglican high church traditions, it has no altar girls, no extraordinary eucharistic ministers, communion under one species, and uses the altar rail for communion, while the priests use plenty of incense during mass. Is my parish a indult or SSPX parish? No, it is a parish ran by Dominicans, and uses the normative/novus ordo missal, mostly in English I might add. Some parish' go even further and use the current missal entirely in Latin such as St Agnes in St. Paul MN and Assumption Grotto in Detroit MI.

See, the way the mass is typically celebrated in most parish' today was not the way the Vatican II fathers intended. The EWTN mass for example or the way Fr. Fessio SJ typically celebrates mass is far more in line with what is intended.

-- JNB (rftech10@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003.

Jeff,

I understand what you are saying, because the Pharisees said the same thing about Jesus. Where's the dignity? He's eating with sinners! Where's the DIGNITY!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2003.

Dear GT, et al:
Anyone who remembers the Mass of pre- Vatican II in Latin knows that many attended who didn't or couldn't participate in the litugry at all. Unless they had a Missal, with the English/Latin translated, they followed by memory, and studied the various parts privately. I used to read the Missal and slowly accumulated the Latin equivalent by reading along in English or Spanish.

In England in the 90's, at a Tridentine indult Mass, I heard the congregation replying in Latin to the words of their celebrant up at the altar. I have to suppose they had a written aid to help them.

In the 50's I remember Mass in Latin as the ordinarily spoken or sung liturgy. But no one really responded fully to all of the priest's Latin; except maybe for the basic replies like, ''Et cum spiritu tuo;'' or Amen. It was hardly seen at all, prayed that way. The priest only had an acolyte; maybe two-- and it was their quick responses to his recitation which served as the public reply. They, of course said then in Latin.

Meanwhile, a great many of those assisting merely listened along with reverence; or even distraction. Many prayed the Rosary, or used prayer books unrelated to what was being recited in the sanctuary.

I'm relating exactly the truth. The idea that all the faithful participated in that Rite with complete devotion, is mistaken. Having stated that, I must say these were the very reasons which prompted the prelates and Popes of the Council to give us a vernacular Mass-- To help every soul truly participate in the liturgy. And, they have succeeded marvellously! Everyone now says the prayers and responses in our Liturgy as full participants during Holy Mass.

It can only be judged a definite improvement over the latter participation in Latin. Latin, after all, was the universal language up until the beginning of the 2nd millennium. In the previous era everybody could participate, since Latin was their language from childhood. But not afterwards; with the beginning of nationalist states. Now, hardly anyone can. It's used, but hardly anybody understands it outside the clergy itself.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

Give it a rest frank if you cant even try to defend your point why even post you are just showing your ignorence with that last post.

I will pray for you

KeV

-- kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 11, 2003.

Just so that nobody is misled by Jake, the picture of the woman priest comes from the following article:

Prayer service for women's ordination held at St. Matthias: Archbishop surprised organization allowed to gather in church

And a quote from the article,

"Cooper's consultation process did not include archdiocesan officials or Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, who according to his spokesman, Jerry Topczewski, did not learn of the service until hours before it occurred when his office received a number of calls after it was reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

"He was surprised an organization that was in direct opposition to defined teachings of the church would be welcome at one of our parishes," said Topczewski of Dolan, adding the archbishop was especially disappointed by what he heard occurred."

J@ke, what you did was deplorable. Apologize.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.

Eugene, I'm too young to remember Latin Masses, but both my parents took Latin in school--in their day, it was required in high schools, and of course, in college for anyone studying medicine/the sciences, so more people at that time would have actually understood what they were saying at Mass, and they would also have their missals to go by.

Such is not the case nowadays--I would imagine that even those studying medicine today are probably only taking medical Latin (and I suppose those in other scientific specialties would also study specific "bits" of Latin). Some studies have suggested bringing Latin back into the classroom since it is a "root" language (but I digress).

"Meanwhile, a great many of those assisting merely listened along with reverence; or even distraction. Many prayed the Rosary, or used prayer books unrelated to what was being recited in the sanctuary."

You can do the above regardless of the language spoken at Mass, by the way. I don't really have an opinion on whether to use Latin over the vernacular, but I certainly don't think that the vernacular is "less respectful" in any way, either.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 11, 2003.

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, who according to his spokesman, Jerry Topczewski, did not learn of the service until hours before it occurred

...and what did he or his "spokesman" or any other diocesian official do to stop it?

"He was surprised an organization that was in direct opposition to defined teachings of the church would be welcome at one of our parishes," said Topczewski of Dolan, adding the archbishop was especially disappointed by what he heard occurred."

Disappointed?! Wow. Move over Athanasius...

Please provide a link to the Archbishop's public admonishment/condemnation/rebuke/rejection of those responsible for the bilge which took place in one of his parishes. Thanks.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 11, 2003.

Yes, he ought to stand up for the Church and condemn the perpretrators. Who can argue? It may well be he already did that; but Regina and Jake have done nothing we know of to remedy any situation. They would much rather the bishop stay complacent, if he ever was.

Instead, Jake brings a clipping from this evil here to use as cannon fodder against the Catholic Church. So, the Church which is HOLY is doubly scandalised today; first by that abuse and now by the gloating of her opponents in this forum. --Opponents, let's point out for impartial visitors, who are becoming the worst bottom-feeders ever to post here. These can't be faithful Catholics.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

Far from being schismatic or heretical or divisive, the traditional Catholic movement is nothing less than the future of the Roman Catholic Church. While the once-Catholic parishes worldwide continue to decline in attendance and sanctity as they "progress" in implementing the "reforms" mandated "in the spirit of Vatican II," the Catholic Church, that is to say, the REAL Catholic Church, quietly continues Her march towards greater holiness and sanctity, with a future more bright than ever before.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 11, 2003.

Bubbles takes more than his rightful credit here for conservatism. These people have no claim to the word Traditional; they are open enemies of the Catholic faith. Tradition is marked by our deference and loyalty to Chist's servants, who are our bishops. Jake & Bubbles and regina are defiantly unloyal.

That's fine; we are free and adult. But don't call it traditional. I follow the anointed leaders of the catholic Church, in spirit and compliance with their authority. No one here can accuse me of any unorthodox belief. No one can say I'm radical or even liberal; I'm conservative to the bone.

Yet, because I obey my bishop and worship God in this Holy Catholic diocese that acknowledges the bishop of Rome and all our Catholic doctrines; a few dissident pseudo-religious hypocrites call me a liberal. They should live so long!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

You know, I get annoyed at many radical traditionalists at times that say Novus Ordo this and Novus Ordo that, and they are over the top all too often, but people have to realise why the ranks of the traditional movment are growing with many young Catholics. They are sick of the abuses, and yes that includes things that are now lict but started out such as abuses such as standing for communion, communion in hand, extraordinary eucharistic ministers, altar girls, almost no use of the Roman Canon(Eucharistic Prayer I) and so on. They are sick of the poor quality liturgical music, they are sick of the very poor quality of preaching that has no susbtance most of the time, and at others times is outright hetrodox. It was against this backdrop that so many were raised in, this backdrop that they so so many of their close friends and family members lose their faith that they had enough, and decided to go to the traditional mass. The traditional mass is a reaction against the severe abuses that go on, that are all too typical at most parish' now.

Yes, like I said , the over the top antics are annoying and counter productive, but to call traditionalists evil is in itself over the top. People have to realise the pain and agony so many traidtionalists went though before they became traditionalists. How would one like it if they are the only one left in their family that still practices the faith, they they are alone on the high holy days at mass? I myself go to a quasi traditional Novus Ordo, but I also go to the local indult Tridentine mass as well, and despite the facts my bishop is a liberal, thankfully I have choices. But for the faithful in such diocse' such as LA and Pheonix, and in most areas of the South, the SSPX chapel may be the only option to have a reverent mass.

-- John B(JNB) (rftech10@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003.

Thank you for posting post of our feelings i would have but every time i try i just get called a pharaie and such....

Keep the faith my friend

KeV

-- Kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 11, 2003.

For Bubbles.

Perhaps my church is an anomaly, but attendance statistics have shown a trippling since 1993. (200 TO 600+) I recently returned to the Church after a 20 year sabatical. Mine is an urban parish in Baltimore. It seems to have more attendees each week. A broad spectrum of people with many in their early 20's (the age when many of my contemporaries (myself included)smugly fell away from the Church.) I'm seeing many possitive things happening and feel very optimistic. I'm old enough to remember the latin mass and understand the mystical beauty of it, but it is quite difficult for most to follow. Its beautiful to listen to but quite meaningless to those with out a background in Latin. The glass is half full. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), November 11, 2003.

