For Andy and TC. Not the most eloquent opening, but here's the new thread. To quote Steven from Braveheart, "Fine speech. Now [what] do we do?"

Just be yourselves.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 29, 2004

Answers

...botched quotes and typos included. Bump.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 29, 2004.

Emerald,

Thanks for starting this thread!

The most obvious is prayer, of which the Rosary is first and foremost in my mind.

But what are our responsibilities as loyal sons and daughters? I think we need to seek humility but have courage to stick up for the truth. Those who are the successors to the Apostles can make mistakes and we need to hold their feet to the fire. But we need to recognize who "holds the keys" and the power to bind and loose, despite their human failings.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 29, 2004.

This must be a fashionable fight. It's drawn the finest people.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 29, 2004.

Jake;

Thanks for that wonderful compliment9 ( compliment?)

It is certainly gratifying to be considered among the elite.

The Bowery will never be the same.

-- TC (qwer@@@tyui.com), November 29, 2004.

lol! I think Andy that you skeletoned the whole thing very well; you've got the Mother of God, and therefore implicitly and automatically, the Blessed Sacrament... the absolute requirement of humility, while at the same time the need to draw up and defend clear boundaries and principles of the Truth (the Church is a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed per Canticles). Now that's a true practical paradox that can't be avoided, the need to be humble and yet militant in defending the Faith. It seems like an extension of the justice/mercy mix. Then you also have written in our actual principle relation to the Church as children. And also the very true and Catholic recognition that despite failings, that we owe allegiance to legitimate apostolic offices.

That last one is the hot topic, obviously, and probably the one that most honest people would like to get a better grasp of, if that's possible. Imho it is something rooted in the principles of true charity; not garden-variety charity, but the theological virtue of charity. It'll naturally get more complicated as we get into the details, because whenever you introduce individual instances such as "this pope" or "that bishop" or "this or that traditional or liberal Catholic layperson", the number of variables shoots through the roof. But the principles are still there, even when it takes on the appearance of some sort of Chaos Theory, and one can certainly eventually attain some degree of clarity. It may simply require a lot of patience, time, and honesty.

This is a huge discussion that can go in many different directions, and in this case I actually hope it does go in a million different directions so long as we can tie it back into the simplicity of what you wrote. We could discuss the pope, liberal vs. traditional Catholicism; we could discuss well intentioned people who hold bad theology vs. theologically exact people with bad attitudes; we could ask what true charity consists of.

We could ask who we should blame for the ills of the Church and society. The pope, ourselves, the bishops, the modernists, other lay people, abortion? Or blame noone or nothing at all?

HOWEVER, The Catholic Faith at it's root, really, is super simple. It's never going to be much clearer than the short statements you made above.

So what do we do, how do we react, to come to the aid of Holy Mother Church, in whatever position and capacity we find ourselves. There's a principle that the meek shall inherit the earth, and a related one that the simple and seemingly powerless, the children, will be instrumental in the ultimate destruction of all the fury of Hell. Not deriving from themselves, obviously, but by being instruments of an all-powerful just-yet-merciful God. It's all in the way that the archetype of the Church, the Virgin Mother, responds to God in simplicity, purity and humulity. As children of the Church, seems we must immitate her style of response. Imho, that has direct relationship to Genesis where, immediately upon the fall, Christ is promise, and the proud demon is crushed by the heel of the woman, or in other words, the lowest members.

What do we need to think and do, right now, without delay, to secure our salvation, to assist our friends and family in the same. I could use this discussion myself, being a daily sinner and all. I'm an idiot who daily knows what he's supposed to do but really gets enough or all of it accomplished. But I do firmly believe that us nobodies, morons and office-less souls of no account are actually instrumental and focal in the preservation of the Church and Her teachings.

To kick it off, a tough question: if people really, really believe that Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, and He is perhaps 2 to 3 miles from their homes... how come they don't go visit Him? A question for every soul including myself.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 29, 2004.

one can certainly eventually attain some degree of clarity. It may simply require a lot of patience, time, and honesty.

Honesty. That's the first prerequisite for the Catholic Faith, isn't it? Once you can let go of all the erroneous pre-conceived notions of the Faith being some kind of this-world answer to life's problems, a sure-fire remedy for what ails you, a way to get what you want; once you can see that for the falsehood it is, you can begin to take a genuine approach to the Faith.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 29, 2004.

If you hav young children, please read this. We have gone through this ourselves.

http://members.tripod.com/~catholic_homeschool/divided.html

-- TC (123@@456.com), November 29, 2004.

We've just finished the year of the Rosary, and have just begun the Year of the Eucharist. I hope many Catholics take advantage of it.

