I'm just starting to go to the sacrement of Reconcilliation more. I have gone 4 times in my life and 2 of those when I was very young. I want to start going every month and the last time I did was last August. What I don't understand is why at my church which is a reasonably large Catholic parish there are so few people going to the sacrement. I am 16 years old and last time I believe there was only three people who went ahead of me. I just seems inconsistent that so few are at confession but nearly everyone takes the Eucharists during mass. I am just kind of uneasy to start going with so few people, however I have made the commitment to go every month regardless. why is it that we don't have a better understanding and confidance about this very important sacrement? any ideas?

-- Matt (slywakka250@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003

Answers

My guess as to why people don't go to confession more often is that it is natural to avoid humbling experiences. You need not assume that the people you see going to receive communion are in mortal sin. It is just possible that they manage not to commit it or that they go to reconcilliation at another church

-- Steph (nessstephl@aol.com), November 17, 2003.

I think it has to do with human pride.

If one goes to confession, let's say every week, to confess the same sins over and over again then eventually ones pride comes in and confession is avoided.

There is a strong sense of failure, "I have failed" and can't face failure, "I wasn't strong enough". It is easier not face failure and live, in a sense, fooling yourself that you're all strong and capable of overcoming everything.

I started realising that God forgives me everytime I go to confession as His love is unconditional. If God fogives me everytime, why can't I accept my weakness? Confession teaches us to be poor in spirit. To accept that we are weak. Once we accept this, we can turn to God, prostrate, and ask for help. We realise that we can't do it on our own, and further, we are not capable of doing anything good. Anything good that we do is from God. Of course our choice to say "yes" to God, to do His will is our fundamental right given to us from God in love.

Confession is a sacrament where God reaches out to us, healing us by forgiveness, touching us with His love. We receive graces from God to go back into the world and try again to say "yes" to His will and pray for His guidance and help.

The reason people don't go to confession today is complex. 1. They do not understand the sacrament and it's purpose. They do not know the impact it has on ones faith journey. They are in effect ignorant. 2. Lack of education - some parishes and priests do not promote the sacrament. 3. Human pride - in todays world where instant pleasure, satisfaction and self centredness is prevelant, confession seems out of place. The human being is the centre of worship, not God. One has the right to believe in ones own set of "truths", nothing is absolute, your truth is not better than my mine. If so, why go to confession. If I think promiscuity is loving, then why go to confession? How can you say your beliefs are more true than mine?

-- Franc (francois.de-fleuriot@unilever.com), November 18, 2003.

seems inconsistent that so few are at confession but nearly everyone takes the Eucharists during mass

You're on to something, Matt.

Seriously. A light has been lit in you. Don't let people around here snuff it out. You'll see what I mean shortly.

Go to confession. No need to limit it to one a month, either. Padre Pio recommended weekly confession.

Study. Rad. Pray. Recommend yourself to the Mother of God. It's the best advice I can think to offer.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

Oops.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

You persist in making misleading statements, Jake.

Now, You may confess weekly; but even so are not in a position to know. Neither am I; about the other person's state of grace. I have no trouble seeing that EVERY soul receiving Holy Communion today is in a true state of grace. It would be arrogant of me to just DECIDE that somebody is making a sacrilegious communion, on account of my observations around ONE confessional, once a week!

There certainly ARE- - countless Catholics who receive Holy Communion weekly and confess every month or two. WHY NOT? Because YOU figure they ought to swarm into confessionals every Saturday, otherwise they shouldn't go to Communion? If a soul has been guilty of venial sins and says a perfect act of contrition, nothing requires him/her to be absolved by a priest every week. The Holy Eucharist would not be given offense, if that person says an act of contrition and receives. Of course, the same isn't true with mortal sins. No one may receive communion before confessing THEN.

You apparently think nobody goes to confession period; THIS only because you see few people outside a confessional when you go? Do you watch all the confessionals in the city? Do you register every confession? NO! You smugly assume you know!