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, who according to his spokesman, Jerry Topczewski, did not learn of the service until hours before it occurred

You mean he had an opportunity to stop it & didn't?

"He was surprised an organization that was in direct opposition to defined teachings of the church would be welcome at one of our parishes,"

Nonsense. A Bishop is responsible gor what's going on (or not going on) in his churches & schools.

J@ke, what you did was deplorable. Apologize.

It was deplorable, that's for sure, but my posting it was not deplorable. The fact that it went on is deplorable, and worse. You, as a future priest, should be outraged. Are you?

If you want an apology for the debacle, contact Archbishop Dolan.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

Following Cardinal Mahoney?

Beware of the stranger among us: the wolf in sheep's clothing! Many do not realize the repercussions that can and will cascade upon Holy Mother Church in America from the "pastoral letter of demand" that Cardinal Roger M. Mahoney has unleashed on his Archdiocese of Los Angeles regarding drastic changes in the liturgy that must be implemented by the feast of Pentecost next year. Following up Cyndi’s editorial yesterday, you know you’re on the straight and narrow when you stand up to the likes of Cardinal Mahoney who, as the wolf in sheep’s clothing, is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of not just his Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the second largest in America, but the entire Church with his liberal, Protestant-like mandates diminishing the role of the priests in the liturgy while encouraging all kinds of aberrations that, hitherto now, have been foreign to anything Rome has ever seen. Ah, that’s the key word that inflicts like a thorn to progressives: Rome! They don’t like the idea of a hierarchy with the Bishop of Rome calling the shots. They want a democracy, do it the way they want, their will. God’s Will? What is that? It only gets in the way of the new way of thinking and doing things and the old, orthodox way that served the Church for well over nineteen and a half centuries is now passe. Hoo boy, bet ol’ hornhead is jumpin’ with joy! If Hollywood-born Mahoney has his way the American Catholic church will be of his fashion and he wants his subjects to be totally obedient. But obedience seems to escape him when it comes to his own. As a bishop, no less a cardinal, he has sworn his allegiance to the Vicar of Christ - the Successor of Peter. He can criticize others right and left, but when criticized himself he has thin-skin evident by his demand that Mother Angelica apologize for taking him to task over his "pastoral" in the LA Archdiocese regarding "Community and Holy Communion." As we all know, Mother is not one to back down and neither will we nor should anyone who believes in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and believes in all Jesus Christ taught and established with His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We all know Mother is in good standing with the Holy Father and the head of Ignatius Press, Father Joseph Fessio, SJ has encouraged her to take the crusade to stop the dissenting liberals from ruining the Church in America to Rome herself. An interesting confrontation could ensue as one e-mailer wrote, "I can’t believe it. Mother Angelica and the most liberal, dissenting cardinal in America going toe to toe. I wonder how many liberals in America (religious or otherwise) will decry a mean, old white male patriarchal cleric going after a disabled, elderly woman!" She may be on crutches or a cane and getting on in years, but her mind and heart are sharp and she can hold her own. Could it be that something could come to a head during this next three weeks as the Synod of America takes place at the Vatican? Just thinking out loud, but does Mahoney have the guts to criticize and stand up to the Holy Father in his own backyard? Or will this predator of Tradition, lie down with the sheep and wait until he returns to the left coast in the U.S. to resume his diatribe against the concept of supreme pontiff and the antiquated liturgy? Jesus warns us of his ilk in Matthew 7: 15, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 11, 2003.

Those who plead superior because they expect their numbers to expand are fools. In the first century the Roman Empire numbered 770 millions strong versus less than a hundred Christian missionaries. The Empire was converted.

You delude yourselves wishing for more to be added to your closed world. It won't matter; you are flirting with schism & disaster.

The Catholic faith is trustworthy, even if it should show a dwindling attendance the next twenty centuries. We may have to greet Our Lord as that remnant He loves the most; and I will be in there. Ye of little faith! Go on dreaming. Your sickness is not unto death. All of you have a date with our Judge. When He approaches you'll run back under cover of Holy Mother Church. Outlaws usually do.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

Too bad somebody else didn't say it:

''It was deplorable, that's for sure, but my posting it was not deplorable.'' (Jake on a pontificature.)

Go on, Guv'nor; it's deplorable as comedy has it. We know darn well it wasn't worship; nor was it condoned by any Catholic outside that little group. You would paint the entire Church with the same broad brush. Isn't this just hypocrisy?

Others paint you with the broad schizmoid brush for your unholy dissidence. You still maintain you're faithful. How is that so opposed?

You found an ''incriminating'' example. It's an anomaly, as anybody can see. If you now think one bishop was a false prophet, Goody-Goody for you! We have hundreds and hundreds of holy bishops, Jake.

Go live in a hermit's cave, like a saint. Do penance in sackcloth and ashes. Let your beard grow, you have my permission, Pal.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

Something tells me that even if he did that, he'd keep a wireless Internet terminal nearb so he could continue terrorizing us.

That "prayer service" should never have gone on, but "a few hours" isn't enough time for the bishop to pull the plug on it. It's right there in the article: those people directly contradict the teaching of the Church.

For you trads to pin the blame of heresy on faithful Catholics is sheer idiocy.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

"For you trads to pin the blame of heresy on faithful Catholics is sheer idiocy."

Is that so?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 12, 2003.

gene:

It may well be he already did that;

That's why I asked Skoobuoy to post a link to a public statement from the Archbishop regarding this...event. He has a responsibility to ease the hearts and minds of those so rightly scandalized by this. The faithful need to know not only that such an event was wrong, but *why* it was wrong. The bishop should make it clear that under no circumstances will an event like this ever take place in any of God's Houses under him again.

but Regina and Jake have done nothing we know of to remedy any situation.

1. The Rosary. 2. Assistance at the Traditional Mass exclusively. 3. The Rosary. 4. Educating our children in the traditional Catholic Faith. 5. Forbidding them to attend *anything* related to the N.O., lest they be scandalized by actions and non-actions alike from so- called "shepherds" hell-bent on corrupting the faith. 6. The Rosary

They would much rather the bishop stay complacent, if he ever was.

Wrong. We'd like nothing better than to learn that the bishop strongly and firmly admonished/condemned the people responsible for the event.

Instead, Jake brings a clipping from this evil here to use as cannon fodder against the Catholic Church.

That's right, Gene. Put the blame on the guy who exposes the crime rather than the one who was merely "disappointed" about it.

now by the gloating of her opponents in this forum.

Where on earth do you get the idea that we "gloat" over this sort of thing?! When a Pro-Lifer shows a picture of a shredded fetus in an effort to get folks to see the horrors of abortion, is he "gloating?!" NO! He's trying to get you to understand. He's trying to show pro-deathers exactly what it is that they believe in and support. Gloating. No. Outraged is more like it. If you condemn jake instead of the bishop's gutless reaction and pastor of the parish that allowed this thing to happen, you're an enabler.

These can't be faithful Catholics.

And you define "faithful Catholics" based on their complacency in the face of error.

-----

Skoobuoy:

That "prayer service" should never have gone on, but "a few hours" isn't enough time for the bishop to pull the plug on it.

Contacting the pastor forbidding the event to take place isn't realistic? Sending someone from the diocese to that parish and telling those showing up for the event that it will not take place isn't realistic?

For you trads to pin the blame of heresy on faithful Catholics is sheer idiocy.

For you enablers of error to pin the blame of this scandal on the one exposing it is sheer idiocy.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 12, 2003.

Go live in a hermit's cave, like a saint. Do penance in sackcloth and ashes. Let your beard grow, you have my permission, Pal.

That has seemed to me at times to be an ideal existence, but my vocation is to be a husband & father. So if I don't have God's permission, yours matters little.

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

Something tells me that even if he did that, he'd keep a wireless Internet terminal nearb so he could continue terrorizing us.

I don't mind having struck a little terror into your hearts. You of all people should be terrified, especially as a future priest. What will you do if your bishop allows a similar crime in your church? Obey? Stand up for what you know? Explain it away like you're trying to do here?

I hope that thought wakes you up in a cold sweat.

"a few hours" isn't enough time for the bishop to pull the plug on it.

A few minutes is more than enough time. How long does it take to make a phone call? How far away could he have been that he didn't jump in his car & go to the scene of the crime? He's more guilty than the pudgy, clip-haired man-hater in the alb & stole.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 12, 2003.