To kick it off, a tough question: if people really, really believe that Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, and He is perhaps 2 to 3 miles from their homes... how come they don't go visit Him? A question for every soul including myself.

Including me. This is a great kick off question Emerald, because the Eucharist is the soul of the Church. He is the center of our faith, the sacraments, and our strength for persevering unto eternal life. Once Catholics come to understand this, the rest will follow. Liturgical abuses and apparent irreverancy when receiving Holy Communion will become nonexistent. My dream world.

I ask myself the same question. Why don't we visit Christ if we really believed Him to be present in the Eucharist? Why don't we dress appropriately for Mass when we know Him to be really present there? Why don't we approach Him in humility and true sorrow for our many faults? Even the tiniest fault should cause us sorrow because we are utterly unworthy of Him. We are blessed to have such an enormous gift in the Eucharist and yet many of us don't even take 15 minutes on the way home from work to visit Him. In some places, the church buildings aren't even open for adoration.

One of the turning points in my life (along with devotion to our Blessed Mother) was reading (and acting upon) The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It gave me a new perspective on the Eucharist. I grieve for the many times I gave more thought to what the guy in front of me was wearing than I did in receiving the Creator of the Universe. Realization of the reality of the Eucharist becomes desire for Him. And desire leads to action. I visit Christ in the Eucharist now whenever I can with family and work responsibilities. I've found that He changes me gently. Little by little. I don't even realize Christ has changed me until I look back at what I was.

I really think you've hit on the solution to all the ills of the Church. Greater devotion and love for the Eucharist. Once Catholics regain a love and desire for Christ in the Eucharist, the rest will follow. On a side note, the churches that seem to provide the most vocations in the diocese I've been in, are the ones with regular and strong Eucharistic adoration. It's also not coincidence that the same people I know who have a tender decvotion for the Blessed Virgin are the same ones with a strong love for Christ in the Eucharist. They go hand in hand from my limited experience. This is how I see we can be the greatest help to the Church. Increase our personal devotion to the Eucharist and do what we can to spread love for Christ in the Eucharist in our families and our parishes.

I think you and Jake hit upon a prerequisite for obtaining a true love for the Eucharist. Honesty. First of all, honesty with ourselves. Whatever happened to daily examination of conscience? Honesty will lead to humility, I believe. Because then we will realize how utterly worthless we are. Only then can we even begin to understand how much Christ loves us. We're here to serve, not be served. That's how we should approach our relationship in the Church too, I think.

I can talk a good talk sometimes, but I find it very difficult to carry through. I'm so weak. Only by God's grace do I make any progress. I've come to depend on the Eucharist so much.

I do think that the Church will be renewed from the bottom up when the laity regain their love for the Eucharist. The honesty and humility we require that leads to real holiness can only be found in Christ. Here's right there in the Eucharist, just waiting for us to accept Him. That gives me hope.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 29, 2004.

TC,

Some of the specifics about Catholic education in the link you provided are disconcerting. Gladly, the "CCD" (it's called Whole Community Catechesis at our parish) isn't anything like what is described in that link. I don't think the parishioners would stand for it, and I know our parish priest wouldn't either. Building a Catholic School is still in the idea phase. We could use one where I live.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 29, 2004.

Andy;

Thanks for checking the liink. I am glad that your church does not fall into that category.

Here though, is something I came across. I do not attend Novus Ordo masses, so maybe you can supply more to this than I can.

Do 75% or more, of Catholics practice birth conrol and still go to communion? I read it, but do not experiece that in the Chuch tha I atend. It is all old school.

The best example is probably the issue of birth control. Catholics view marriage as one of the sacramental nexus points between God and man. Accordingly, the love between married Catholics, and the sexual manifestation of that love, is seen as a reflection of God's love. Despite Catholic "uptightness" about sexual practices, sexual passion in marriage is encouraged. Pope Paul VI ignored the clear recommendation of the Papal Commission he appointed in issuing Humane Vitae, and Pope John Paul II has virtually made adherence to the Church's birth control position a litmus test of Catholic faith (in contrast to Humane Vitae's author, Paul VI, who approved a number of pastoral statements from bishops of various countries giving considerable room for individual conscience). The faithful, and most of the clergy, have not bought the litmus test. Better than 75% of married Catholics who regularly attend Mass practice birth control, and see nothing (much) wrong with it. What happened? There is no easy answer, but my own view is that many Catholic lay men and women simply think that the Pope is dead wrong.

-- TC (Treadmill234@@@south.com), November 30, 2004.