Even if you weren't that badly mistaken: Don't come in here and play devil's advocate. Nobody who receives communion owes you an explanation. And you are an affront to God Himself, detracting by your words here from those who receive Our Lord in the Sacrament just because of your personal agenda. Mind your OWN soul. And keep these evil opinions to yourself, please.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

I made no judgements about anyone. I merely stated that Padre Pio recommended weekly confession to his spiritual children. Why so defensive? I cannot judge the state of anyone's soul. Never said I could.

Remember what I said about that light, Matt.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

Not in that one post, maybe. Only a slight insinuation. But both you & Regina in past critical posts about Novus Ordo practices were scandalized at the numerous communicants in our Church, as opposed to ''fewer by far'' seen at the confessional. It's no secret what you're accusing us of.

I should just ignore your stealthy sarcasms? I believe in confronting people who do that.

Even so, Jake: I want to assure you; if we were outside this forum and met as private citizens, you might find me a friendly sort. My seeming animosity is limited to the arguments here at the keyboard. You likely are not a bad guy. We don't have to be enemies. But-- This is a tennis match, remember.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

But both you & Regina in past critical posts about Novus Ordo practices were scandalized at the numerous communicants in our Church, as opposed to ''fewer by far'' seen at the confessional. It's no secret what you're accusing us of.

That, at face value anyway, does not have anything to do with the Novus Ordo, and "scandalized" is a bit strong. I don't know what confession schedules/lines were like before the Council. I wasn't around, but you were. Why not just tell me? I'm not accusing you of sin. I am the least quilified person in the world to do that, but what does it mean, this *apparent* decline in numbers of people approaching the sacred tribunal on a regular basis? Are they confessing somewhere else? Maybe. But then there would be long lines "somewhere else," no? Are they just capable of staying in the state of grace for long stretches of time? Perhaps. If so, they're doing a lot better than I am.

I should just ignore your stealthy sarcasms? I believe in confronting people who do that.

No kidding.

But seriously, folks, I wasn't being intentionally stealthy. I didn't mean t come across that way.

if we were outside this forum and met as private citizens, you might find me a friendly sort.

I'm quite sure that's true. I've thought that for a long time.

My seeming animosity is limited to the arguments here at the keyboard. You likely are not a bad guy. We don't have to be enemies.

You might be a little taken aback if you knew me offline. I actually have a reputation for talking too little! Oh, and I don't consider us enemies. Not by a long shot.

But-- This is a tennis match, remember.

advantage: jake

-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

Eugene, I certainly agree with what you said about making any sort of judgements on someone elses state of grace. Its because I'm rather new at confession that I mention the lack of a lot of people. I am really just pridefuly feel alone because I don't really know anyone else who goes to confession or have I ever heard anyone talk about it at church. I know I am being prideful and selfish not to simplly be fully obdient to God and to go to confession, yet I'm getting out of this incorrect thought pattern. I'm just learning the truth about confession to see it for what it truely is and overcoming senseless rationalizations and fears about it;

-- Matt (slywakka250@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.

Volley this:
''what confession schedules/lines were like before the Council.'' Just about the same. Been there, seen that. The priests were sometimes cruel. Nice way to discourage volume; today they treat us with good will. Doesn't increase volume. (At least during the half hour I'm a witness, while waiting my turn & saying a penance.) God knows.

''this *apparent* decline in numbers of people approaching the sacred tribunal on a regular basis? You shouldn't speculate on that. Let god take His chances; some people just aren't repenting. That hardly points to what YOU suspect, that many are still receiving Communion with mortal sin on their conscience. On the contrary; we could see it as a sign of immense love for Our Lord. As I suggested; many good Catholics worshipping in good faith.

I myself, in past years went to a neighboring parish to confess to a priest who wouldn't recognise my voice. It's human to feel shame. Yet I won't calculate what others do. It rests with them. Our pastor actually implores our parishioners to come often to the grace of reconciliation. He is a marvelous confessor, too. But he can't hold a gun to us. If we come, we come.

Can you prove the ''trad'' communities are out-performing us? No-- and I shouldn't demand such an unjust thing. It's none of my business. Learn from my good example.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

Dear Matt:
I love your healthy attitude and the way you're responding to God's grace. It's wonderful to find a young man who cares about his immortal soul enough to have sorrow for his sins. Keep that spirit; cultivate it in prayer. God has GREAT expectations of you; and of all our youth today. You are the new crop of God's holy people, don't ever forget it.

