sedevacantists are not welcome in many places but we also have a story Please bear with us.

Let us face the reality that to follow the post-Conciliar “popes” requires that we apostasize as they have. The choice is clear. Either we obey the post-Conciliar hierarchy and give up our faith, or we declare that the current pseudo-pope and the bishops in union with him are themselves not in the true Church. To join one of the various groups that do declare him to be a true pope whom one need not obey and to accept highly dubious if not false sacraments is not to remain in the Catholic Church, but to join a cult the number of which seems to be legion.

-- Corrine (Dissident4@aol.com), November 16, 2004

Answers

Well, they may not be wlecomes everywher ebtu are here! This is ask Jesus, generlaly its a protestant board that accepts catholic posters. We also have a Christain Yahweist, an it seems a satanist now... so we are pretty diverse.

Welcome to Ask Jesus!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 16, 2004.

Oh and after prost post " bump" or soemthing, that way your thread goes to new answers and is seen more rapidly. Thanks. Again welcome aboard.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 16, 2004.

Let us face the reality that to reject the current Vicar of Christ is to reject Christ Himself, and to resign from the True Church. He alone holds the keys to the Kingdom. The absurdity of your remarks is obvious in the millions of faithful Catholics who follow the Holy Father in Spirit and in truth, in full accord with Apostolic Tradition, without giving up their faith or anything else. You on the other hand have given up everything that matters, for Christ told the Apostles and their successors, "he who listens to you listens to Me; and he who rejects you rejects Me". Schismatics who have known the true faith and now reject it are in far greater spiritual danger than Protestants who have not had the opportunity to know the fullness of truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2004.

Paul, In order for me to be loyal to JP I have to get used to Kissing the Koran, Put Budha on the next tabernacle I come across, and Get a prayer rug to join the also saved. Maybe throw some cucumbe peels at a snake, and finally get some mud on my forehead from a Hindu priestess. Then I can say that I am a loyal follower of JP. Strange for a good Christian to do, but I want to remain in the Church.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 16, 2004.

"Let us face the reality that to reject the current Vicar of Christ is to reject Christ Himself,"

There is no biblical evidence to support this assertion by Paul. You can look far and wide and never does the Bible speak of a "Vicar of Christ" in reference to any man who has ever lived on this earth. There is no mention (except in the Catholic Church) that one must accept this so called "Vicar of Christ" or they are rejecting Christ.

"and to resign from the True Church."

One must prove the first assertion (that there is a Vicar of Christ) then they must prove their second assertion that this man is reigning over the "True Church". There is no mention of one man (much less a pope) reigning over the "True Church".

"He alone holds the keys to the Kingdom."

This is a third assertion with no Biblical proof. There is no proof that there are "successors to the Apostles" which is what one must prove in order to state one "holds the keys to the Kingdom" and this has not been done. There are no 2,000 year old Apostles and they had no successors. Anyone who claims they are an Apostle of Christ ought to be able to prove this to be true from God's word. God says in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, "13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 16, 2004.

Some anti-sedevacantists even try to get away from that central fact by quibbling about the meaning of the words "public" and "notorious." Their excuse is that it is "not clear" exactly what these words really mean, because no one in authority has ever issued an official interpretation of their meaning. So far, though, we have not heard of anyone saying that "it depends on what you mean by the is when you say that Peter's Chair is vacant."

The "Finishers" think they have found the solution of their dilemma. They first make bold to say that it is "not certain" that the present occupant of Peter's Chair is a public heretic, and this despite overwhelming evidence of his countless brazen departures from the True Faith! Since it is, therefore, "not certain" that Peter's Chair is now vacant, as they imagine, they conclude that is "safer" to hold that the Chair of Peter is still occupied by a real pope, such as he may be, and is not vacant. To try to justify that belief, they appeal to an otherwise sound theological principle, which states that "in serious matters we are obliged to 'follow the safer course'." They know, for example, that priests are obliged to "follow the safer course" whenever there is question about the validity of the Mass and Sacraments. But they try, in desperation, to stretch that "safer course" principle so as to make it apply also to their questionable idea that Peter's Chair is not now vacant.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 17, 2004.

"Pope Dismayed by Catholic Church's Waning Influence in Europe" and "Holy See Evaluatine 40 Years of Ecumenism" Doesn't the second lead give the answer to the first? It seems to me that any honest evaluation would tell the Pope and his advisors that the lack of influence in Europe is their own making. Would any reasonable person expect otherwise in view of what has been taking place the last couple of decades at the Pope's direction? I am amazed that the Vatican would be so naive as to admit their puzzlement over the direction that Europe (and many other parts of what was once the Catholic world) has been taking lately. Just what did they expect, that you could ridicule Catholic culture endlessly and that the faith would grow stronger?

If this is indicative of Vatican intelligence it is no wonder that we are in the downward spiral that we are

-- Corrine (Dissident4@aol.com)), November 17, 2004.

It appears that Schismatics are experiencing a "downward spiral" specifically because they are schismatics. I know a great many faithful Catholics, and none of them seem to be experiencing this "downward spiral" syndrome. I'm not. Catholics are living in the incredible richness of the Holy Catholic Faith. But of course that is not possible apart from the Pope and the Magisterium. Perhaps you should pray for the humility to return to God's Church, and escape from your downward spiral.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2004.

Corrine

it seems pretty clear that there was a mass exodus from seminaries et al in the immediate aftermath of VII. And that is not surprising.

however, by now, to accuse VII of the further decline in church going may be just plain old Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc; not least because the "Post" > 30 years. who knows?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 17, 2004.

I agree with Corrine and I cannot be as understanding as Ian is on this situation. I do not know their particular circumstances, but for myself I can thank the Novus Ordo for a split down the middle in my family.

Paul reminds me of "Little Mary Sunshine". He would tell you how nice the weathr is during a hurricane. So be it. God gave us intelligence and logic and we should use it.

I just turned on the Bishops conference and could not take more than a few minutes of it. It makes the past presidential race look honest.

They skirt the issues from reporters without facing the hard facts of the scandals. They are not kidding anybody, but they hope that they are.

Things are going to get a lot worse than better for a long time to come.

If they think that they are going to kid us into thinking that V2 is a continuation of the pre conciliar Church, they are jut fooling themselves.

Sorry to seem upset but this gets to be too much.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com),), November 17, 2004.

>Let us face the reality that to reject the current Vicar of Christ is to reject Christ Himself<

There is no such thing as the "Vicar of Christ" and such an idea is an innovation far from Apostolic Tradition.

>He alone holds the keys to the Kingdom.<

Actually, Christ gave Peter the keys, not Roman Bishops for all time.

There's also Matt. 18:18 which was not directed at Peter alone.

"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matt. 18:18

These words of Jesus Christ refer to the COUNCIL of true believers, and not to Peter alone.

Finally, who's to say Peter ever gave up the keys? There is no such record and the majority of the churches never held such an erroneous view.

The Church at Rome was once honored with the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, among many other faithful witnesses. It had right to be honored among equals, being at the center of the pagan world and the greatest witness to the Roman Empire. Sadly, it fell through spiritual pride, taking a position of superiority rather than humble honor, something we must all seek to guard ourselves from.

>The absurdity of your remarks is obvious in the millions of faithful Catholics who follow the Holy Father in Spirit and in truth, in full accord with Apostolic Tradition, without giving up their faith or anything else.<

Since the Roman Bishop ought to be the highest example to his flock and a witness to all false prophets, I suppose it's only logical that all good Catholics should now begin venerating the Koran, kissing it daily.

Admit it. The Roman Bishop is not a witness for the true gospel if he kisses a book which, without shame, denies the very core of the Christian faith, that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God.

There is no honest way around this, however you try to get around it.

>You on the other hand have given up everything that matters, for Christ told the Apostles and their successors, "he who listens to you listens to Me; and he who rejects you rejects Me".<

St. Paul also warned that wolves would come in and lead many astray, taking hold of churches and pretending to be Apostles of Christ. Test. Test. Test. Kissing the Koran fails the test.

Please, do not kiss the Koran unless you want to make God angry for venerating a book that denies and hates His only begotten Son.

>Schismatics who have known the true faith and now reject it are in far greater spiritual danger than Protestants who have not had the opportunity to know the fullness of truth.<

Rome could be included in the list of schismatics.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.

I watched a Novus Ordo Mass today. An old priest age 75 offered the mass. In my book he is indeed a real priest. When he came to the consecration however, he kept the mantra of "For you and for all". He just blew the sacrifice. If he said "Many", it would have been valid.