TC, I'd be surprised if it was only 75%. That is part of the problem, or a symptom of the problem. I struggled with that issue myself. When I actually read Humanae Vitae and some of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body writings, I couldn't deny that artificial birth control was a grievous sin in the eyes of Christ and the Church, whatever individual priests had to say about "following your conscience". They forget the part about having a well-informed conscience.

It was only after accepting that truth that I was able to make a true confession for once, and from there grace lead me to other truths of Catholicism. Until that point I was a lukewarm Catholic and had lost the faith of my childhood. The faith my parents passed on to me. Jesus was like an old friend that I forgot to write or call, so my relationship with Him had diminished. I still struggle against "lukewarmness", but by Christ's grace I won't fall back into that trap again. We all know how Christ feels about being neither hot nor cold (see Revelation).

Along with increased devotion to the Eucharist in some Novus Ordo partishes, I've also seen an increase in natural family planning and a realization of the evils of artificial contraception. Some bishops even make it mandatory in their patishes that NFP be taught to engaged couples seeking matrimony in the Church. I wish this had been done for my wife and I when we were engaged.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 30, 2004.

IMHO, the reason the use of artificial contraception among Catholic is so high is because of parish priests who gave bad advice and said "follow your consience" without providing the whole truth of Church teaching. It's partially a lack of education and bad leadership. Now parents raised in this atmosphere are raising their kids with the same mentality.

My guess is the number of Catholics who use artificial contraception that have actually read Humanae Vitae with an open mind can be numebered in the hundreds or less. Most use these things based on advice from doctors or family members with no thought to the moral or medical consequences.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 30, 2004.

I've also seen an increase in natural family planning and a realization of the evils of artificial contraception.

Do you mean an increase in the promotion of NFP? If you're going my measuring the size of families, it would seem to me that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between those using NFP & those contracepting. The goal and end result of both are the same: fewer or no children. All through my years in the Novus Ordo, I can only recall a few larger families, and those were ones with older parents. Young families were virtually non-existent, and those that did exist followed the typical Northeast Protestant demographic of two paychecks, two cars, two homes, and one or two children.

Some bishops even make it mandatory in their patishes that NFP be taught to engaged couples seeking matrimony in the Church.

What!? Why?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 30, 2004.

Andy;

Thanks for your information. Like Jake, when I was in the Novus Ordo , people did go "priest shopping", but now it seems a lot worse than when I was there.

You know, I did not believe in artificial birth control, but only in NFP. But in the last few years I don't even believe in that. The method is different but the results are the same as ABC. I would rather err on the side of being too rigid than perhaps too lax. Anyway that is my opinion.

I think to myself, "Which one would you send back"? Answer, " None".

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 30, 2004.

Do you mean an increase in the promotion of NFP? If you're going my measuring the size of families, it would seem to me that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between those using NFP & those contracepting. The goal and end result of both are the same: fewer or no children. - jake

Good points jake. Yes, I do mean an increase in promotion of NFP. I don’t have the numbers to say whether more people are actually using NFP versus ABC. The only basis I have for my statement is anecdotal. It’s based on people I’ve talked to. But that is easily skewed since I could easily hang around people who think like me. I was pleasantly surprised to find others who realized how wrong artificial contraception is. However, NFP can be used wrongly. Part of NFP education to my understanding, is discernment regarding having another child and seeking God’s will. If the purpose for using NFP is to avoid having another child so you can buy that second $50,000 SUV, then that is an abuse of NFP. If the purpose is to delay having another child until the husband can find a job after getting laid off, then that may be a good reason to use NFP. Part of NFP education seeks to counter a "contracepting" mentality. It’s not meant to be “contraception for Catholics.” Artificial contraception is objectively evil. NFP is not objectively evil, but the intent for using it could be. If the intent is the same, it’s still a sin, whether ABC or NFP is used. The important things are why a couple sees the need to space their children, and what means they use to do this. Both aspects are important.

I am also drawing conclusions based on what I see in the area I live. It is not uncommon to see families of three or four kids with two cars and one paycheck. Usually with a mother who stays at home. And these are Christians of all faiths. Then again, it might be the crowd I hang around with. I rarely see families of six kids or more though. I grew up in a family with six kids and we were a rarity in those days (back in the 70’s). A family that size is still a rarity, I think.

I believe the reasoning behind teaching NFP in engagement classes is to give Catholic couples the tools they need to follow Church teaching. It also provides a good platform for educating them about artificial contraception and Church teaching. I also need to correct myself. I had read an article a while back that stated that a few bishops were recommending that NFP classes be made mandatory for engaged couples in pre-Cana classes, but I don’t know that it was ever implemented or even which diocese they were. That’s very different than the statement I made that “some bishops even make it mandatory…”

I think to myself, "Which one would you send back"? Answer, " None". - TC

I’m definitely with you on that TC.