While I do think there should be women priests and married priests, I was very disappointed in the conduct of that woman during the prayer service.

"Walking to the altar Dahlberg held up the bread basket and chalice and said, "This is my body, this is my blood, Jesus said, do this and when you do this, you do it to remember me." "And yet, they tell me you may not say those words, woman. You may not touch those vessels, woman," she said, adding "men who share intimate relations with a woman" may also not do so. "You may not wear an alb as a priestly symbol," said Dahlberg, stripping off her stole and alb and tossing them to the ground at her feet."

That is NOT the way to behave in God's House. However, I don't think that you should blame anyone for allowing this service--that particular woman was disrespectful (and really sees the priesthood as a power trip, apparently, from her words and actions), but I doubt that all women who would like to be priests would ever act in such a fashion.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 12, 2003.

Very true, GT. However, Jake and his wife are accusing all Catholics of ''enabling'' those crazies. They want the bishop to fall on his sword, and the Pope to ex communicate them.

The mystery to me, and to our forum, is why Jake didn't forward these pics to the authorities in Rome. Or find someplace else to post them and not our forum?

He could. But he won't. Because he truly thinks they give him power over us; to promote his own brand of faith.

He and Regina would love to see me gone. This would be fair territory for their bum steers without somebody to give resistance. Pharisees for some reason think they've got the upper hand. They think they've thoroughly discredited John Gecik, anyway. Well, they won't. And they won't discredit me. We're the true Catholics, here to stay. John can refute everything they believe. John will be back. I just hope he can leave his personal foibles at home and concentrate on the danger we face from elitism here. A flabby danger, so far; yet we have to do combat with it and we will.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

They want the bishop to fall on his sword, and the Pope to ex communicate them.

Would it be a bad thing for him to be excommunicated, or even issued a warning?

The mystery to me, and to our forum, is why Jake didn't forward these pics to the authorities in Rome.

What makes you think I haven't?

He and Regina would love to see me gone.

Not true at all. We want to see you saved.

John can refute everything they believe.

John can insult people (yourself included, y'know - he'll be along shortly to prove my point), but he hasn't refuted anything to date.

Nothing.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 12, 2003.

''. . . a bad thing for him to be excommunicated-- ?'' --Yes; BAD. Just as bad as if you had been. But I wouldn't ever demand it. You seem to demand another person's ex communication, for something you have pre-judged. I suggest you go & interview the offending prelate and save the anathema 'til you've checked the facts.

''What makes you think I haven't?'' -- I just said it was a mystery to me. Anyway, who cares what you did? It's what you do here that's a travesty, IMO.

(He and Regina would love to see me gone.) --?
Not true at all. We want to see you saved.--YES, TRUE, it would suit your purpose.

My salvation would be totally unrelated to any work of your own. (I want to see you saved. I pray for the day.)

Repeat: John can refute everything you believe (relating to the 2nd Vatican Council, and to the holiness of the Catholic Church.) His personal faults don't help, but as your equal in the Catholic faith, his mind is just as good as yours. What's more, YOUR personal faults are no refined example for us. They often stink.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

Repeat: John can refute everything you believe (relating to the 2nd Vatican Council

Well, here we are. We're waiting. We've been waiting for over a year and a half.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 12, 2003.

Exactly why I said it, Regina. You're ''here''--(And,) It's what you do here that's a travesty, IMO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

Well, here we are. We're waiting. We've been waiting for over a year and a half.

Yeah, and the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. Unless you get the faith to be one with the church, you'll spend the rest of your life waiting, to no avail. Some legacy.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 12, 2003.

Yeah, and the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. Unless you get the faith to be one with the church, you'll spend the rest of your life waiting, to no avail. Some legacy.

Yeah, and the modernist Catholics are still going in a direction. Unless you get the Church to be one with the Faith, you'll spend the rest of your life progressing, to no destination. Some tradition.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 12, 2003.

Emerald,

You still don't get it. You, the Lefebvrite schismatics, and the ultra-liberals in the church all represent splinter groups that "fell away" from the church. We follow the teachings of the Pope and Magesterium, and are Catholic. Some Tradition INDEED!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 12, 2003.

"You still don't get it. You, the Lefebvrite schismatics, and the ultra-liberals in the church all represent splinter groups that "fell away" from the church."

Sure I do. You just laid out the Modernist spectrum above... you can use the bell-curve imagery just as well.

Frank, the truth does not lie in the mean between two extremes.

Truth is like a target: there's only one way to hit the bullseye, but an infinite number of ways to miss it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 12, 2003.

Emerald,

The trouble is you are putting the cart before the horse. It's NOT the case that church policy is determined by picking the middle ground between extremists, what IS true is that whatever church policy is, some will say it went to far and become right wing schismatics, and some will say it didn't go far enough and become left wing schismatics.

Your problem here is an inappropriate frame of reference.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 12, 2003.

An official statement put out by the bishops Congress called for a non-proselytizing approach by all religions. "No one religion can irradiate another", it said, "or strengthen itself by downplaying others and an open dialogue is the way to building bridges and tearing down walls of centuries of hate. What is needed is that each religion be true to its faith integrally and treat each religion on the same footing of equality with no inferior or superiority complexes." It emphasized that the secret to peace amongst all religions is admitting that contradictions exist between creeds, but to concentrate on what unites them as opposed to what separates them. So now we have the flagrant promotion under "Catholic" auspices, of the very proposition condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, that error has equal rights with truth. It doesn't matter that these others are false faiths, leading people astray. We are simply to ignore that fact in the context of the Modernist Mantra, "We all worship the same god." By the Living God, no, we don't! This is the false ecumanism of the conciliar church.

-- (trouble@inparadise.com), November 12, 2003.

Strange; This alarming idea seems radical; almost like hearing Our Lord saying: ''Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.''

Or, heaven help us, ''Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.''

It doesn't take a theologian to realise, God converts. Not you or I. If the Holy Gospel really has any power, we should only preach it; and others who hear have the obligation to respond. Our own obligation is the example of Christian love. And prayer for the conversion of souls.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

It emphasized that the secret to peace amongst all religions is admitting that contradictions exist between creeds, but to concentrate on what unites them as opposed to what separates them.

Could you imagine if doctors took a similar approach?

DR.: "You have a heart problem."

PATIENT: "OH NO! What can I do?"

DR.: "Your eyesight is 20/20 just like mine. Your weight is well within the healthy range according to your height and age. So is mine. Your blood pressure is the same as mine. Very good."

PATIENT: "But the very organ in my body which supplies good health to the rest of my body is defective! Shouldn't you do all in your ablility to treat it so it enjoys the same good health yours does?"

DR.: "Love the heart you have and celebrate the other aspects of your body which enjoy good health like mine does. We have more healthy things in common, and that's what's important."

The only difference in my doctor analogy and false ecumenism is that the doctor is glossing over a problem which will cause physical death. Proponents of false ecumenism are asking us to gloss over things which, if not treated, will cause spiritual death, which is infinitely more important.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 13, 2003.

If you know your analogy is bad, why present it?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 13, 2003.

If you know your analogy is bad, why present it?

Either you meant more than what you actually asked me, in which case your question went over my head, or you are plainly asking me why I presented an analogy which I knew was bad. I never said I knew my analogy was bad. Please clarify?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 13, 2003.

Phheeee-eeeewwwww! Something STINKS in here!!!

Oh, I see what it is! Contrary to God's will, certain ex-Catholic miscreants have not yet been banned, but are still being permitted (after almost two years of abusive proselytizing) to continue polluting this CATHOLIC forum.

Dear Francois (initiator of this thread), you, as one who wishes to become a forum regular, are becoming aware of the need to avoid being influenced by the four schismatic and heretical people who are illegitimately posting here on a regular basis -- "Emerald" (Paul Moeller [who is not the moderator (a different "Paul M")], "Jake/J@ke/Joke" (real name unknown), "Isabel" (real name unknown), and "Regina" (real name unknown) -- and their occasional "groupies" who usually last only a few days or weeks (most recently Bubbles/Soapy, Kevin Wisniewski, Jeff Majoris, Psyche, et al.). These people pretend to be Catholics (even calling themselves "Traditionalists" or "Traditional Catholics"), but at least the regulars (known as "Regina's Raiders" or the "Four Schismatic Stooges") have revealed in several ways that they are not really Catholics any more. (Careful ... they will lie to you by saying that they have "revealed" no such thing. Ignore them.)