Do they realize what they are doing? Our Lord never, never, said "For all" as they say He did. Try to find it in scripture. What they are doing is to bear false witness, as the two who accused Our Lord at the Sanhedrin on that Holy Thursday night. What a sacrilege!

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 17, 2004.

Scripture clearly and repeatedly states that Christ died FOR ALL men.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2004.

Scripture says it but the Lord did not say it, particularly at the offering of the chalice. See what Trent says about it. They said no to All, and Yes to Many.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com),), November 17, 2004.

.

Where the True Catholic Faith is, that is where the True Catholic Church is to be found. And that is where you can expect eventually to find a True Catholic Pope and the True Catholic Papacy. The Catholic Faith and Catholic Papacy are inseparable

There is no use trying to figure out where the next true Pope is going to come from or who is going to elect him. God is the One Who established His Church in the first place, and He alone is able to restore everything in the Church. He does not look to men for advice. He knows just how to proceed in His own good time.

Our Lord prepared His slow-learning Apostles gradually and carefully, over a period of 3 years, to be the leaders in His new Church, but with St. Paul He did it with lightning swiftness. Without warning, He knocked Saul off his high horse and overpowered him in a moment with a flood of His graces. And Saul the wolf suddenly became Paul the meek lamb. God can do the same to anyone who, at the moment, does not have the True Faith. Our Lord can do it either way - gradually or suddenly, with or without the help of men. He can suddenly convert one or He can convert many at one time.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 17, 2004.

TC

just remember, you're right: it takes is just one Pope and we are back on track.

i note that we had the Rome/Avignon schism, that led to there being 3 "Popes" [2 anti-Popes]. we recovered.

i think the Unity is key. we are called to Unity. that's why i stick with it. that's why i do go to NO Masses too. they're not necessarily responsible for what they were taught in the Seminary.

we will have a new Pope pretty soon as the Holy Father is looking pretty ill at the moment.

just pray that we get an truly orthodox Pope this time.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 18, 2004.

No Pope is going to take the Church back 50 years in time. Since that is the only definition of "orthodoxy" that sedevacantists and other schismatics will accept, their schism is necessarily permanent for the duration of their lifetimes. However, this schism, since it is founded in nostalgic memories of days gone by, will die a peaceful death as its adherents do.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 18, 2004.

No Pope is going to take the Church back 50 years in time.

Suppose he did...

My guess is that the sedevacantists would have to work like Santa's little elves to enlarge their chapels enough to accommodate the influx.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2004.

People see what they want to see, rightly or wrongly, that is our human weakness. It even goes for supreme court judges.

Paul sees a bright future for the N.O. I see disaster. He has never been in a traditional church but I have been in both. Jake is corect, the Traditional Church is not just a bunch of old timers. There are may young couples with large families. Some of the childreen are going to the schools of those churches. It is anything but a nostalgia trip.

I can appreciate Ian and Jake being loyal to JP, as I used to be. However you canbe jerked around only so much before you react. JP is only heading from bad to worse each year that he is there. I can give a laundry list of his heresies, but you already know them. Diffrence is you go into the formal, material thing etc. I suppose we will have to leave it at that.

Aside to Jake. I am sorry about the turmoil over Fr. Wickens legacy. You cannot trust Perricone or any of those N.O.'s as far as you can throw an elephant.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 18, 2004.

well TC

the battle may have been won already by the modern Catholics: as the Cardinals' right to vote has been limited according to their age, and likeminded Cardinals have been in place for years, maybe there is a generation gap that will ensure that the Conciliar hotchpotch lives forever.

the problem you have with that argument is that we have the promise that God will be with us until the end of time.

that's cast iron.

that's what has always happened in the past.

it will happen again.

even if its Ratzinger this time - as i have read recently - there must be a point at which this all ends.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 18, 2004.

Ian;

I hope that you are wrong about the conciliar chirch living forever. I strongly believe that this debacle was no accident. I see the conciliar popes being too cozy with the diabolical U.N. Paul 6th gave them the Tiara. That seems to be an "in your face" thing that the Masons do. They always leave a note of sorts back after the "murder"

Look at Washington D.C. The whole city is built on masonic plans.

I believe the New Order Church should be call "The New World Order Church" It is hand in hand with that UN. Their job seems to be to kill faith in Our Lord, so that we become a secular world.

No truly Catholic church would do what they have done in 40 years. The only thing Catholic that remains is the name.

Our last hope is the tiny group of so called traditionals. They are the true Catholics.

Maybe we should be praying for the return of Our Lord sooner than later.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 18, 2004.

The sedevacantists and others are living a paradox - they insist that the "real" Church would be monolithic, with all bishops and priests and members walking in lock step, no matter that this never happened in the history of the Church itself. But if so, what are they themselves so divided?

They insist that the rite of Mass (rather than faith or virtue) was the core essence of pre-Vatican II, but refuse to account for all the disastrous cultural events that occurred while that rite was being said on all the Latin rites altars (making absolutely no account for all the OTHER rites being said on the altars of the other major Catholic rites...probably because they don't know about them).

But the inconsistency continues. All evil after 1962 is blamed on the council and new rite, but not all the evil that took place after Trent!

All priestly scandals and weak bishops after 1962 are blamed on the council and new rite but not all the serious schisms and scandals that plagued the Church AFTER TRENT such as in France, Austria, Spain, and elsewhere. Cardinal Richilou and other "princes of the Church" were corrupt DESPITE the Tridentine Mass and Council of Trent.

But according to their core beliefs, that would have been impossible as that council and rite were perfect, insuperable and only produced holy, reverent and dynamic people.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.

But according to their core beliefs, that would have been impossible as that council and rite were perfect, insuperable and only produced holy, reverent and dynamic people.

The core beliefs of Traditional Catholics are laid out in the Apostle's Creed.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 02, 2004.

The core doctrinal beliefs of all Catholics are laid out in the Apostle's Creed. If schismatics have not yet rejected any of these core doctrinal beliefs, that is something to be thankful for. However, acceptance of the Vicar as Christ is also a core belief of Catholicism, without which one cannot be Catholic.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2004.

acceptance of the Vicar as Christ is also a core belief of Catholicism, without which one cannot be Catholic.

I happen to agree with you, although there's a diffrerence between acknowledging the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and blind assent to everything that a particular Pope says or does. All too often, one is mistaken for the other.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 02, 2004.

No one claims to take EVERYTHING the pope - St Pius X or V or any other for that matter as infallible.

But that's not the point. You don't like historical things that occurred after Vatican II, and so pin the casual blame for them ON Vatican II. You don't like how the American and European bishops handled or failed to handle the various reforms of rite and rubrics and so instead of judging them failures, you judge the changes themselves as the problem, in complete denial of what happened in OTHER countries such as South America, Africa, and Asia where the Church continues to boom with vocations and conversions.

In short, your entire enterprise is based on either blithering stupidity and an inability to read history honestly, or willful pride akin to the dwarves in CS Lewis' The Last Battle.

As I mentioned, lots of awful things happened to the Church and society after Trent and the Tridentine rite was made mandatory for the Latin rite (but not St Pius V's Dominicans, or the diocese of Milan, or the Copts or other smaller rites). But strangely, you don't see those serious problems as caused by the council or rite while you blame Vatican II and the Novus Ordo for our modern day problems.

In my mind this makes you either ignorant of history or one of those folk who simply wants things to be simple - a simple scape goat is better than a highly complicated scenerio where by some bishops are bad and others good, where the council is fine but its implementation is imperfect or non-existent.

YOUR way is magical - return to the old ways and rite and POOF! instant return to wonderful halcyon days of old... the right way of course has no such easy way out as it demands humility, obedience even to those who you don't like or feel good about, and hard work of evangelization of both would-be Catholics as well as a hostile culture.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.

> "I happen to agree with you, although there's a diffrerence between acknowledging the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and blind assent to everything that a particular Pope says or does. All too often, one is mistaken for the other."

A: And I happen to agree with you on the above statement. My remarck was in reference to the group identified in the title of this thread - sedevancantists - who do NOT acknowledge the Pope as the Vicar of Chrict.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2004.

You don't like historical things that occurred after Vatican II, and so pin the casual blame for them ON Vatican II.