When I was around your age, I came to a full realisation of what God wanted of me. It came to me in meditation, slowly. He wanted a love so powerful and complete to spring up in my heart-- Love for His Holy Son Jesus Christ. Not for what it would get me in favor, or for what protection it would afford me. Because I had a great affliction. But I didn't care.

What I decided at your age was to love Him as I never can love another person or thing during this life, and then forever in eternity! This was His grace acting within me; I can't see how it could've been just me. YOU have the grace now. Never let it slip away. God always asks His loved ones-- ''Just LOVE me; I'll handle all the rest!''

Good man, Matt. Peace!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

The priests were sometimes cruel. Nice way to discourage volume; today they treat us with good will.

Cruel? How? Were they dragging you out of confessionals and roughing you up? Or does "cruel" mean telling a penitent that what they're doing is an offense against God and that they must do penance and amend their lives?

we could see it (few people going to Confession) as a sign of immense love for Our Lord. As I suggested; many good Catholics worshipping in good faith.

How is not going to Confession a sign of love of God? I'm not sure I'm following you.

I myself, in past years went to a neighboring parish to confess to a priest who wouldn't recognise my voice. It's human to feel shame.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's good, I think, to seek out other confessors sometimes.

Our pastor actually implores our parishioners to come often to the grace of reconciliation. He is a marvelous confessor, too.

Glad to hear it, and you're frtunate. Some priests are better confessors than others.

Can you prove the ''trad'' communities are out-performing us? No-- and I shouldn't demand such an unjust thing. It's none of my business. Learn from my good example.

This is not about competition. You're making assumptions about my motivation, which is fair enough, I suppose, but in this case, you're off the mark.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

Don't be a fool.
we could see it (few people going to Confession) as a sign of immense love for Our Lord. As I suggested; many good Catholics worshipping in good faith. YES, hundreds going to Holy Communion every Sunday Mass.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

Can you prove the ''trad'' communities are out-performing us? (I only suppose this since you connect the 2nd Vatican Council to your perceived drop in penitents ''compared'' to the good old days?) I have no cause to question a motivation, I just ask if you apply a double standard.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

Eugene,

Why even ask though? If the Lutherans were going to confession every day, would you want to become one, or would it make them correct? No and no. By the same token, you wouldn't want leave the faith to join this group of schismatics and/or heretics, so who cares how often they go to confession?

Frank

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

Don't be a fool.

I don't think I am. At least, I'm not trying to be.

we could see it (few people going to Confession) as a sign of immense love for Our Lord.

I know. You said that before. I just asked how. I don't see the connection.

As I suggested; many good Catholics worshipping in good faith. YES, hundreds going to Holy Communion every Sunday Mass.

Again, at face value, I agree that's a good thing.

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

Can you prove the ''trad'' communities are out-performing us?

I said before that I'm not trying to make this a competition. All I did was commend someone for taking notice that the Confession lines are short and the Communion lines are long. That's all. Anything further is, I'm guessing, a product of your defensiveness.

I just ask if you apply a double standard.

Yet again, I am not sure what you mean, but if you mean that I am waving a banner of "I go to Confession more than you," you're off base.

What are the Bishops teaching about frequency of Confession? I wouldn't know, but perhaps you would.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 19, 2003.

The way Eugene gets so defensive over stuff I would think that he was feeling guilty of something. Are you Eugene?

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 19, 2003.

JAKE:
You skirt the issue, I just ask if you apply a double standard. By your purported ''lack of enough confessions to the ratio of communions,'' you insinuate many are going to Communion in mortal sin (as Novus Ordo Catholics). You clearly say (fewer confessions). It adds up in your evaluation as a deficient faith.

But, if I ask you; what difference can you point out at your own dissident church? Is everybody confessed and in a state of grace, or are LESS folks receiving Communion, because they didn't confess?

You never look at your own side; a double standard is apparent. You want us to assume your church's faith is untouchable. Why so? Just because they celebrate in Latin?

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

Steven S is sure we must be guilty because of a ''defensive'' reply to a misleading post? --If we implied his family is unworthy of being called Catholic, would this be a challenge to him? Would Steven make sure he settles the question, as a good son must?