So do watch where you step, Francois, lest you go ankle-deep into their verbal feces. One poor guy fell in all the way up to his scalp and has now joined them outside the Catholic Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.

john g,

you posted a response to "Francois Joseph de Fleuriot de la Coliniere." this persona who has never posted here before and never followed up ANY of the responses here. i find it funny that jake seems to intuitively understand every subtle nuance of what "Francois Joseph de Fleuriot de la Coliniere" was trying to say as well.

with the vast majority of catholics being loyal, i find the ratio of schismatics to faithful currently at this forum exceedingly hard to believe. in fact, it leads me to one of two ideas:

1) the schismatics are right. there are more trads in the world than novus ordos, by a long shot (if you consider this forum a poll). we know this cannot be the case.

2) as they have done in the past, each schismo is posting under multiple names. just so happens that stupidly picking names like "Francois Joseph de Fleuriot de la Coliniere" gets too hard to type over and over and over again to respond, so they let that false name drop.

paul m, i dont understand how you let their trash continue here. as john g has so observantly pointed out, these schismatics have become lower than the lowest anti catholic fundamentalists. they are the bottom feeders whose life is to dredge useless garbage up in order to cloud the issues.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 15, 2003.

2) as they have done in the past,

Really? That's news to me.

each schismo is posting under multiple names.

MODERATOR: Would you be so kind as to verify that the ISPs of the most recent Traditional folks don't match any of the regular Trads (Emerald, jake, Isabel, me) here?

You may have to understand and accept, paul h., that the Traditional movement is flourishing, growing more every day. If you don't agree with us, fine, but are you really that hate-filled that you need to speak falsely against us so maliciously and accuse us of things you have no basis for?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 15, 2003.

Regina,
I also have doubts one of you is posting with aliases. For that matter, John has often enough done so.

I must inform you, & your partisans, however: There is no ''traditional movement''. Just a big fuss by a number of elitists on this forum.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.

I also have doubts one of you is posting with aliases. For that matter, John has often enough done so.

Anyone with the Moderator password could easily verify that a poster is posting under multiple asiases. Inventing personas to make it seem like people are agreeing with you (against forum rules), I don't think, is anything any Traditionalist would sink to (some Neos have been caught in this act. Remember?), but again, the moderator could verify, if he so choses. He could also ban us all, if he so choses.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 15, 2003.

I hope he does, Jake. You serve no good purpose here.

We heard your spiel and we find it pharisaical. You haven't once seen fit to express love for your neighbors; only to disparage. Why don't you take it all where somebody appreciates it?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.

At Regina's request I can verify that she has not posted under any name other than "Regina". However, I am not going to post personal information about other people at the request of one individual.

Please note that the rules of the forum DO allow posting under multiple names. I didn't make this rule. I inherited it, and never changed it. What is not allowed is the posting of successive messages in one thread under various names, creating the appearance of a conversation between two people, or creating the illusion that several people have posted messages in agreement with (or in opposition to) your original post.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2003.

You can reveal my posting data as well; I have nothing to hide.

I have posted under other titles only occasionally, but not so as to impersonate another or to dialogue with myself so to speak.

In two years, off the top of my head, my quess would be maybe 15 times. Most were an attempt at humor. None, to my knowledge, were against the forum's rules, and none were meant in an attempt to be deceptive in any way.

What you see is really what you get, basically.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 15, 2003.

regina,

that the Traditional movement is flourishing

i do realize that there is a traditional movement. in fact, my uncle goes to traditional mass. you, however, are not a traditionalist.

my uncle (the traditionalist) goes to latin mass, yes. but he does it as a matter of preference. he recognizes the new mass as wholly valid and equal to all other forms of the mass, he recognizes vatican II and all the other councils' teachings, and he recognizes the pope and the magisterium as the authority of the church. he is a traditionalist.

you, on the other hand, call the new mass an abomination. you refuse to recognize the teachings of a council. you refuse to lend acceptance to the pope (although you claim to, in name only). you are not a traditionalist, youre not even catholic. youre a schismatic. which makes every bit of difference in my mind.

schismatic to me is something less than protestant, its more the judas of our day. but you cant claim to be part of the traditional movement, because you dont even come close to espousing the values of true traditionalists.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 15, 2003.

paul, let's deal with your accusation first:

"as they have done in the past, each schismo is posting under multiple names."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 15, 2003.

As a side note, I have no real problems with people knowing my real name here.

On principle, though, I believe it to be a violation of privacy to have given my real name without persmission.

It's not clear to me the effect that was intended in doing this. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to feel like I've been exposed or discredited or what.

If someone could tell me how I'm supposed to be reacting right now, tell me and maybe I can feign it for everyone's satisfaction. I wouldn't want to disappoint anyone needlessly...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 15, 2003.

To Emerald:

It is as you say, Oh Green One. You have posted just over 2,000 messages on the forum. Of those, there are 21 that do not identify you as the poster (not including one signed "Emerald's Wife"). Those 21 were posted under a variety of monikers and email addresses, as follows:

"A Regular" (someoneyouknow@theforum.com) (3)

"c" (s@p.b) (3)

"it does" (not@mat.ter) (1)

"em" (w@w.w) (1)

"x" (x@z.z) (1)

[no name] (123@456.zzzzz) (1)

[no name] (mr@clean.con) (1)

[no name] (what@ever.lol) (1)

[no name] (jtjt@kktj.bmn) (1)

[no name] (yyy@ttt.lll) (1)

[no name] (fhf@kbk.cbw) (1)

[no name] (hidden@soci.ety) (1)

[no name] (dfe@lfk.boh) (1)

[no name] (rev@kgi.von) (1)

[no name] (ert@kjj.vov) (1)

[no name] (mon@te.christo) (1)

[no name] (couldn't@wait.later) (1)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2003.

This is not necessarily true though, as it shows only the name for that IP number. For example, if they post one name from thier IP, and post under another name through a remailer, they wouldn't show up as being from the same person. Ditto for if they post from home under one name and from work with another. So you can say that from *that IP* that's all they've posted as, but that doesn't mean they didn't post as someone else in a more crafty fashion.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 15, 2003.

Emerald,

There are some unpleasant consequences to being outed, which will be especially true if someone finds out which P.M. you are. Do you write poetry or play classical guitar, work at a help desk?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Frank

P.S. When looking on google for you, I looked for myself, and there I am, picture and everything, on the Internet! Scary world we're living in.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 15, 2003.

I was pretty close! 21 it is.

Thanks Paul.

No, Frank, I am happy to say that that's not me. I have published none of my music, and the what I compose here is all lyric-less so far.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 15, 2003.

I will concede to the forum two truths:

1. I am truly a nobody; a low-down E-4 in the Church Militant with absolutely no status whatsoever, and

2. 2,000 messages is a lot. Too much.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 15, 2003.

Dear Frank,

From one message you can get one IP address, but from a name search you can get all IP addresses used under that name. Then you can get all names used under those IP addresses. It's true that a message sent under a unique name AND a unique IP address (a name that is not connected with other IP addresses AND an IP address that is not connected with a real name) would be unidentifiable. But that's not a likely scenario.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2003.

I am truly a nobody; a low-down E-4

When I made E4, I thought I was pretty hot stuff. Youth makes it possible to be excited over someone calling you "Petty Officer.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 15, 2003.

Made E4? Isn't that the lowest? I actually have no idea how the ranks go.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 15, 2003.

Doesn't "E4" beg the question of whether there's an E1-E3? Ha! j/k. The enlisted ranks (in the Navy, anyway) run from E1 (Seaman Recruit) to E9 (Master Chief Petty Officer). The Petty Officer ranks start at E4 (Petty Officer Third Class).

-- jake (j@k.e), November 16, 2003.

Good point...! That was kind of modernist of me, to forget 1 through 3. It sneaks up on you.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 16, 2003.

as they have done in the past, each schismo is posting under multiple names. just so happens that stupidly picking names like "Francois Joseph de Fleuriot de la Coliniere" gets too hard to type over and over and over again to respond, so they let that false name drop.

You mean there's a Traditionalist...conspiracy?

Chilling.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 16, 2003.

Paul,

Just curious, does this show me as posting from my usual IP, and if not, how would you know it was me?

Frink

-- just (Someother@schismatic.wacko), November 16, 2003.

Paul,

Oh, and BTW, this took about 3 minutes to find an anonymous remailer.

Frink

-- just (Someother@schismatic.wacko), November 16, 2003.