The blame is hardy casual. It's about trees, and fruit, and stuff. The theory that all of the postconciliar disaster would have happened with or without the Council...I don't know. It's shaky ground, because it's just a presumption. I suppose it could be given some merit if it could be shown that the Church was headed in its downward spiral from before Vatican II, but I've seen no credible evidence in that vein. Was the Church perfect? Of course not, but the numbers are out there, well within knowability.

complete denial of what happened in OTHER countries such as South America, Africa, and Asia where the Church continues to boom with vocations and conversions.

I'm not denying that, but let's see the numbers. Make your case.

In short, your entire enterprise is based on either blithering stupidity and an inability to read history honestly, or willful pride akin to the dwarves in CS Lewis' The Last Battle.

You're supposed to reach out to me as a brother, no? We are one in the spirit, we are one in the Lord. I demand to be treated ecumenically.

In my mind this makes you either ignorant of history or one of those folk who simply wants things to be simple - a simple scape goat is better than a highly complicated scenerio where by some bishops are bad and others good, where the council is fine but its implementation is imperfect or non-existent.

If the implementation of the Council were non-existent, I would think you'd be the cranky one and I'd be content, telling you to leave well enough alone.

YOUR way is magical - return to the old ways and rite and POOF! instant return to wonderful halcyon days of old...

Perhaps we'll find out one day.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 02, 2004.

"making absolutely no account for all the OTHER rites being said on the altars of the other major Catholic rites"

Good point. Schis have selective memory.

"All priestly scandals and weak bishops after 1962 are blamed on the council and new rite but not all the serious schisms and scandals that plagued the Church AFTER TRENT such as in France, Austria, Spain, and elsewhere. Cardinal Richilou and other "princes of the Church" were corrupt DESPITE the Tridentine Mass and Council of Trent."

Good point. Schis are obssessed.

"I can appreciate Ian and Jake being loyal to JP, as I used to be."

If TC, Ian, Emerald, and Jake are one and the same person with different IP addresses, then he must be having a lot of fun.

But the multiple personalities are actually split. So Ian, Emerald, and Jake have their lifevests on and are in the brink of jumping off the Ark but TC is already ahead of them, courageously swimming in deep waters. Or should we say ... Ian, Emerald, and Jake are Latin-yes(Latin-elite)/Novus-no(vernacular-common)/dump-V2(too-nouveau)/badmouth-JP2(too-friendly)/ pre-SSPX/pre-Sedevacantist/pre-schismatics whereas TC is a role model, a fully-pledged schismatic ex-Catholic/Traditionalist non-Catholic.

"gradually and carefully"

One step at a time.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 02, 2004.

I most likely am the only sedevacantist on these threads,but I can't be oherwise.

With all due resect for other beliefs, it is the only conclusion that I can reach.

To say that JP is a pope is to say that the Church is failing in her mission. Some here see nothing wrong in what he does, but then say, they cant point to one thing that he does wrong.

Others say they only agree with him when he is right, bu then they don't get specific. Maybe lip service to abortion etc, but that is all.

This man speaks of evangelizing, but have you ever heard one word from him, in all his travels when he tries to do it. No indeed! He tells the Greeks that " I do not come to procelytise" He has to qualify his visits. Just like the 12 isn't it?

If he stayed in the Vatican and kept his mouth shut he would do less harm. He has torn apart all the infallible documents of past popes. I could go on, but this man cannot be a true vicar of Christ.

-- TC (Treadmill234@@@south.com), December 02, 2004.

Thanks for your personal interpretations. But we all know where a theology based on personal interpretation leads.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2004.

"Thanks for your personal interpretations. But we all know where a theology based on personal interpretation leads."

To the truth!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 02, 2004.

"Thanks for your personal interpretations. But we all know where a theology based on personal interpretation leads."

To Schism, Heresy, and Apostasy!

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 02, 2004.

The Church in Mexico, Poland, and Korea is booming and has been since the council. The Church in Africa is booming too - the common denominator in all these cases were holy and informed bishops who took a personal interest in bringing the council back to their dioceses and implementing it according to the guidance of the Pope, Paul VI instead of the so-called intellectuals and theologians and opinion makers on the New York Times editorial board.

Look at Acts when the first council was called. Back then groups and factions existed just as they always have... not even St Paul could convince some of the early Christians.

After the council fathers spoke (James and Peter) they not only wrote a document (letter) to the Church in Antioch, they also sent PERSONAL representatives to go and make sure the letter was read and implemented.

This has been the standard operating proceedure for all the successful councils in Church history: when the council fathers personally implement the teachings, their work is blessed. When they don't or sit on their hands and wait for someone else to do their work, things fall apart.

In the US and Europe the Church was strong as far as the laity goes but weak among the seminaries and bishops and priests. For a decade or more the so-called theologians and intellectual elite were being infected with modernism and other heretical ideas - even while everyone else thought we were living in the golden age of the 1950's.

It was all a fascade. Holy and convinced priests and bishops just didn't suddenly loose it in 1962. They never had "it" to begin with.

But this was a Northern Hemisphere problem. The Hispanic, African, and Asian bishops were holy men first and business administrators second. They saw the dangers of the times (the rise and advance of godless communism, the loss of the cultural high ground to pagans, the sinister use of the means of communication, etc. and fought for a new spring time via the council.

Not so in the North - in the North we had clue less bishops and feckless priests, a laity who had grown lazy and reluctant to give battle to the culture just as they thought they were finally getting accepted by it. In the 3rd world our Catholic brothers had no such illusions that the world would welcome us on equal terms...

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.

The Church in Mexico, Poland, and Korea is booming and has been since the council. The Church in Africa is booming too

Yeah, you said that upthread. Let's see the numbers. Re-stating your premise is not making your case. It's just re-stating your premise. I rmain unconvinced.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 02, 2004.

Oh dear, I thought everyone was able to GOOGLE on the internet.

Sorry friend, I'll supply links later, (unless you take 2 minutes to do it yourself).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.

Does any Catholic get the Remnant. Michael Matt , front page article tell it all. Euroope is dying and he Vaican says "more of the same" ... I just picture Our Lord saying to the 12, "Go and preach the gospel to all nations" They answer,,, "Yes Lord, but do we have to procelytize?

The Lord answers "Well you know that the faith subsists in my Church".. End scene, cut, lights.

-- TC (Treadmill234@@south.com), December 02, 2004.

"To Schism, Heresy, and Apostasy!"

Who's buyin' this round?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 02, 2004.

Sorry friend, I'll supply links later, (unless you take 2 minutes to do it yourself).

I'll read the links when you post them. I know how to use a search engine, but I'd say it's incumbent on you to do the homework. It'd be silly to tell someone "I'm right, and if you don't want to take my word for it, go and find out why I'm right, then come back & let me know."

-- jake (j@k.e), December 02, 2004.

"Who's buyin' this round?"

Wake up.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.

If TC, Ian, Emerald, and Jake are one and the same person with different IP addresses, then he must be having a lot of fun.

lol!

-- jake (j@k.e), December 03, 2004.

"Wake up."

lol. Wake up to what, Joseph? You can even formulate a coherent accusation.

Even if I were to say to myself hey, you know what, Joseph is right, I need to "wake up", and then I proceeded with great resolve to change myself to come in line with anything you've said...

...I would be at a complete lost to know what to think or do differently!

So you tell me. What's my slumber.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 03, 2004.

"lol. Wake up to what, Joseph? You can even formulate a coherent accusation. Even if I were to say to myself hey, you know what, Joseph is right, I need to "wake up", and then I proceeded with great resolve to change myself to come in line with anything you've said... ...I would be at a complete lost to know what to think or do differently! So you tell me. What's my slumber."

Take some long, deep, slow breaths.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.

Take some long, deep, slow breaths.

Troll.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 03, 2004.

"Troll."

Peace of Jesus Christ be with you.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.

Peace of Jesus Christ be with you.

Thanks.

Troll.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 03, 2004.

Just so I don't waste your time, you are asking me to provide links proving that the Church in Mexico, Africa, and Korea has grown in size and quality since 1962, right?

If this is the big research you can't do and I'm supposed to prove for you, I will jump over to the Holy See's site, and get the pages for y'all.

But think...what are the chances that the Church in those places is as devastated as it is in the Northern climes? How many looney theologians and stories of scandal have you heard from those quarters?

Think real hard... I tossed those countries and regions out as no- brainers in the vatical 2 debates. If you really don't believe the Church has flourished south of the border... it's going to be real embarrassing to you to read the hard cold facts.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 03, 2004.