Then, having settled it by stepping up to the challenge, if it looked to me as if he was feeling guilt over something, and I said so here;

Wouldn't Steven say that's a stupid conclusion for me to reach?

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

The term "Novus Ordo" applies to the current rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as defined by Holy Mother Church, and NOTHING else. There is no such thing as a "Novus Ordo church", "Novus Ordo priest", "Novus Ordo doctrine", "Novus Ordo teaching", "Novus Ordo Catholic", or "Novus Ordo religion". Such inaccurate and ignorant slurs against the Holy Catholic Church or its members are no less offensive than the terms "Papist" or "Romanist", and will be dealt with in the same manner - by deletion from this CATHOLIC forum.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 19, 2003.

Such inaccurate and ignorant slurs against the Holy Catholic Church or its members are no less offensive than the terms "Papist" or "Romanist",

Or "schismatic," or "schismoid," "schismo," "schismo- heretical," "Lefebvrist," "pseudo-Trad," etc.?

Do those fit the bill of being "innacurate and ignorant slurs" against members of the Church? If you don't agree, Paul, you should just ban me now, because I have no intention of ceasing to refer to your Novus Ordo religion as such.

Viva Cristo Rey!

-- jake (j@k.e), November 19, 2003.

OK< Paul:
You have been told; Jake wants no one to contradict him. He has his rights! He has the right to get out; what a man! Ha!

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

Schismatic = one who rejects the authority of the Pope over the universal Church

Lefebvrist = one who ascribes to the principles espoused by Lefebvre, an excommunicated schismatic.

traditionalist = one who adheres to the Traditions of the Holy Catholic Church, most fundamental of which is submission to the Pope and the Magisterium.

Pseudotraditionalist = one who doesn't - yet claims to.

Wear the shoe if it fits.

The only religion I belong to is the Catholic religion. If, as you say, you belong to a different religion, then this is not an acceptable place to preach your beliefs.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 19, 2003.

/ / /

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

Is that a ban?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 19, 2003.

Schismatic = one who rejects the authority of the Pope over the universal Church

Incorrect. A schismatic doesn't believe the pope *has* any authority over the universal church. One who chooses to resist a particular decision of the pope is, at the very best, disobedient. If that disobedience is for a greater good, (preserving the traditional formation of priests, or assisting at a traditional Mass) than it amounts to no offense at all.

Lefebvrist = one who ascribes to the principles espoused by Lefebvre, an excommunicated schismatic.

There is no such thing as a "Lefebvrist." Archbishop Lefebvre ascribed to the principles espoused by the perennial magisterium. So it follows that those who agree with him, that they, too, follow the perennial magisterium.

Prelates from Rome, including Canon Lawyers have concluded that Archbishop Lefebvre's actions did not amount to schism and thus did not warrant the "excommunication."

traditionalist = one who adheres to the Traditions of the Holy Catholic Church, most fundamental of which is submission to the Pope and the Magisterium.

That would include jake, Emerald, Isabel and myself. What you may think is schism from the Pope is nothing more than critism of many of his public actions and words - actions and words which don't bind Catholics but have nevertheless scandalized them.

Pseudotraditionalist = one who doesn't - yet claims to.

No one here has any right to assume that what a person says isn't what he believes. If we say we submit to the pope's authority when we're expected to, no one here has any right to say we don't, for none of you know what's our my hearts.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 19, 2003.

Lefebvrist = one who ascribes to the principles espoused by Lefebvre, an excommunicated schismatic

By this statement, you make it appear as if Archbishop Lefebvre were excommunicated because of his principles. That is not the case, nor was it even ever a danger. He was accepted as safely within the fold, even with all the 'principals' he held, and was never even censured by the Vatican for those principals. The **ONLY** reason he was 'excommunicated' was because he consecrated bishops without a papal mandate. That's it.

That being the case, then, there can be no censure whatsoever for holding the 'beliefs' and 'principals' of the late archbishop.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), November 19, 2003.