Dear Jake

"I thought I was pretty hot stuff..."youth" makes it possible to be excited over someone calling you "Petty Officer".

Im as shocked as everyone else. I'd never have guessed a man as decent as yourself could ever be so egotistical and self centered. We all change, must have just been a phase, pride and arrogance of "youth" eh, it gets to the best of us. I think your meek and humble wife Regina must have really made the difference. Thanks for sharing, are you bathing more?

Btw Insubordination ever a problem back then?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

I'd never have guessed a man as decent as yourself could ever be so egotistical and self centered.

Back then, I was a hit-or-miss (more miss than hit) Novus Ordo Mass goer who drank too much and had a filthy mouth, too.

We all change, must have just been a phase, pride and arrogance of "youth" eh, it gets to the best of us.

Some of us grow up and out of that boorishness, thank God.

I think your meek and humble wife Regina must have really made the difference.

She had a lot to do with it, yes.

are you bathing more?

More than at the time? I'd say so. We had two minutes to take a shower on board ship, and that's when we could spare the fresh water.

Btw Insubordination ever a problem back then?

I have a good conduct medal, which means I managed never to get caught.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 16, 2003.

Ok picking on Regina is a bit tacky, she's by far the better half. The tragic thing is Jake you caused Christ much much less pain with your poor Mass attendence, potty mouth and drinking then, than you do by your elitist behaviour now.

You poor, poor man , unless you return to Christ's Church and stop your insubordination youll never realise the hurt you cause Christ and the danger your own pride (together with your ill founded obsession with appearances, with exterior piety)- has placed you, your wife and your children in. Lord have mercy on us all.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

We do not pick on Regina; nor Jake.
They both pick on the Mass and our Church. They pick on the 2nd Vatican Council, and all who support it.

Their other views aren't anything unorthodox or reprehensible; they're even laudable sometimes.

These two are very hard-pressed to say as much for me & you. The only good thing they ever said about the Novus Ordo is __________________ /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

Frank, I have not posted from a different IP for the sake of deception. Or using a remailer thing (I don't know how that works). On occasion, I have posted from another computer such as when back East or occasionally from someone else's house, but it's probably been rarer than my anonymous postings listed above.

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but there's no conspiracy here. It might be adivisable to consider the defense of tradition and doctrine for what it is: an honest approach. The traditionalists by and large have approached these dialogues in an undeceitful manner. Irritating, perhaps, but substantively.

Kiwi, jake is none of what you indicate. People might not like his style or approach, that's all. Distinguish substance from accident, as you would have him do with the pictures he posts.

The post-conciliar Church would remind us constantly to see Christ in everyone or some such feely-weely sentiment. There is some truth to that, so when it comes to jake, just go do it. In all these troubles, the last thing anyone wants to do is to cut off another member of the Body of Christ; when they do that, they severe their own limbs and violated the Our Father.

I'm sorry, but jake's a good guy; that's all there is to it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 16, 2003.

What's he mean:''The traditionalists by and large have approached these dialogues in an undeceitful manner. Irritating, perhaps, but substantively.''--? Who? Jake et al? You?

We don't agree you are traditionalsts. You are far from traditional. You're dissidents and unfaithful to the Catholic Church.

If that's ''substantive'', I'd suggest you try ''feely-weely.'' As for deceitful; I can't say. I know Regina has distorted the truth in the past, intentionally or not I won't say. All in all, many good things the elitists (that's it, not trads) say to me are substantive and irreproachable. But too many other things are just silly. You've contributed some good posts. But you always do it in the guise of a ''better'' or less prejudiced ''trad''.

I'll buy the good intentions. But hardly your claim to defending tradition. Sorry; but in YOU especially, that's transparently self-serving.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

Wrong.

lol! Wrong! Self-serving? I concede that much, because aren't we all serving self in one respect or another. In whatever respect it pertains to you, and I assume somehow it would since we are all fallen, are you going to let something like this happen:

"Well, let's see. If I speak up for the truth, it will become immediately evident that I myself am, in certain respects, in violation of living that truth. Therefore, so as to avoid becoming a hypocrite, it would be best not to speak up for the truth and be silent. This way, my own adherence to the truth cannot not called into question"

That in itself is just another brand of serving self.

That's what I hear... promote the truth and get pinned with the holier than thou and the elite and the self- serving name tags. In other words, then, "shut up". "Master, I knew you were a hard man, so I buried the talent"

Do you believe that people should take this approach? I don't. I say, go ahead and proceed with the task at hand, even if it means risking hypocracy; if hypocracy rears it's ugly head, fix it when it shows up. Let people say and think whatever they want to say and think; it doesn't matter. Fake it til you make it, as the salemen say.

So no, I'm not going to shut up.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 16, 2003.

"We don't agree you are traditionalsts. You are far from traditional. You're dissidents and unfaithful to the Catholic Church."

This is principally what I will not shut up about. This is a false statement.

Evidence-wise, the allegation has been riddled full of holes, buried, dug up again, shot and reburied, exhumed, napalmed and laid to rest again. Doesn't matter whether anyone sees that that's what happened, admits it or rejects it as fact, that's what's actually happened.

It will always happen, because like I said before, traditionalist Catholics are members of the Catholic Church, subject to the Roman Pontiff and players in the Mystical Body. Deal with it, I guess; we deal with the rest of you... far as I can recall, we never cut you off.

We don't have the authority to do so.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 16, 2003.

Emerald,

That wasn't meant for you, I doubt you are posting under various aliases, besides, your writing style is too distinct to get away with it for long. This was a message for Paul M., as we have had people in the past who posted under *multiple* aliases, and all from different IPs. After awhile one got to know them though. My point was being two or ten people on the internet isn't rocket science, I don't have any computer background at all, and I could figure it out. Some angry kid with too much time on his hands can flood every thread with posts, or post as multiple people. I was really just trying to caution Paul not to be naive about this.

Frank

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

''like I said before, traditionalist Catholics are members of the Catholic Church subject to the Roman Pontiff and player(WHa-a?) --in the Mystical Body--''

So far, correct. You've described me. Our faith; not a set-apart, perfectly managed and faultless faith of your elitist brand.

All of which means you aren't traditional. All of us are. You dislike a Church not of your planning? Fine. No one plans what the Holy Spirit should or can do. You're out of luck. You have no claim to a ''traditional'' faith. You are all posture and preening. That's counter to Tradition.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

My name is Francois de Fleuriot etc...

The only reason I posted my name in full was that I was requested to by the response form. It was my first posting on this forum.

I apologise for offending some of you. This was not my intention. For the record I am not traditionalist of conservative, I am orthodox.

P.S. my name is an old French name from noble origins in the Nante region of France.

Au revoir mes ami!

-- Franc (francois.de-fleuriot@unilever.com), November 17, 2003.

Ok picking on Regina is a bit tacky, she's by far the better half

Neither she nor I need you to tell us this.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 17, 2003.

I knew a Pierre Francois de la Brioski. His grandfather designed, and built the sewers of Pari s

-- Ed Norton (Somewhere@outthere.com), November 17, 2003.

That's a myth. He actually condemned them!

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 17, 2003.

You are absolutely correct Regina. The early flush of discovery, broke the litle boy's heart a while later.

-- Ed Norton (somewhere@outthere.com), November 17, 2003.

The vatican switched gears on its focus and emphasizd man in his imporance.

First, let us look at something the Pope said in his homily on November 24, 1985:

"The Council [Vatican II], which has given us a rich ecclesiological doctrine, has organically linked its teaching about the Church with its teaching about man's vocation in Christ. By reason of this relationship it has also been possible to say that 'man is the way for the Church,' precisely by reason of the fact that the Church follows Christ, who is for all people the way, the truth and the life' (Jn. 14:6)." Now, let us approach this statement in two ways. Let us first suppose that it is perfectly orthodox. The only problem I would then have with it is that it is entirely novel. Where and when have we heard this before? It's new to me. It wasn't taught - to my knowledge - before 1958. In fact, I cannot imagine any Pope before Vatican II getting comfortable with the idea that, however one interprets it, "man is the way for the Church"! It is interesting to me, but not surprising, that the only reference John Paul II makes here is to Vatican II. But since when can a council draw up new teachings? It's not as if the Church had just come into existence. Rather, the Church has been around for 2,000 years, and not until 1965 did we hear anything about man being the way for the Church. Christ is the way for the Church, certainly, and Christ was true man. But to say that man is the way for the Church - sorry, I don't see how you can say that.