Waiting for them Joe;

-- TC (a@b.com), December 03, 2004.

"Take some long, deep, slow breaths."

Alright, I did it. Nothing's changed. Except that the act officially brings to close a really bad attempt at flamebaiting. Dismissed.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 03, 2004.

Here's one point of view of the Church in South Korea.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 03, 2004.

Catholic Population on the Rise

It is estimated that by the year 2000, out of a total population of 393 million Christians in Africa (48% of the total African population and 19.5% of the total world Christianity), nearly 118 million (30%) of total African Christianity) will be Catholic. The Statistical Yearbook of the Church for the period ending 31 December 1993, showed a total Catholic population of 98,851,000 (14.4%) of the total African population. in Africa. At the end of 1994, the total Catholic population had grown to 102,878,000 (14.6% of the total African population). This would be an annual increase of 4,027,000 (0.2%). For a more complete picture of the facts about the Catholic Church in Africa look at the basic statistics.

Vocations on the Rise

There is a steady growth of vacations to the priesthood since the Second Vatican Council and more so in the last ten years. According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, there was an enormous growth of vocations between 1983 and 1993. In 1983 Africa had 6,813 diocesan priests and in 1993 the number had grown to 11,683. During the same period, there was an increase of more than 3,000 ordinations to the priesthood in Africa, while the number of ordinations in the USA went down drastically. There are a number of factors for the increase of vocations in Africa. The main one is that the Catholic faith is young and dynamic. Moreover, the Church is indeed becoming indigenous, with bishops and priests of the land, and therefore it is no longer considered strange to become a priest or to enter into religious life for men of women. Thus places of formation are for women and men religious are overflowing with young vacations. Local religious communities and international ones are reaping the benefits of an abundance of vocations. One must admit, however, that the rise in vocations poses a new serious challenge of careful discernment in the process of formation.

The Church in Africa seems to define itself by its mission of evangelism.

Reference: Catholic Church in Africa (see CONTEXT button)

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 03, 2004.

A link on the Church in Mexico. This reference says that evangelical Protestantism is making inroads in Mexico, but that devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe still remains strong.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 03, 2004.

Statistics on the Church in Latin America

What can I say, I like to Google :)

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com:), December 03, 2004.

Pre-schismatics in this forum have proven themselves to be [censored] and [censored]. Catholic education thrown out the window. Expect more crassness from them.

[This post has been censored for its poor choice of tone. If evidence can be shown to prove such assertions, it may be reposted by the poster.]

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 04, 2004.

Joseph, please show respect for posters who are attempting to carry on a serious discussion. Don't bait them.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 04, 2004.

The tone is not poor. It is accurate. You must be oblivious of the glaring evidence otherwise you would not have censored a word I said.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 04, 2004.

Yes, honesty and respect are necessary if we're going to get anywhere in this, or any other discussion I'll also do my best to maintain both in my posts.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 04, 2004.

Pre-schismatics are carrying on a serious discussion? Surely not.

Pre-schismatics are showing respect? Surely not.

Pre-schismatics do not flamebait? They surely try very hard but to no avail.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 04, 2004.

In all fairness to Emerald, he has no capability of editing the posts. Your post had to have been edited by one of the moderators. I think Elpidio is the primary moderator these days.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 04, 2004.

The numbers in Africa sound impressive, but there can be other resons for them. One is the poverty that exists. It gives a young man a chance for an education. Not saying that he has no faith, but it helps., Another is that they only know the Novus Ordo. They cannot miss that which they do not have, (traditionalMass). They taylor the Mass to the culture of the people, and some from what I have read, offer animal sacrifice.

So yes, the numbers are a plus but wait 40-50- years to see the long term results.

In the meantime 50 years from now Europe will be Muslim and the Catholic church will be gone.

People having one, two, or no children, are not going to match thos Islamics that are having 10 and 12 children. The Europeans, (and Americans), are birth controlling, and aborting themselves into extinction.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 04, 2004.

Hi Joseph.

It looks like you've been given the chance to provide evidence. Why not prove your points about them disrespectful behaviours?

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 04, 2004.

[This post has been censored for its poor choice of tone. If evidence can be shown to prove such assertions, it may be reposted by the poster.]

Tsk. tsk.

Joseph. Need I remind you:

...and a one, and a two, and a three...

We are one in the spirit, we are one in the Lord, We ARE one in the spirit we are one in the Lord, and WE pray that the blah blah blah will blah blah blah blah blah, and they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our LOVE, yes they'll know we are Christians by our looove.

(Read this while your head is swaying side to side humming the above.)

-- jake (j@k.e), December 04, 2004.

Joe made some comments I think are very important.

the common denominator in all these cases were holy and informed bishops who took a personal interest in bringing the council back to their dioceses and implementing it according to the guidance of the Pope

and

Holy and convinced priests and bishops just didn't suddenly loose it in 1962. They never had "it" to begin with.

This is how I see it too. There is a war being waged that has been happening since the beginning of the Church. These times are just part of that. The "modernists" were always there. They took advantage and twisted VII and had a lot of victories within many parishes in the US and Europe in the 60's and 70's. In many places they still hold sway. But there is a backlash occurring within the US at least. Part of that backlash, I believe is what many refer to as "traditionalism." Part of that reaction are good and holy bishops and priests in what some call "Neo-Catholicism" who take a stand against modernism and liturgical abuses. We need to pray incessantly for the Church and all priests and bishops.

IMHO, the entire truth of what is happening in the Church and what has happened in the past is a bit more complicated than we'd like it to be.

-- Andy S ("ASK3332004@YAHOO.COM"), December 04, 2004.

Here is a question that has been mentioned before;

One is supposed to be with the pope (or papacy) to be saved; The eastern churches are with neither, but JP still acknowledges them. Pius X society recognized JP2, but he does not recognize them. Schismatics is what they ae called. Sedevacanists neither recognize JP nor his mass, but they are no worse off than the SSPX society, because they are classed schismaatics. None are declared heretics.

So why do he SSPX believe that they are better off than the sedevacantists?.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 05, 2004.

TC, how do your wife and relatives feel about your stance as a sedevacantist? You don't have to answer if this is too personal, but I was just curious. God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

Emily; no problem. My wife is a sede, and of the other five members two are sede. We get 4 of 7 votes

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 05, 2004.

It is things like this that no true pope would tolerate for a moment;

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

Vatican's Cardinal Sodano Awards Pro-Abortion Politician Papal Knighthood NEW YORK, September 27, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - John Allen, the Rome correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter reports that Julian Hunte, a pro-abortion Catholic politician in the West Indies, was made a Knight of the Grand Cross Pian Order by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano. The honor was bestowed as Hunte completed his term as president of the United Nations General Assembly.

The honor which was presented in New York is especially controversial in light of Vatican approved US Conference of Bishops regulations which prohibit honors being given to pro-abortion policians. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04062102.html )

Allen notes that "Hunte was also, however, the deciding vote last year on a bill in the upper chamber of the St. Lucian parliament that decriminalized abortion in that Caribbean nation. In December, that measure passed by five votes to four, with Hunte in favor." Commenting at the time Hunte said, "I think every woman must have a choice. I am a pro-choice man."

One priest from St. Lucia, Fr. Linus Clovis, who is appealing to the Pope to reverse the decision to award Hunte, summed up his concern saying, "It makes a mockery of what we stand for and it compromises us because now the public perception on abortion will be: 'What are you complaining about? The Vatican does not see anything wrong with it.' "

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 05, 2004.

I know this is probably going to shock you, but the Vatican doesn't have an office of people keeping track of pro-life news on the internet. I know. why not?

Well, they don't. Which is why lay people have to inform them of who's who in ingenius but charitable ways BEFORE they give awards to people on the behest of others who "seem" like nice people.

It's hard for us web and media savy people to appreciate just how behind the curve alot of the diplomats in the Vatican are. They don't suscribe to the newspapers or magazines we do. They DON'T have computers with web access or those who do, don't spend hours per day surfing to see what's new and who's who.

So this is why they will award someone who the rest of us know is a bad apple. They just don't know.

This lack of technological accumen has been described at lenth in George Weigel's book "Courage to be Catholic".

Unfortunately, after the fact it's hard for us lay people to get bishops (*or anyone) to admit to a mistake and retract honoraria. Whether we like it or not human respect and pride is real. It doesn't make the bishop a heretic and it doesn't mean he's wrong theologically...but it does make it humanly hard for him to admit not knowing who it was he gave an award to because he'd have to admit to being clueless...