Regina,

Incorrect. A schismatic doesn't believe the pope *has* any authority over the universal church

No, your definition is incorrect. As it has been stated many times previously, it is the Pope's final definition of what represents and what does NOT represent schism. Lefebvre didn't believe that the Pope had NO authority over the church, but was undoubtably schismatic, as he was declared so by the Pope. I know you know this, why you keep posting the opposite of the truth is beyond me.

There is no such thing as a "Lefebvrist

Sure there is,

Lefebvrist = one who ascribes to the principles espoused by Lefebvre, an excommunicated schismatic.

Prelates from Rome, including Canon Lawyers have concluded that Archbishop Lefebvre's actions did not amount to schism and thus did not warrant the "excommunication."

Again, who cares? It's the Pope's ruling that matters, and he said Lefebvre's excommunicated, and a schismatic. Since you love Pope Eugene's statements so much, I'm sure you'll agree that puts him squarely in the Lake of Fire (assuming God feels the interpretation of Pope Eugene's words is the same as you people do ((LOL))).

traditionalist = one who adheres to the Traditions of the Holy Catholic Church, most fundamental of which is submission to the Pope and the Magisterium.

That would include jake, Emerald, Isabel and myself

No. Being a traditionalist means obeying the Pope and Magesterium. Again, this has been said multiple times. Why repeat it again?

If we say we submit to the pope's authority when we're expected to, no one here has any right to say we don't, for none of you know what's our my hearts.

"You shall know them by their fruits".

Isabel,

The **ONLY** reason he was 'excommunicated' was because he consecrated bishops without a papal mandate.

Hardly. Again this has been covered many times before. If Lefebvre was only excommunicated for his consecrating the "Bishops", there would have been no need to excommunicate anyone in formal adherence to his schism, would there? I doubt you guys will EVER return to the church at this point, just like hardly any Protestants ever do, but you are still wrong.

Frank

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

I recall Lefevre denouncing Pope Paul VI as a heretic. Even at that, he was warned to stop, and to refrain from any more ordinations of new priests until that time when his ban would be lifted. He had announced beforehand the Pope's command not to ordain more men was irrelevant, and on such & such a day, he would carry out HIS wishes, not Paul VI's. And that's what happened. He was declared an ex-communicate after the event. He left no doubt what he was doing was refusing altogether his pontiff's authority. That placed him in schism by his own actions. His principles, whatever they might have been or how just, were another matter entirely. He didn't recognise Paul VI as the Pope.

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

I recall.........

You *recall* wrong. You and Frank need to read up and educate yourself on the facts. Paul VI was not even Pope when all this occurred. It had nothing to do with him ordaining priests. And he was in no danger of excommunication because of the positions he held.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), November 19, 2003.

It was a long time ago, Isabel. A Google search probably would show us all the details. If it was John XXIII, I have forgotten. It was our Pope. He did order the archbishop to desist'; the bishop DID call the Pope a heretic. The rest is as I described. It makes no difference to you, we realise. Your interests are in overturning the 2nd Vatican Council; no matter who gets hurt. Good luck. You can't do it.

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

No, your definition is incorrect. As it has been stated many times previously, it is the Pope's final definition of what represents and what does NOT represent schism.

The Pope cannot change the rules on a mere whim. Certain criteria needs to be met before such a charge is made. The Pope can't just excommunicate anyone he wishes. There has to be just cause.

Prelates from Rome, including Canon Lawyers have concluded that Archbishop Lefebvre's actions did not amount to schism and thus did not warrant the "excommunication."

Again, who cares? It's the Pope's ruling that matters, and he said Lefebvre's excommunicated, and a schismatic.

I care. And apparently some prelates, theologians, and Canon Lawyers cared enough to investigate and study the matter further. They cared enough to state their findings even though those findings contradict the Pope's declaration.

And I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else) to answer: How do these men escape your judgment of schism? According to you we are "schismatics" because we believe Mass attendence at the SSPX fulfills the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, we, according to you are "schismatic" because we say that Archbishop Lefebvre's excommunication was unjust and erroneous. But along come some for the hierarchy who say *the same things* and somehow they escape your judgment. How does that work?

Why has the Pope not corrected these men for their findings? Surely if exclusive assistance at an SSPX Mass *was* a schismatic act, then the Holy Father would certainly *not* permit one of his own under him saying otherwise.