-- (gogo@what'snew.com), November 25, 2003.

Gogo,
This forum does not have, as one of its purposes, the pitting of one pope against (an)other(s) -- nor the pitting one era of Church history against another. A lot of that has happened here for almost two years, but it is forbidden now.

If you don't understand what the pope means by something he has said or written, please just say so and ask for people's suggestions as to the meaning. But please omit all unhelpful comparisons and criticims.

Keep in mind that the current pope is not forbidden to express new theological insights (developments of doctrine within the deposit of the faith). Please do not try to handcuff him and expect him merely to repeat the self-same words that others have used in past Church history. Finally, from this point forward in your life, please try to approach post-1958 Vatican texts with an open, non-suspicious mind. You'll be a much happier person.

The pope is such a brilliant and deep thinker that he sometimes writes and says things that are very difficult to understand, that can be misunderstood, that require study, re-reading, and pondering. I do not claim to have fully fathomed the passage that you quoted, but I do not see it as having an improper meaning. It appears that the pope is trying to make clear that the "man" of whom he is speaking is Jesus himself -- or Christian "man" in his role as the Body of Christ. He emphasizes, in an introductory comment, that he is speaking of the Church's "teaching about man's vocation in Christ" -- not man as a secular animal.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.

Great advice John, if you or anyone else could keep me in your prayers over the next few weeks as Im trying to get into pre-medical school for next year and have interviews soon, very competitive, its a long shot but I want to give it a crack so I dont die wondering.

Gogo could you please let me know where you read this quote so I can read it in context. Thankyou.

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

Hey Kiwi, glad to pray for you and your exams. I have quite a few medical student friends so I "know your pain".

How's everything else treating you? What's the big med school in New Zealand?

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

Good luck Kiwi! You might want to spend a few months shadowing a particular physician to get an idea of what you're in for. Once you start, you can't go back.

But goood luck!

Frank

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

Unfortunately, millions of Catholics are among those who are led astray, and that often by their own shepherds-priests and ecclesiastics at every level. Sr. Lucy of Fatima, in an attempt to explain the lamentable condition of the Church, said that the Church is affected by a "diabolical disorientation." The word "diabolical," of course, refers to the devil. "Disorientation" means that the Church is in a state of confusion, and has taken a false turn. The church, like an unfaithful spouse, is no longer facing her "Orient from on high," Jesus Christ, but has turned her gaze on the world. Deceived by the devil, she has fallen into apostasy. The Church still exists, of course, but as a remnant, increasingly purified through suffering. We who want the Church to return to Her former truth and grandeur, are not enemies. We would just let things go from bad to worse, and smirk about it. Not so however. We love our Church and pray for Her constantly.

-- Laura (bluesky@rosegarden.com), November 26, 2003.

Moderator, I hope that you will delete Laura's message, which is not helpful and does not depict the Church accurately.

Kiwi, I will keep your needs and intentions in my prayers when I go to church tomorrow, which is Thanksgiving Day here in the States. Thanks for the compliment you paid me.

God bless all.
John

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

If the Church has fallen into apostacy, its founder was a liar, and therefore it is just as well that it did fall into apostacy, rather than continuing to follow someone who claimed to be the Son of God but actually didn't know what He was talking about. Fortunately that is not a concern since Jesus, God, promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church into ALL TRUTH, and that evil would never prevail over it. Perhaps your little ragtag movement is some sort of "remnant", but the True Church is alive, vibrant, a billion strong, and moving steadily ahead toward the Promised Land. Be careful you don't get left behind.

As for comparing the private revelation of a nun to the infallible teaching of the Vicar of Christ, such a comparison is absurd. If Sr. Lucy doesn't see eye to eye with John Paul II, Sr. Lucy needs to rethink her position. When we start running off following a nun here and a deacon there and the false prophet on the street corner, and rejecting the holder of the keys to the kingdom, we are on our way out of the Church of God.

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

"If the Church has fallen into apostacy, its founder was a liar, and therefore it is just as well that it did fall into apostacy, rather than continuing to follow someone who claimed to be the Son of God but actually didn't know what He was talking about."

This is a good argument and I agree with it, Paul, but I don't think that it necessarily refutes what Laura was saying.

Here's what I mean: that exact same argument was used very successfully by Fr. Arnold Damen of the Society of Jesus who was responsible for bringing thousands of souls into the Catholic Church in the late 1800's. From his work entitled The One True Church:

"Christ had established His Church and given His solemn oath that His Church should stand to the end of time: He promised that He had built it upon a rock, and that the gates of hell should never prevail against it; hence, my dear people, all those different denominations of religion are the invention of man; and I ask you can a man save the soul of his fellow man by any institution he can make? Must not religion come from God? ... We are sure of our Faith in the Catholic Church, and if our Faith is not true, Christ has deceived us."

There's a complete reprint online available here; I think that the Fr. Demon's sermon is well worth a good read as an example of brilliant apologetics. The source of this a traditionalist website, but regardless of anyone's sentiment about that fact, the sermon itself has a Nihil Obstat from C.L. Kinkead, Censor Deputatus, and an Imprimatur of Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York. In there is nothing contradictory to the Faith whatsoever.

The work is one of the simplest but most compelling defenses of the Catholic Church and invitation to the Protestants that I have read.

I myself believe that wholeheartedly the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, but would completely disagree that this necessarily translates into a decisive argument against a view that there could be in fact a diabolical disorientation at work in the world at this time. To admit of such a situation is in no way a contradiction of the very real promise of Christ.

Your argument is a good one and long in use in the Church, but I would say that I'm not see it as pertaining to, or effective against, those who believe that the Church is undergoing great stress in this present age. Something under stress doesn't equate to something failing.

I love this last paragraph of the sermon:

"You say you mean well, my dear friends; your meaning will not take you to heaven; you must do well also. "He that doeth the will of My Father," says Jesus, "he alone shall be saved." There are millions in hell who meant well. You must do well, and be sure you are doing well, to be saved. I thank my separated brethren for their kindness in coming to these controversial lectures. I hope I have said nothing to offend them. Of course, it would be nonsense for me not to preach Catholic Doctrines."

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

Certainly the argument I presented does not preclude the possibility that the Church "is undergoing great stress in this present age", just as it has undergone even greater stress in many previous ages. However it does preclude the possibility that the Church has become "apostate", as this would represent a decisive victory of Satan over God's Church, and ultimately over God Himself.

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

Without getting into any individual personality, while the Church can never defect, any pope,cardinal, or bishop, can most certainly defect. The Arian heresy proves that.

We must not think that men, (even a pope), cannot become a heretic. One pope many years ago, was indeed declared a heretic, after his death. So in order to defend the present Churchmen, we most not lose our sense of reason.

-- Laura (Bluesky@rosegarden.com), November 26, 2003.

Certainly individual bishops can teach heresy if they do not teach in union with the Vicar of Christ, and there are examples today of bishops who do so. However, a Pope cannot teach heresy as doctrinal truth binding on the universal Church. The Holy Spirit will not allow it. Whatsoever the Pope binds on earth is bound in heaven. That is the charism of personal infallibility which sets him apart from all other human beings. It is possible that a Pope could hold a personal belief that is objectively heretical. But he could not promulgate that belief in the form of official teaching, and therefore could not "become a heretic". If the Pope or the Magisterium of the Church were capable of teaching heresy, no person on earth could know with certainty that any doctrine of the Christian faith is true. The ONLY absolute guarantee of truth that God has provided regarding doctrines of the faith is the infallible teaching of the Church. If that fails, faith become subjective, just as it is in Protestantism, and fragmentation becomes inevitable.

Yes, Pope Honorius was accused of heresy, but that accusation did not make him a heretic. Some of the more extremist pseudotraditionalists today accuse John Paul II of the same thing. In fact, the charge was brought against Honorius out of sheer frustration at his failure to take decisive action against the Monothelite heresy which was prominent at the time. Because of his failure to speak out strongly against this heresy, its adherents gained in strength and numbers, and finally he was condemned for his failure to act. However, one cannot become a heretic by saying nothing. Honorius never formally approved Monothelitism, and he most certainly did not teach its false beliefs as doctrinal truth binding on the universal Church. He was a wimp, but certainly not a heretic.

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

"However, a Pope cannot teach heresy as doctrinal truth binding on the universal Church. The Holy Spirit will not allow it. ~ It is possible that a Pope could hold a personal belief that is objectively heretical. But he could not promulgate that belief in the form of official teaching..."