Unfortunately, those who don't realize what the bishops don't know assume they are knowingly guilty.... I just don't believe that. I know too many Bishops to think they sit around like us and are up to date on things.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.

Can you answer this one. In NYC, St Vincents hospital opened a new wing. Guess who they named it after. Mother Teresa....no. Rudolph Giuliani, an open and avowed abortionist. They cannot plead invincibale ignorance. Egan or any other bishops.

-- TC (A@b.com), December 06, 2004.

A great thread, but what really confuses me is the use of numbers pertaining to growth of the Church in the third world.

to clarify (TC obliquely mentioned this point): are these people really becoming Catholics?

has anyone here been to a 3rd world Mass, or witnessed such Catholicism in practice?

are they taught to believe that animism is primitive polytheistic superstition, or that the animists are ecumenical equals, or something in between?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 07, 2004.

I have been in Mexico and Latin America, and attended masses there. I speak spanish so know what's going on... orthodox liturgies and homilies are going on and the Church is booming.

I was learning Korean and have many korean friends. The Church in Korea is booming and their liturgies and homilies are fairly strong. The only current problem on the horizon for the Church in Korea is a strong German influence with some of their seminarians in Europe. (Go figure, German is syntactically akin to Korean, so they learn it quicker than English).

In 1800 there were only a handful of Catholics in Korea, now 20% of the population are Catholic.

Don't knock something until you have first hand knowledge of it.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.

Joe

thanks for the info, but that really doesn't answer the question.

out of interest, how is "pro multis" translated into Spanish in S America? "por muchos" o "por todos".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

Joe, i've checked on the net and its "por todos".

and isn't that more relevant in the evaluation of Catholic numbers in the world than a simple head count of those sitting in any given 3rd world Congregation?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

Uh, Ian?

What does "multis" mean? Multidude? In which case, "muchos" would mean many or a multidude. What is the latin word for "total"? In which case, "todo" would mean "all" or the "total". I'm confused.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.

all = omnes = todos

many = multi = muchos

pro multis (Vulgate/ Pius V Mass) = for many = por muchos [same translation in every Bible i have seen including those based upon different sources to the Vulgate eg KJV]

pro omnibus (N.O. Mass) = for all = por todos

RSv St Matthew: [27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; [28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

RSV St Mark 24 [23] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. [24] And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

RSV St Luke 22 [20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

don't get me wrong Rod, if everyone was a saint, everyone would be saved. in that sense, the Sacrifice was for all. and those who are in fact saved will be those for whom the Sacrifice was effective.

the issue, however, is why change the words? they're in the Bible and had been in the Mass for goodness knows how long.

what was the motive?

was it to pave the way for Lumen Gentium? to bury Mystici Corporis? the Church of Christ now "subsists in" the Catholic Church, as opposed to the two being identical as we had always been taught?

i don't know. i'm just wondering. why doesn't someone just say it was an accidental mis-translation? that would be understandable. and remediable.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

sorry, this thread is going off subject. i will stop posting this stuff now.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

No Ian. stay on...

Let me ask you a question...when you pray the Glory Be, and you come to what in Latin is "et in saecula saeculorum" do you say in English "World without end"? If so, you're not really saying what is a translation of the Latin as we actually DO know that the world has an end.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.

Joe, you'll never be able to guage the health of the members of Holy Mother Church with statistics.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 08, 2004.

when you pray the Glory Be, and you come to what in Latin is "et in saecula saeculorum" do you say in English "World without end"? If so, you're not really saying what is a translation of the Latin as we actually DO know that the world has an end.

"World without end" is just another way of saying "forever." It does not refer to this world, which, of course, will end. The Church wasn't just waiting around to have Her grammar corrected.


Be not afraid.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 08, 2004.

Joe

thanks.

Jake has given the answer i would have given.

if i'm honest, i haven't a clue where "world without end" came from. perhaps it had a meaning when the Prayer was brought over into the vernacular English.

but, if you look at the Latin [the dead language whose meaning is fixed in time ;-)) ], its clear:

"Sicut [just as] erat [it was] in principio [at the start], et nunc [and now], et semper [and always], et in saecula saeculorum [and forever]. Amen."

in Spanish too: "Como era en el principio, ahora y siempre, por los siglos de los siglos." the Spanish translation is a slave to the Latin.

[of course, the "forever" is redundant because "always" is "forever".]

but i'm not sure how this will help me understand the "pro omnibus" issue. there, we have a word that appeared, and still appears, in the Vulgate, and all English Bibles i have seen, as "many" but which mutated into "all" in the English [and Spanish] Masses.

as i say, i find myself guessing why this happened because no-one seems to accept it as a translational error. au contraire.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

Joe

some more food for thought.

i went to Mass today [vernacular]. the priest gave a solid Homily. he then ommitted the Creed. is that normal/licit?

i'm only saying this because, had someone from the 3rd world been there today, he might have formed a view that the Creed is optional in the developed world.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

" Part of that backlash, I believe is what many refer to as "traditionalism." Part of that reaction are good and holy bishops and priests in what some call "Neo-Catholicism" who take a stand against modernism and liturgical abuses."

"Neo-Catholicism" is a pejorative term given by schismatic ex-Catholics/Traditionalist non-Catholics to the true religion of the eternal Holy Catholic Church. How can She be "Neo" when She's Ancient and has withstood 2000 years of opposition by the devil? The Traditionalist non-Catholics are proposing that a new church just began after Vatican II; which of course, is a big lie. Vatican II is the 21st and latest Ecumenical Council of the 2000-year-old One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Similarly, "Roman Church" is a pejorative term given to the Holy Catholic Church by Protestants. She is not "Roman" for She is not pagan. The Church is headquartered in Rome because the Successor of St. Peter is the Bishop of Rome but She is not "Roman." She is Universal.

Member,
The 2000-Year-Old Holy Catholic Church, the Ark of Salvation: 1 Supreme and Infallible Pope (St.) John Paul II, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Rock, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit; 4649 Bishops, Successors of the Twelve Apostles; 405067 Priests; 29204 Deacons; 54970 Brothers; 792317 Sisters; 1.1 BILLION UNITED MEMBERS on earth. "All roads lead to Rome."

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.

i went to Mass today [vernacular]. the priest gave a solid Homily. he then ommitted the Creed. is that normal/licit?

The Credo and Gloria are supressed during Advent, AFAIK. Credo, BTW, translates I believe, not we believe.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 08, 2004.

Jake

i had researched this, but had thought that i had missed something. here's some of my research:

“Recitation of the profession of faith by the priest together with the people is obligatory on Sundays and solemnities. It may be said also at special, more solemn celebrations.”

General Instruction to the Roman Missal (GIRM), no. 44.

this means that the Creed may never be ommitted on Sundays or Holy Days, surely?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

Joseph

a friendly point. trust me.

remember that there are more and more people like me out there. we get Dogma and principle from the "traditionalists".

you, and so many of the "non-traditionalists" [finding names for the parties is like treading on egg-shells], sem only ever to give us mantra and name-calling.

who should i believe? who should we all believe?

well, i can see through the various synonyms of "nostalgia" and "schismatic" and "heretic" that you throw, because the nostalgic, schismatic, heretics provide the principles that allow me to.

show me the principles. reconcile VII with earlier Church teaching - - and you'll have me, and perhaps countless others, sprinting down to that N.O. Mass.

i mean this to be a sincere request. you have a right to post whatever, so long as the moderators are happy. but, maybe, you are concerned about the Church and "the many" that are really only starting to ask questions.

as things stand, i would just love someone to show me the viable alternative. i have no interest in travelling miles to get to a Latin Mass but that's what you seem to want me to do.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

Joseph

that last post was possibly just a bit sanctimonious.

to avoid doubt, i certainly am guilty of using mantra and i have engaged in far, far more verbal violence than was ever justified. i am trying to turn that corner.

i am also asking for a little help.

eg can tell me when the Church stopped being the Church of Christ and started being just one of those churches in which it "subsists"? can you do that?

or can you help out on the current issue [pro multis/pro omnibus]?

i think Joe is trying to help; and that is welcome.

the "traditionalists" as always have supplied plenty of material that goes the other way. my head is full of it and it hurts. my brain is starting to tell my heart to wise up.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

Joseph

why not go over here -- http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a- fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CYdz -- and give my but a good, hard boot? no-one over there seems to care.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

this means that the Creed may never be ommitted on Sundays or Holy Days, surely?