Since you love Pope Eugene's statements so much, I'm sure you'll agree that puts him squarely in the Lake of Fire (assuming God feels the interpretation of Pope Eugene's words is the same as you people do ((LOL))).

Since the declaration against Archbishop Lefebvre was unjust and erroneous, he isn't a "schismatic" in the eyes of God. Haven't we learned anything from the example of St. Athanasius? He refused to join 90% of the Church's bishops, including the pope, in heresy. If we were living in the times of Athanasius, it's sure easy to see which side you (collectively) would have picked.

I've heard you say before that you attend the Tridentine Mass. Think about this: If it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre, there'd be no indult. Until the so-called "excommunication," no indult exsisted.

No. Being a traditionalist means obeying the Pope and Magesterium. Again, this has been said multiple times. Why repeat it again?

Because it hasn't been demonstrated and proven how we "disobey" the Pope and Magesterium. Yeah, there's the quote regarding "formal adherence" but no one's told me what that means.

"You shall know them by their fruits".

Precisely why I will not attend the N.O. and forbid my children from attending as well. The fruits are rotten.

On the otherhand, Traditional Catholicism leads many souls back to Confession, the Rosary, the Sacraments, and the courage to practice our faith in the world before a world which hates our faith. Indeed, I know what Traditional Catholicism is by it's fruits which are wholesome, good, and healthy for the soul.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 20, 2003.

Yes it does. We practice traditional Catholicism in my parish. We encourage frequent confession including monthly Reparation services with 5 or 6 priests participating; pray the community rosary before the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; observe First Friday services, including Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament and Stations of the Cross; offer daily exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in the chapel of our parish school; currently have 23 adults participating in the R.C.I.A. program, 14 of whom will be entering the Church this Easter; offer Catholic Bible studies and a Catholic apologetics class; AND celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the Church directs, without the need for an indult. As Catholics, we follow the Church. We don't try to force the Church to follow us. Just as traditional Catholics have done for 2,000 years.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

Regina,

The Pope cannot change the rules on a mere whim. Certain criteria needs to be met before such a charge is made. The Pope can't just excommunicate anyone he wishes. There has to be just cause

Very painfully, who is the final authority on what *determines* what is just cause? The Pope, that's who. Sorry Regina, Lefebvre was excommunicated.

And I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else) to answer: How do these men escape your judgment of schism?

I think I have answered at least once before. They are entitled to give any opinion about him they wish, so long as they do not personally adhere to his schism. Does ANY lawyer (or anyone else) have to believe what his client does to represent them? If they DO formally adhere to his schism, then of course as per the Pope, they are also in schism. There's no contradiction on my end. Obey the Pope and Magesterium -- Catholic. Pretend to, but in reality promote schism, schismatic. The rules are the same for the clergy as laymen.

Why has the Pope not corrected these men for their findings?

Regina, the Pope is one man, and an 80 year old at that. Do you HONESTLY expect him to personally address every errant priest? If you do, you are being foolish. Besides, if they were only expressing an opinion, and not themselves subscribing to Lefebvre's schism, they haven't done anything wrong in submitting an *opinion*, so they don't need to be corrected.

Since the declaration against Archbishop Lefebvre was unjust and erroneous, he isn't a "schismatic" in the eyes of God. Haven't we learned anything from the example of St. Athanasius? He refused to join 90% of the Church's bishops, including the pope, in heresy

Again, you are just repeating what you didn't listen to the last time. What's the point? You don't see ANY difference in a heresy sweeping the church regarding the nature of Jesus and some crackpot bishop refusing to obey direct Papal orders regarding the rite of mass and consecrating other Bishops in direct disobedience to the Pope? I find this both disappointing and suprising. Oh and BTW, Athanasius corrected the church in his lifetime, it's been what, 20 years since the excommunicated archbishop Lefebvre's death, and the Novus Ordo is still going strong. No error here, obviously.

I've heard you say before that you attend the Tridentine Mass. Think about this: If it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre, there'd be no indult. Until the so-called "excommunication," no indult exsisted

And... so what? I'd be a faithful Catholic still. You'd probably be off in the SSPV. It isn't the rite of mass that requires obedience, it's the church. That's the part you guys keep missing.