Funny thing is, Paul, I agree with the above statement completely.

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

Hi John, Frank and Joe thanks very much it means a lot to me. John I thought youd like that hymn its "real traditonal"! Frank not a bad idea- when a man starts reading encylicals for fun you know he must be bored silly and needs a change of direction in life. I have to wait and see how I get on with the interview process and how my previous degreee marks stack up compared to other applicants, thats just to get into "pre med" school! Then its a year doing chemistry and bio papers maintaining an A- average just to get IN to medical school. For a social science grad its easier said than done! Dont let me think about how poor Im going to be for the next x number of years if I even get in.... or how old I am going to be!

Joe Im not bad thanks, summers here in this part of the world, the girls are wearing short skirts and little else and the water is warming up, whats not to like about summer! J/k I know if you had your way all women would wear the burka !;)

I have posted a response to your pro Iraqi war on the other thread its abit rough edged and knee jerk Im sure youre going to have a field day picking it to pieces I must say youve well and truely got me on American politics but I try my best to give another perspective.

Hope alls well and the baby is sleeping through the night these days.

Peace thanks and Blessings gents!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 27, 2003.

I agree with Laura, to the extent, that a pope could cease to be pope, not only by officially promoting heresy, but by public scandal, especially if that were a pattern of his behaviour.

I believe this belief of Bellarmine also agrees. Theologians and canonists such as St Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, Torquemada, and Wernz and Vidal maintain, without compromising the doctrine of papal infallibility, that even a pope (as an individual, of course) may himself become a heretic and thus lose the pontificate. Some of these authors also maintain that pope can become a schismatic. In his great treatise on the Roman Pontiff, St Robert Bellarmine, for example asks the question: "Whether a heretical pope can be deposed." Note first, by the way, that his question assumes a pope can in fact become a heretic. After a lengthy discussion, Bellarmine concludes:

A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. [De Romano Pontifice. II.30. My emphasis.]

He does not have to proclaim the doctrine officially. just by doing and saying heretical thing publically, and constantly, he does great harm to theCatholic cause. Take for example John Paul's thoughts on capitol punishment, (even though it contradicts church teaching), it sways much of the faithfuls thinking also.

-- Gerard (Watchovia@glenfall.com), November 27, 2003.

We will assume that you have personally seen the Holy Spirit acsending to the heavens in the form of a dove; away from the Catholic Church. Because if you haven't, the post you submit here borders on blasphemy.

Once the free lancer makes a conscious decision to subvert the successor of Saint Peter and bring blame down on him, then he might as well not be a Catholic. He is a schismatic on the face of it.

The Holy Bible states very clearly, Peter has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Not Bellarmine and not dissident Catholic midgets.

The Holy Spirit is with His Church and with His help, no Pope will fall into heresy. He may fall into personal sin, even disgrace; but he will not mislead the faithful. God sees to this. What you label as heresy is subject to some serious thought; but it's mere controversy. Heresy is the perversion of truth; corrupting Catholic doctrine or apostolic teachings. Your judgment is laic and even worse, theologically unsound. The only clear thing about your words is the agenda you promote. Others here are calling it schism. I call it ignorance raising its head at the Holy Spirit, presuming to teach.

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

"We will assume that you have personally seen the Holy Spirit acsending to the heavens in the form of a dove; away from the Catholic Church. Because if you haven't, the post you submit here borders on blasphemy."

He didn't even name a particular Pope, Eugene. Look at Gerard's post again. You're assuming things and getting all heated under the collar without the due diligence, imho. Btw, I don't know who Gerard is, but the statement is correct.

Look, those are the conclusions of theologians and even of Doctor of the Church Saint Robert Bellarmine who has in fact treated such hypotheticals in his works.

Maybe it really is the case that people are just jumping the gun on all these considerations; it's less then scholarly. The resulting charges of blasphemy, schism and whatever are less then realistic as well.

"The Holy Spirit is with His Church and with His help, no Pope will fall into heresy."

With His help? Sure, but a garauntee that this has never happened or will ever happen, that's just bad theology. What's true is what Paul said above:

"However, a Pope cannot teach heresy as doctrinal truth binding on the universal Church. The Holy Spirit will not allow it. ~ It is possible that a Pope could hold a personal belief that is objectively heretical. But he could not promulgate that belief in the form of official teaching..."

That's a big difference. I've been trying to tell you people this all along. Understanding the papacy.

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

Ok, rereading it, I see it in the last paragraph naming John Paul II and capitol punishment.

The case stands.

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

Not your case, Emerald.
The Church's. I'm sure Gerard is thrilled with you for such loyal partisanship.

I'm aware of Saint Robert Bellarmine. He wasn't pointing to any real occurence; just hypothetical. You might say that's enough. But that's strictly because you lost faith in the Holy Spirit long ago. It led you to this presumption:

''I've been trying to tell you people this all along. Understanding the papacy.--''

--As if you had an inerrant understanding. The fact is, with all your posturing here, you are a dissident midget. Am I hot under the collar? Not with you or Gerard. I am hot under the collar with recalcitrant pharisees and elitists. You are a good lad; I just don't want you to become a pharisee; so I play serve & volley with you. You need the guidance.

Allowing Gerard to post his shallow judgment here without any response would have been too lenient. False witness must be rebuked.

-- euegene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 27, 2003.

He wasn't pointing to any real occurence; just hypothetical.

I know; this is where the sedevacantists make their mistakes imho, God love them. They see a problem but take it upon themselves to make determinations that are beyond their capacity... reservation of judgment is the better path.

"You might say that's enough. But that's strictly because you lost faith in the Holy Spirit long ago."

That's anything but the truth. What can I say, except simply say it ain't so. I have absolute confidence in the Holy Ghost; He is as active as ever.

"It led you to this presumption: ''I've been trying to tell you people this all along. Understanding the papacy.--'' --As if you had an inerrant understanding."

Not an inerrant understanding; an understanding that's not in error. I certainly don't understand everything about the nature of the papacy, but I stand against the current understanding of the papacy which is commonly in use... it has errors associated with it. Many of the current misunderstandings play up on people's well intention and good-hearted, natural loyalties to the Pontiff and the pontificate. This seems particularly userous on the part people in the Church that don't mean well... there are elements that want to damage the papacy.

If in general you mean to indicate that I'm a nobody and nobody to be paid particular attention to, then I'm in complete agreement with you. Anyone familiar with your posts for any length of time should determine that you've got a heart of gold, but I will still always see the disgust at traditionalists as friendly fire.

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

If you were the only traditional Catholic in our midst I would see some justice in your cause, Emmie. But I'm a traditional Catholic to the core. I haven't departed from tradition, and if I haven't, then the Church didn't. I own the best antennae in the Catholic world. You aren't better qualified to judge what's tradition than I, or WE. You've just caught elitism. Tradition is nothing like you taken it for.

-- euegene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 27, 2003.

I realize people think that; but... I'm digging in my heels anyways.

Happy Thanksgiving, though!

Gene, the post-conciliar machine
so bothered and pestered by elitist Green
is truly as always this day is so blessed
to have hes traditionalism put to the test


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

This Texas Church was about to close, when a priest from Brooklyn was put in charge to perform the demise. Instead he brought the Novus Ordo Mass, in it's full beauty to the Church, and revitalized it. The Mass was totally in latin, people kneeling to receive and all that a Massshould be. His reward? He was transferred. Why do these bishops hate everything that is Holy?

"Fr. Weinberger was basically sent in to close that parish, but he's revitalized it." So, we took the advice. Fr. Wilson has never steered us wrong. His record still stands. Mass was terrific! We went to the 10:45 a.m. mass, which is the Novus Ordo done almost entirely in Latin. The congregation was mixed by ethnicity -- Anglo, Latino and African-American -- and age (there were elderly folks there, middle- aged parishioners, and young families too). The mass began in a church filled with incense and Gregorian chant. Fr. Weinberger was astonishingly reverent (astonishing to those of us accustomed to the hugger-mugger mess that most Novus Ordo priests make of the liturgy), but he wasn't the least bit remote or stiff, and my wife and I didn't feel alien to the liturgy, as we have on the occasion that we've attended the Tridentine Mass. His point was that the laity was absolutely key to the making of our sainted pope's character, and that we in the congregation should understand that we too are the Church, and responsible for living and teaching sanctity. He said that in this time of terrible scandal for the Church, we shouldn't look to the bishops and the clergy to lead us out of the mess. If they do, that's great, but we mustn't despair and forget that the Holy Spirit is calling us to do our part to restore holiness and righteousness to the Body of Christ.