I'm going to a SSPX Mass tonight. I'll post what happens in this regard.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 08, 2004.

thanks Jake!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

Ian,

Here's one reply to your question of Why "For All" in the Words of Consecration?. I have the same question. I haven't read it yet, but thought it was worth posting the link to add to the discussion. Maybe you've already seen it in your research.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 09, 2004.

Super Andy, thanks.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 09, 2004.

yes Andy, as it happens, i have already found it, but thanks much anyway for sharing.

i'll wait for you to read it.

btw, here's something else i've found:

http://catholic-legate.com/indextemps/ultratrad-index.html

its an attempt to answer many of the questions we have been pondering from the "modernising" [treading on egg shells again] perspective.

i'm going to spend some time going through it. i'll post anything that i think is of special interest.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 09, 2004.

"this means that the Creed may never be ommitted on Sundays or Holy Days, surely? "

Jake, i have the 1962 Missal: by my reading, the Creed cannot be ommitted.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 09, 2004.

Andy;

That explanation of why for all can be used gives one a headache. Sounds like Jackie Mason listening to his psychiatrist who keeps telling him that this is not you.After the session he tells the psychiatrist "Well if I am not me, let him pay your bill"

Much hogwash but bottom line is that Our Lord and Trent said "For Many" and hat is that.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 09, 2004.

Ian:

I went to Mass w/ a SSPX priest last night. Both Gloria & Creed were said.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 09, 2004.

Ian,

Thanks for the link, brother. That's something I've been looking for.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 12, 2004.

TC,

Does it make a difference if the priest says "For You" instead of either "For Many" or "For All"?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 12, 2004.

Andy;

The council of Trent (a dogmatic council) said "for many". We must accept that.

Yes, "for you", is used in one gospel. "for many" in two gospels, but "For all", is not found anywhere in the scriptures.

Why did they have to mes with it in the first place?....I have never been able to receive an answer for that. There is none. Well ,except to placate Protestants.

Same thing when in the ordination rites they dropped the "Power to forgive sins, and to offer sacrifice"... Why Andy.

They have a penchant for watering down, and fogging everything. Sounds diabolical.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 13, 2004.

"Why did they have to mes with it in the first place?....I have never been able to receive an answer for that."

yes TC. i've checked out the liturgy used in the Anglican consecration (from the "book of Common Prayer") to see it if was a sleight of hand designed to normalise the Catholic liturgy with the liturgy of one of our biggest potential merger-partners.

the Anglicans, as it happens, stick to the Bible - "for many".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 13, 2004.

Interesting note Ian.

TC, is it okay for the priest to say "for you" during the words of consecration because it is in the Bible? Or must the words be "for many," based on Trent?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 13, 2004.

good question Andy. i may be responsible for leaning in the direction of the Bible too heavily, and therefore leaning away from Tradition and Trent.

http://www.stthomasaquinas.net/newmass/precis.html

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 13, 2004.

I think that some eastern rites just say,"this is my body" and "this is my blood". That is ok in their rites because there is no lie involved. However the Roman rite has been set by Trent and that was in perpetuity.

To say 'for all" introduces sacrilege, for it puts a lie into the mouth of Our Lord. It is almost better to be invalid than sacrilegious.

No pope can abrogate the solemn pronouncement of a past pope. If that were so, there would be even more chaos than there is now.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 13, 2004.

It seems like you can count on two hands the number of highly visible, orthodox Catholics. It only takes a few to be "salt and light."

"Just because a man is born with fingers, that doesn't mean he knows how to play the piano. Just because a man is born with a brain, that doesn't mean he knows how to think correctly. The art and science of correct thinking is a discipline and it must be learned; with a purpose. The true end of philosophy is wisdom. If it is not, you wind up with smart fools ... in Hell."

We must stick with the true teaching of the Catholic Church, no matter who,( even a pope), tells us otherwise. In fact if a pope tells us otherewise it is safe to assume that he cannot be a pope of the Catholic Church.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 13, 2004.

well, TC, you now have the bull by the horns.

can you now demonstrate that the Catechism is infallible?

i've read St Thomas Aquinas on this and he seems to consider the form of words to be of secondary importance to the intention of the priest.

that of course, by itself, is a fallible point of view.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 13, 2004.

;

After all the rhetoric, of this saint says, or this theologian says, or this pope says. (not infallible, it has to come down to the only infallible source that we have. that is Quo Prumum Tempore, and session 22 council of Trent. They say why it must be "for many" and why it cannot be for all. They were very clear in that language. So that is the only thing that counts.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 13, 2004.

1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6) has the following: "In regard to these words which the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not all of them are NECESSARY [emphasis added] for the form, but the words 'This is the chalice of My Blood' only, not the remainder which follows, 'of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.' But it would appear that this is not said correctly, because all that which follows is a determination of the predicate: HENCE THOSE SUBSEQUENT WORDS BELONG TO THE MEANING OR SIGNIFCATION OF THE SAME PRONOUNCEMENT, AND BECAUSE, AS HAS OFTEN BEEN SAID, IT IS BY SIGNIFYING THAT THE FORMS OF SACRAMENTS HAVE THEIR EFFECT. HENCE, ALL OF THESE WORDS APPERTAIN TO THE EFFECTING POWER OF THE FORM [emphasis added]."

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 13, 2004.

""Having considered all these foregoing arguments, WE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION: The authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of St. Thomas strongly moves us to judge that the Negative Opinion [which denies that the short form suffices] is the more probable. However, since in the opinion of so many theologians, especially 'Thomists,' the mind of St. Thomas, which the authors of the Catechism [of the Council of Trent] evidently intend to follow, is not clearly evident, we do not venture to deem one of the opinions more probable than the other, but we judge both to be equally probable.""

taken from here: http://www.stthomasaquinas.net/newmass/necessig.htm ["sedevacantist" viewpoint]

this is a conclusion drawn by Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Catholic University, Washington, D.C., when in 1947 he discussed:

--- the Pars Affirmativa, (which affirms that the short form, simply "This is My Blood", suffices for validity) &

--- the Pars Negativa (the negative position which denies the short form is sufficient for validity and that you need **all** the words set forth by Pius V in the Missal).

the analysis is long. i plan, with the aid of a cold towel, to have a read.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 14, 2004.

"So why do the SSPX believe that they are better off than the sedevacantists?"

The blind and the blind. SSPX are no better off than Sedevacantists. They are both schismatic ex-Catholics/self-styled traditionalist non-Catholics. They are both outside the Catholic sheepfold.

The almost blind and the almost blind. Pre-SSPX are no better off than pre-Sedevacantists. They are both self-styled traditionalist pre-schismatics. They are both almost outside the Catholic sheepfold.

These disobedient souls vilify His Holiness, disregard the Teaching Authority and Divine Infallibility of Vatican II, defame the Living Church, sneer at the inerrant Novus Ordo Mass for typically using the vernacular, and separate themselves by attending illicit Latin Masses with HOMILIES AND CERTAIN PRAYERS SAID IN THE VERNACULAR -- Double Standard. Now, how hypocritical is that?

Member,
The 2000-Year-Old Holy Catholic Church, the Ark of Salvation, Legitimate Provider of the Holy Sacraments, Producer of the First Holy Bible (4th Century) : 1 Supreme and Infallible Pope [St.] John Paul II, Successor of St. Peter, the Rock, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Shepherd on earth, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit; 4649 Bishops, Successors of the Twelve Apostles; 405067 Priests; 29204 Deacons; 54970 Brothers; 792317 Sisters; 1.1 BILLION MEMBERS on earth unified in the Sovereign Pontiff. 1 Flock, 1 Shepherd. "All roads lead to Rome."

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

Nice post, troll.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 14, 2004.

From the Catholic tidings, in Los Angeles

http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/1210/viewpoints.htm The Tidings

Friday, December 10, 2004 Given so many parish closings, where are parishes headed? look at three current trends. First, the number of parishes has not been changing. In 1985 there were 19,244 parishes nationwide, and in 2004 there were 19,026.

Second, average parish size has been increasing. In 1985 it was 2,718 persons, and in 2004 it was 3,380. The total U.S. Catholic population is growing at about 10 percent per decade, and since the number of parishes is constant, average parish size will grow at about 10 percent per decade. In 2010, average parish size will be about 3,500.