"You shall know them by their fruits".

Precisely why I will not attend the N.O. and forbid my children from attending as well. The fruits are rotten

Proof positive you are a schismatic. The Holy Spirit guides the church, and you think His fruits are rotten. Have fun in the Lake!

On the otherhand, Traditional Catholicism leads many souls back to Confession, the Rosary, the Sacraments, and the courage to practice our faith in the world before a world which hates our faith. Indeed, I know what Traditional Catholicism is by it's fruits which are wholesome, good, and healthy for the soul

This is of course true. it's too bad you schismatics aren't Traditional, or you could reap the harvest like us Catholics do.

Frank

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

We practice traditional Catholicism in my parish.

You left out the part about "speaking in tongues" during Mass, 'cause you do that, remember?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

You don't see ANY difference in a heresy sweeping the church regarding the nature of Jesus

OK, so you admit a heresy was sweeping the Church, which included most of the bishops, and (at least for a while-if not longer) the Pope. They not only espoused this heresy, but were teaching it. So what's to say that couldn't happen again? According to your errant view of the protection of the Holy Ghost, that should never have happened.........ever. So, maybe.........just maybe........your view on how it is the Holy Ghost actually protects the Church could be contradictory to actual Church teaching on this subject.

and some crackpot bishop

Be careful, Frank. Excepting the canonized saints, you have no idea who is in Heaven, and who is not. You could be ridiculing the very man who may be praying for the salvation of your soul. But, nevermind that, because once a soul is in Heaven, they possess perfect charity, so despite your slander, he would continue to pray for you.

refusing to obey direct Papal orders regarding the rite of mass

????? Once. Again. The Archbishop was 'excommunicated' for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. That. is. it. He had permission.........that's right........permission from Rome to establish an order and seminary faithful to the Tridentine Rite. As an archbishop he needed no papal mandate to ordain priests in his order/seminary. If I am not mistaken, permission was given at one point for the consecration of bishops, but then retracted.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), November 20, 2003.

Jake,

Yes, we speak several tongues in mass, English, Latin and Greek. Can't speak to what your schismatic church does though.

Isabel,

OK, so you admit a heresy was sweeping the Church, which included most of the bishops, and (at least for a while-if not longer) the Pope. They not only espoused this heresy, but were teaching it. So what's to say that couldn't happen again? According to your errant view of the protection of the Holy Ghost, that should never have happened.........ever.

There were people who believed this heresy, but did the church ever formally teach it as True? Not that I'm aware of, if it DID, you'd have one H@ll of an argument that the Holy Spirit doesn't guide the church, IMO. Of course if you can pull up the document, I'm all ears. That DOES show how that situation was different from this one though. There is no question of heresy here, just a bishop who refused to obey over a RITE! Crazy, but there you go.

and some crackpot bishop

Be careful, Frank. Excepting the canonized saints, you have no idea who is in Heaven, and who is not

You know it's funny, you guys say this every time your excommunicated archbishop gets criticized, but then the next day are quoting Pope Eugene that schismatics, pagans, etc.,are in the Lake of Fire. Take your pick, but don't sit on the fence. Decide what you *really* believe and stick to it.

refusing to obey direct Papal orders regarding the rite of mass

????? Once. Again. The Archbishop was 'excommunicated' for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. That. is. it. He had permission.........that's right........permission from Rome to establish an order and seminary faithful to the Tridentine Rite. As an archbishop he needed no papal mandate to ordain priests in his order/seminary. If I am not mistaken, permission was given at one point for the consecration of bishops, but then retracted.

You should read up on the situation, and not just the sspx version. OTOH, don't bother, you aren't going to change, so it won't be of use to you.

Frank

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

Yes, we speak several tongues in mass, English, Latin and Greek.

...and Charismese? (the unintelligible gibberish babbled by poor fools - who think the "phenomenon" to be a manifestation of the Holy Ghost - usually with eyes rolled back and arms raised heavenward, often accompanied by brilliantly faked convulsions and passing out).

Charismese. Heh. I just made that up.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

Like I said, I don't know WHAT goes on in your schismatic church, and don't really want to find out.

Frank

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