"The liturgy of the Eucharist was amazing. The lights went down in the church for the consecration, and Fr. Weinberger confected the Eucharist by candlelight, through a curtain of incense. He held the Host and then the chalice high for a solid minute. We received kneeling at the altar rail. When we returned to our pew, my wife was making her thanksgiving, and started crying. She couldn't stop weeping, and I asked her if she was okay. She said, 'This is what I thought the Church was. This is why I became Catholic.'"After mass, Julie was speaking to one of the parishioners outside the parish about how great the Mass was. She said to the woman, 'Do you realize what you have here?' The woman replied, 'You don't have to tell us! We know how blessed we aare.

-- Gerard (Watchovia@glenfall.com), November 27, 2003.

It's a shame when disobedient, rebellious priests take matters into their own hands, and so often end up depriving the people of what they have a right to expect - in this case a beautiful, solemn, reverent celebration of the Mass - by forcing the bishop to take action against them. A Church in which priests are not in submission to the legitimate authority of their superiors is on shaky ground from the start, and would soon devolve into chaos if allowed by the bishop to go unchecked. Perhaps if this priest had worked with his bishop, under his guidance and authority, instead of just doing his own thing in defiance of his bishop, he might still be serving the people of that parish.

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

I doubt it, Paul. You might reference Ecclesia Dei and ask why disobedient bishops do not obey the Roman Pontiff and provide a wide and generous availability of the Tridentine Mass to those who do not want any part of any post-conciliar novelty or deviation.

Anyone who looks closely at the situation for any length of time with the right Spirit will be able to determine the truth: Same ingredients, slick new packaging. Some are more interested in getting to the free toy inside than in getting their percentage of daily nutrients.

A little ambiguity is enough to separate substance from one soul and from another soul, accident.

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

You seem to believe the world is here to serve you ''to those who do not want any part of any post-conciliar novelty or deviation,'' --I don't like chocolate I have to have my vanilla! --This is quite like Luther and Henry VIII; willing only to be served.

We know of no deviation, Emerald. You are the novelty.

-- euegene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 28, 2003.

In other words, consider the following re-write in light of Ecclesia Dei:

A Church in which bishops are not in submission to the Supreme Pontiff is on shaky ground from the start, and would soon devolve into chaos if allowed by the Pontiff to go unchecked. Perhaps if these bishops had worked with the Pontiff, under his guidance and authority, instead of just doing their own thing in defiance of the Pontiff, they might still be serving the people of their own diocese.

Of course we all know that Pope John Paul II is a friend and ally of Vatican II. It's no secret. But the bishops by and large are friends and allies of the spirit of Vatican II, which is an ambiguity once removed from the documents themselves.

Take any passage from Vatican II and you can pull two interpretations: one consistant with tradition, and another which is deviant from it. It all rests upon the ambiguity inherent in the documents themselves. There is absolutely no sin in saying this much; there is no denegration of the pontiff, no denigration of the pontificate, or denigration of the Catholic Church in saying as much.

Again, look to the character under which these documents are presented to the faithful: as pastoral. All imaginings to the contrary, that they are presenting us with somethng novel of a binding character, are derived from inter-document references within Vatican II itself, giving rise to an cause which seems circular in nature. For instance, the argument derived from Lumen Gentium concerning a character of infallibility arising from bishops acting in concert with the pontiff. This passage deserves a close examination before jumping to conclusions.

A traditional Catholicism will always prevail, and any part of those documents of Vatican II which reiterate known doctrines of Faith must have the assent of the Faithful; but, this was the case always and everywhere before Vatican II ever came into existence.

There is no doubt that the Holy Ghost has allowed this Council to happen, because it has happened; that much is self-evident. Imho, the Holy Ghost offers a choice or seems to make a concession, not unlike the offering of kings to the Jews of the Old testament or allowing them a case for divorce. We have imho the same situation here, but underlying everything, God keeps His laws and decrees in force whether men laugh them to scorn or not.

Imho, the Holy Ghost has us on the threshing floor.

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

"This is quite like Luther and Henry VIII; willing only to be served."

Go read the link above of Father Damen's sermon. He mentions both Luther and Henry VIII in that sermon. I agree with him. If I agree with him, then you misunderstand me.

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

Emmie:
Much as I repect your ho,

Opinions don't cut much ice, IMHO / What you would have done long ago is rest your case, because it has always been simply an opinion; except that all you care about is yho.

-- euegene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 28, 2003.

"What you would have done long ago is rest your case, because it has always been simply an opinion; except that all you care about is yho."

Nope. It's always been about what's always been, which is Catholic doctrine, which certainly has nothing to do with MHO. The Church rested Her case 2,000 years ago; nothing has changed since then. Not one jot.

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

What's intended by the overkill of "IMHO" when referencing what the Holy Ghost may or may not be doing, is the avoidance a common pitfall... assuming to know the comings and goings of the Holy Ghost. Such things ought to be couched in HO's.

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

Eugene, et al. It is easy to see which side you would take during the Arian heresy. Loyalty is a great thing, so the German people, and the Japanese, are really to be commended. So also, the ones who follow the letter of the law on abortion, in our own country. Obedience, by all means. If the bishop wants to offer the lesser to God, that is wha we must ofer Him.

-- Bubbles (9999 @444.com), November 28, 2003.

We should do away with bishops then; let the rank and file have authority to overule the Popes. Just what schismatics prefer.

-- euegene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 28, 2003.

To loyal, orthodox Catholics:

Please STOP bringing up (or prolonging debates about) certain divisive things -- especially the hot-button stuff like "traditional," "traditionalist," "novus ordo," "Vatican II versus previous doctrine," etc. The Moderator has forbidden any more attacking of Catholicism in these areas and is now deleting posts that get into these things, which have been so worked to death for two years.

PLEASE do not allow those formerly identified as "pseudo-traditionalists" to get their "noses under the tent" any more with forbidden topics. They are welcome to contribute in every other way though. In the past couple of days, I've seen very good posts (from Psyche, I think) defending Catholicism against the onslaughts of "Faith" and Jeanie. That is how we all need to expend our energies -- no longer by fruitlessly trying to beat the dead horses that have now been buried by the moderator. Anyone who is foolish enough not to have had enough of those two-year-long debates can take them "offline" to private e-mail.

God bless you.
John

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

Other "hot-button" words I forgot to mention above:
"elitist" ... "schismatic" ... "heretical" ... "post-conciliar" ... "modernist" ... "neo" ... well, you get the idea.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 28, 2003.

Clarence Deano Gamble, your post has been deleted as it insulted our Holy Mother the Church. Moreover, the post did not qualify as per our forum rules for posting. Please refer to our "Rules of the Forum" thread for guidance in future posting.

Moderator

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 15, 2004.

Anyone who wishes to understand Vatican II, as well as the generational response, must READ VATICAN II!!! Read what the Holy Magisterium was calling for, and not just the ignorant response in America. When one reads the beautiful text complied during this council, it is quite apparent that many abuses of the Liturgy and other things are present here because of complete disregard to the Council's calls.

For example: the reform of the Liturgical Music. Vatican II, in its wonderful article "Sacrosanctum Concilium", calls for upholding choirs and organ and keeping alive the "treasury of sacred music". What is this treasury? Gregorian Chant, polyphony from the Middle Ages and High Renaissance to Masses of the Classical Era etc... And what do we have today? Folk masses, with lyrics from Protestantism. Guitar and front singers have replaced beautifully trained choirs and organ. Why is this so? Because of Magisterial disobedience in America.

The only way changes will happen is when the Church here disposes of 60's radicals and resorts to the calls of Vatican II. The Church must dispose of Protestant music and guitar/band music that destroys and distracts the congregation, and preserve and foster "the treasury of sacred music". We are part of the Catholic Church that obeys the Magisterium in Rome. Let's do it.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 17, 2004.

True, Vatican II didn't outright call for the destruction of the Tridentine Rite, didn't call for all of the liturgical abuses that abound today. But it did open the door to all of these things with the same kind of legalistic language that dominates our culture today. Make no mistake, the foundation for many of the abuses that came to pass after Vatican II were deliberately laid by clever theologians, primarily from Western Europe. "The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber" by Father Ralph Wiltgen is an excellent book which describes, in journalistic evenhandedness how the French, Dutch, Belgian and German bishops and periti took control of Vatican II with their superior organization and planning.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 18, 2004.