Third, 17 percent of parishes in 2004 had no resident priest, and the trend is upward. We can expect that in 2010 it will be 20 percent and in 2020 more than 25 percent. ...Dean Hoge is a professor of sociology at The Catholic University of America in Washington.

From Catholic News Service ....

The Christian yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

Joseph

maybe you can help? are you arguing for:

(A) the Pars Affirmativa, (which affirms that the short form, simply "This is My Blood", suffices for validity) OR

(B) the Pars Negativa (which denies the short form is sufficient for validity and that you need **all** the words set forth by Pius V in the Missal).

could you also provide reasons why.

that would be most helpful.

thank you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 15, 2004.

"the 'traditionalists' as always have supplied plenty of material that goes the other way."

The Holy Spirit gave the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Magisterium an inerrant formula for the Eucharistic Prayer. The recent formula is a legitimate and an inerrant variation of the old Trent formula. The Trent formula itself is a TRANSLATION but also inerrant. The Holy Spirit will never allow the Church to err in something so vital such as consecration of the Holy Eucharist nor in matters of faith and morals. The Magisterium has the Divine Authority to clarify and update. She has now chosen to implement a Eucharistic Prayer that has more clarity and speaks more of the universality of Redemption. In the original tongue, "for many" MEANS "for all". Jesus Christ redeemed the whole of humankind; thus, "for all" has more clarity for us in the 21st Century than "for many". It is clear to Catholics that the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus is "for all" humankind but efficacious only "for many" who persevere to the very end.

Some theologians may argue back and forth over Pars Negativa vs. Pars Affirmativa; however, a Latin Rite priest is instructed by the Magisterium to pray the entire approved Eucharistic Prayer for the consecration. A Latin Rite priest may not shorten the Eucharistic Prayer just because he believes in the Pars Affirmativa argument. He is obliged to pray the entire approved Eucharistic Prayer. So practically, the faithful are not being starved but being fed by the Real Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Possibly, it might be practical for you to lean towards the Pars Affirmativa; that way you don't have to drive the long miles for the nearest Latin Tridentine Indult Mass. Pars Affirmativa will render the "dispute" between "for many" and "for all" as irrelevant.

The Pars Negativa argument in the article presented is fanatically schismatic. St. Thomas Aquinas believed in the "long form" of the Eucharistic consecration. Well, the wisest of the Holy men would be very difficult to refute. I simply abide by the Infallible Magisterium. I believe that "for all" is inerrant in all the Novus Ordo Masses I usually attend; and I believe that "for many" is inerrant in all the Latin Tridentine Indult Masses I occassionally attend. The meaning of the consecration is essentially the same: Redemption is "for all" but efficacious only "for many".

Member,
The 2000-Year-Old Holy Catholic Church, the Ark of Salvation, Legitimate Provider of the Holy Sacraments, Producer of the First Holy Bible (4th Century) : 1 Supreme and Infallible Pope [St.] John Paul II, Successor of St. Peter, the Rock, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Shepherd on earth, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit; 4649 Bishops, Successors of the Twelve Apostles; 405067 Priests; 29204 Deacons; 54970 Brothers; 792317 Sisters; 1.1 BILLION MEMBERS on earth unified in the Sovereign Pontiff. 1 Flock, 1 Shepherd. "All roads lead to Rome."

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 18, 2004.

Joseph;

You willnevr be convinced, but for anyone else interested in this;

Council of Trent: The reason for all not being used is that aat the Mass the fruits are for the many that attend and believe. They even speciied that the for all must NOT be used. An infallible council, a saintly Pope; What more do you want?

Vatican 2 and it's popes never used the infallible power for anything.

Same goess for priestly ordinations; Not saying that they had the power to forgive sins and offer sacrifice is much clearer than saying it. Who is running that asuylum?

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 18, 2004.

Joseph;

Anotaher point. Do you know who first removed the power to forgive sins and to offer sacrifice. Paul 6th? Nope.

Answer; Cardinal Thomas Cranmer in England in the 16th century.

From then on the church never recognized Protestant ordinations.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 18, 2004.

Of course they didn't. But the words used in their ordination rites had nothing to do with it. Because they had removed themselves from the Holy Catholic Church and the authority of the Vicar of Christ, that's why their ordinations were invalid, and would have been inmvalid regardless of what words they used or didn't use.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 18, 2004.

Paul;

To your way of reckoning the current pope could change the words of baptism. to "In the name of the creator, the redeemer, and the paraclete", and that would still be a valid baptism. Never mind that Our Lord said the words of the sacrament, as He did in the ordination rite. The pope's words supercede Our Lord's.

That is why we sedevacantists are also know as "The dead popes society".

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 19, 2004.

The Lord personally gave us the form of Baptism. He did not give us the form of any other Sacrament. The Church did. The Church therefore has authority to change the rites as it deems necessary.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 19, 2004.

He breathed on them and said "Whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins ye shall retain they ae retained" Lord's words removed from ordinations since 1968.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 19, 2004.

Paul, the SSPX Priesrt an Biships HAVE Valid orders, they are merley excommuicated and Schismatic.Like the Eastern Orthodixy. This was, at leats, according tot he vatical records on SSPX.

They do have, hwoever, valid, if illicit, ordenation.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.

I do not kid as I am serious about this;

The traditionals ae valid priests but illicit;

The novus ordo priests are licit but invalid.

That is an ironic twist,isn't it.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 19, 2004.

Paul, the SSPX Priesrt an Biships HAVE Valid orders

Z,

I think Paul was talking about the "orders" of the Anglicans & other sects. They have no Apostolic succession, and therefore can have no claim to a valid priesthood. The validity of the Orders of the priests & bishops of the SSPX is beyond dispute, as I'm sure Paul is aware.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 19, 2004.

Paul

The Catholic Church, via Pope Leo XIII in 1896, has decided once and for all that Anglican orders are invalid, the **main** reason being that the rite was not correctly performed. this breaks Apostolic Succession. Anglican priest converts must, therefore, be ordained when they become Catholic priests. this is not true of Orthodox priests whose rites are recognised as valid.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

"The Lord personally gave us the form of Baptism. He did not give us the form of any other Sacrament. The Church did. The Church therefore has authority to change the rites as it deems necessary. "

ahem, Paul. He gave us Baptism as water Baptism - read your Bible. are you saying that there is no other form of Baptism?!?!?!

you schismo!!!!!! ;-))) [joking, Paul]

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

Joseph

thanks for the answer. i am diging out an article that deals with the technical translation arguments. basically, it reveals how a priest initially argued that there was no expression in Aramaic that could distinguish between "all" and "many". he had to retract that opinion and then reverted to plan B - which is to argue that salvation is available to all and efficacious to many. that's an excuse, not a reason, imho.

and that's why we get to the theology - does the mistranslation matter - ie are the words "this is My Blood" sufficient?

don't take my word for it though. when i find the link, i'll post it here so you can see for yourself. my web-browser "favourites" is starting to take time to work through.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

Joseph

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur46.htm

i won't colour anyone's view of this with commentary.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

It is very obvious that "for all" is now used, and for one reason only..Universal salvation is the policy of Newchurch, and that for the new ecumanism instead of the old evangelizaation. If that is what they want so be it. For myself I will have no pat in it.

The can also keep their clearer version of making priests. Leaving out the two most important things that they do is now said to make it more clear.

If I were still attending that church I would put an empty envelope in the basket. After all I want to give generously so the new way is to give less or even nothing.

I don't think they would buy that explaination, but they should.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 20, 2004.

Show me one statement by the Church that so much as hints at the possibility of universal salvation. That claim is totally absurd.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 21, 2004.

Paul

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

...........

"For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation."

.............

"With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non- Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished."

extracted from "DOMINUS IESUS" -- ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 21, 2004.

You will never convince Paul about these things. Anyone who is still staunchly V2 at this late juncture wll not ever be covinced. They are rock solid in their beliefs.

As one wag said a long time ago; "Don't confuse me with the facts".

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 21, 2004.

Ian,

The quotes you provided acknowledge that some who are not members of the Catholic Church can still be saved. This however is not even remotely similar to the idea of universal salvation, which means that ALL people will be saved, regardless of whether they seek God or not, and regardless of how they live their lives. The Magisterium, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, recognizes that the concept of a perfectly just and loving God necessitates that those who through no fault of their own have not found the true Church in spite of their personal efforts to know God and to do His will cannot be denied the free gift of salvation. However, nothing the Church has stated suggests universal salvation - which is hardly surprising considering that the notion of universal salvation directly contradicts the teaching of the Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2004.

Paul

your words were:

"...one statement by the Church that ***so much as hints at*** the possibility of universal salvation..."

now compare what i posted to the traditional teaching of the Church that ONLY Catholics will be saved, and then only a portion of them.

this is death by a thousand cuts.

the **hint** is there.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 23, 2004.

Only for one who desperately wants to see it there.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2004.

"Only for one who desperately wants to see it there."

the answer this deserves - "NOT for one who desparately wants NOT to see it there"!

but it might interest you to scroll through DI sometime, searching for occurrences of the word "sin". do it if you get the chance.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 23, 2004.

"The quotes you provided acknowledge that some who are not members of the Catholic Church can still be saved. This however is not even remotely similar to the idea of universal salvation, which means that ALL people will be saved, regardless of whether they seek God or not, and regardless of how they live their lives."

But this ambiguous phrase is the sole source of the idea of universal salvation. That's why it is imperative to keep the Faith whole and inviolate. Pinhole in a damn, so to speak... we all know how the enemy exploits weaknesses to foster results that will continue to spin and widen endlessly out of control.

What exactly is the ambiguity? The statement:

"The quotes you provided acknowledge that some who are not members of the Catholic Church can still be saved"

Is it true? There's a missing qualifier, which is this: time of death. How the statement can be truthful:

"Those who are not members of the Church can be saved. If, before death, they enter into the Catholic Church."

How the statement can be false:

"Those who are not members of the Church can be saved" ...but then, leaving the hearer or reader of this statement to conclude that they never needed to have entered the Church before death.

There's your ambiguity right there. Which one are people choosing, or at least, which one do they believe which they think has the stamp of the Church's approval on it? The second, of course.

The true answer is pretty simple. Can those outside the Church be saved? Absolutely! So long as before death, the enter into the Catholic Church, and persevere in it until death.

"The Magisterium, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, recognizes that the concept of a perfectly just and loving God necessitates that those who through no fault of their own have not found the true Church in spite of their personal efforts to know God and to do His will cannot be denied the free gift of salvation."

The Church never said that, and in fact isn't true that God, because He is perfectly just and loving, cannot therefore deny salvation to anyone, ignorant or otherwise. Look at it another way, perhaps: to say this would be the equalivalent to "limiting God" or "binding Him", a charge which is most often coming in from the opposite direction, and directed to those who hold that there is no salvation outside the Church. But here imho we have real case of limiting or binding God. People seem to forget the God owes us absolutely nothing; that we were infected with Original Sin, and if that wasn't bad enough, we continually offend Him in any number of ways daily and hourly. We are in no position to demand that God allow us entrance into His kingdom, nor are we able to force God's hand to obtain it for someone else.

Is that to say He will not rush to the aid of the ignorant and the sinfully? Obviously He does; we are His by justice, and He is ours by mercy. The Church itself is this aid package.

As to the ambiguous stating of things though, and how the greater number of people receive ambiguity and immediately turn to apply it to a path of least resistance... that is what's happened just about everywhere. A friend just yesterday complained about the Christmas play at the parish where the kids attended school. Turns out it wasn't the Nativity, but one of these AllFaith deals; Kwanzaa, Ramadan, etc.

That's how you can judge, to a certain measure, the intent of some of those who use ambiguity. Not an attempt to cite Paul's intent here or to insinuate anything. But the promoters of the AllFaith religion will use the ambiguity to sooth hothead holders of the Faith. But as soon as the defenders of the Faith are placated and soothed and leave the room, out come the AllFaith decorations and it's a partytime. Make no mistake: behind closed doors, the AllFaith people laugh at how they are dismantle your Catholic Church. Really.

A lot of the people employing or accepting ambiguity have somewhat of a good intent. They don't want to come off as slamming their Protestant friends and so forth. It's well meaning and all, but the pinhole in the damn turns to cracks and a gaping hole, and then a catastrophe pretty quick when the enemy is throwing his weight against the wall. The AllFaith people use this weakness of well- intentioned Catholics to further their own agenda.

The only remedy is to unflinching tell the Catholic truth without fear or shame, and to bear the brunt or the onslaught of having done so.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 23, 2004.

Well said Emerald!one faith, one baptism.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 23, 2004.

bear the brunt or the onslaught of having done so

...and if in keeping the Faith there's no onslaught, if it doesn't hurt, if you're not required to sweat & bleed & cry out to the heavens for relief, you're doing something wrong.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 23, 2004.

Very true jake. You're either doing something wrong or not doing something you should be doing.

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 23, 2004.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- By now some readers may be wondering:Who's crazy? John Paul II or Father Dormann?Could a reigning Pope possibly have this manybad ideas?Or is Dormann guilty of asophisticatedtheologicalcharacterassassination?You'll have to wade through the booksyourself, and make up your own mind. But bewarned. Reading Fr. Johannes Dormann's bookson Pope John Paul II is like being immersed in adream that gets more unsettling the more it isdreamt. The dream world is the world of ideas,specifically, ideas about God. One would thinkthat the ideas a Pope has about God would bepredictable, shadowless. Think again.Dormann's work is a serious theologicalchallenge to a reigning pontiff, and would seemto require some sort of response by the HolySee. To date there has been no response I amaware of. And it may be said that, whateverdoubtsone may haveabout Dormann's thesis, thepresent Pope has often acted as if hedoes believein universal salvation: the Assisi events; kissingthe Koran; asking St. John the Baptist to "blessIslam";repeatedly asserting that the OldCovenant with the Jews was never revoked byGod; his positive comments about MartinLutherand JanHus; his continuingapologiesforthe pre-Conciliar Church which, alas, wasdeprived of the "enrichment of faith" at theSecond Vatican Council; and any other numberof his other determined ecumenical forays arecompatible with a thesis of universal salvation.But, you mayinsist, surelythe Pope realizesuniversal salvation is not a Catholic teaching.Even if he so believed, how could he reconcileuniversalsalvationwith the dogma: "Outside theChurch there is no salvation," or the fact thatthere is no warrant for universalsalvation eitherin Sacred Scripture or Tradition?The answer is: by two more novel concepts,"enrichment of the faith" and "reciprocalintegration of the faith". These terms firstappeared in Cardinal Wojtyla's Sources ofRenewal, a manual for Conciliar reforms. Herethe Cardinal declared:"The process of Conciliar renewal must bebased on the principle of the enrichment offaith ... The enrichment of faith is nothingelse than increasingly full participation indivine truth ... the enrichment of faith whichwe regard as the fundamental prerequisitefor the realization of Vatican II is to beunderstood in two ways: as an enrichmentof the content of faith in accordance withthe Council's teaching, but also ... anenrichment of the whole existence of thebelieving member of the Church ...constituting a new stage in the Church'sadvance towards the `fullness of divinetruth,' (and) an enrichment in the subjective,human, existential sense, and it is from thelatter that the realization of the Council ismost to be hoped for."34NotehowCardinalWojtyla assumesVaticanII is dogmatic in nature, to the point that heassumes "the Council's teaching" will enrich "thecontent of faith," that is, pre-Conciliar faith. Butif the Pope believes that Vatican II taughtuniversal salvation, a question arises: doesenrichment of the faith really mean replacementof the faith? Father Dormann comments:"The `enrichment of the faith' as a dogmaticprinciple

JP2 certainly does believe in universal salvation. He may not say it in wods, but look at his actiions. ou don't convert anyone by kissing their "Holy Book"... Yo give assent to what they are doing.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 23, 2004.

JP2 certainly does believe in universal salvation. He may not say it in wods, but look at his actiions. ou don't convert anyone by kissing their "Holy Book"... Yo give assent to what they are doing. - TC

TC,

JOhn Paul II isn't perfect, but isn't the author presuming to know John Paul's heart when he says that he believes in universal salvation? We can argue the ambiguity of the pope's words and the scandal caused by him kissing the Koran, but I think it's unfair to say he believes in universal salvation based on these things.

-- Andy S ("ask33342004@yahoo.com"), December 24, 2004.

Andy; From my youngest days I was taught; Never go by what anyone says, but on what they do.

I don't know what JP thinks, but I know the end results of what he does.

"Not those that say Lord, Lord, but they that do the will of My Father in Heaven".

Holy and Joyful Christmas Andy.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 24, 2004.

You have a holy and joyful Christmas too TC.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 24, 2004.