-- Andy S ("ASK3332004@YAHOO.COM), November 30, 2004.

"To kick it off, a tough question: if people really, really believe that Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, and He is perhaps 2 to 3 miles from their homes... how come they don't go visit Him? A question for every soul including myself."

the answer might well be that we don't believe it -- or we don't believe it enough.

if i can be a little scandalous and let some of those terrible thoughts out out of my head, i have almost daily those crises of faith. don't you just wonder sometimes if can all be true?

i've started with my son (3+yrs). in the Church, by a statue, he sees Jesus' wound. i tell him Jesus died but came back.

then i tell him Jesus is in the (covered) Tabernacle. we bow. he says "can i see Him?". i say "not now".

He says "is He dead in there?"

i wonder about answering that one. he'll think the Tabernacle is a cage.

i think "wait until he realises that we eat from the tabernacle. i think "this stuff is darned complicated: he's never going to buy any of it".

so could i convince a skeptical adult that this is true?

then, when i'm on my own, i know its true. i know its what i MUST do. but i just can't imagine convincing anyone else. and that thought goes through my head and takes me back to the start.

Andy is right, though. prayer has helped, no doubt whatsoever.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

It’s not meant to be “contraception for Catholics.”

Nor is an annulment meant to be a "Catholic divorce," but the ends (in these cases "freedom" from valid & binding vows and the children resulting therefrom) justify the means of the Neo Catholics' staunch & unwavering support for both.

"To kick it off, a tough question: if people really, really believe that Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, and He is perhaps 2 to 3 miles from their homes... how come they don't go visit Him? A question for every soul including myself."

Cool. Thanks for trying to steer this back to the topic. We should make visits to the Blessed Sacrament as often as we have the opportunity. For some of us, that's daily. For others, not so often. That said and along the same lines: If Catholics really, really believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, how is it that not only do they not show proper reverence in church by such simple gestures as keeping silence, but that they don't crawl into church on their bellies, cast themselves before the altar, and beg for mercy?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 01, 2004.

Nor is an annulment meant to be a "Catholic divorce," but the ends (in these cases "freedom" from valid & binding vows and the children resulting therefrom) justify the means of the Neo Catholics' staunch & unwavering support for both. - jake

Both NFP and annulments are not evil of themselves. Annulments are findings that there was never a sacrament of matrimony. Very different than divorce. NFP is abstaining from marital relations at certain times based on a woman's natural cycle. Very different than ABC.

They can each be abused, and I don't doubt that there are those who abuse both. If both the intent and the end is the same, then I agree that it doesn't matter what means is used, it's still a sin.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 01, 2004.

My parents always told me to "offer it up" whenever I suffered anything from a skinned knee to the flu. The whole concept of redemptive suffering when united with Christ is still a mystery to me, but it is a part of the tradition of the Church as witnessed to by many saints. I believe it to be very powerful and a potent medicine for the ills of the Church.

We are united in Christ by baptism. If we would be true followers of Jesus, then we must pick up our cross daily. As members of His Body, our sufferings when united to Christ's can be a gateway of grace for the Church and sinners. Our Lady at Fatima asked us to pray and to sacrifice for the conversion of sinners. We can offer ourselves to God as a living sacrifice in our daily actions and trials as we struggle to love and obey Him. The Daily Offering prayer is a great example of this.

Our sufferings can be redemptive when joined with Christ's. Fasting is one way of doing this, but there are many other opportunities in our lives to put deny ourselves and serve others and God. I believe that in addition to spreading a passionate desire for Christ in the Eucharist, we can best serve the Church by suffering with joy for her. If we seek to be like Jesus, I mean really be like Jesus, then we must willingly accept all suffering that comes our way just as He did and "offer it up" to God. Just another thought that came when I was considering the topic of this thread.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 01, 2004.

If Catholics really, really believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, how is it that not only do they not show proper reverence in church by such simple gestures as keeping silence, but that they don't crawl into church on their bellies, cast themselves before the altar, and beg for mercy? - jake

Good question jake. The least we can do is do that in our heart and soul, if not with our bodies. Don't know how true this is, but I heard that the Sisters of Mercy(?), Mother Teresa's order, does that during Mass. They prostrate themselves before the Blessed Sacrament.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 01, 2004.

"I believe it to be very powerful and a potent medicine for the ills of the Church."

Can't be said enough.

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

I was watching a papal Mass on EWTN, don't know it it was from Switzerland because my wife and I turned it off after seeing what I guess was a choir singing big-band style that was more appropriate for a raucous USO show than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The spectacle of the Pope and his bishops being a party to this travesty defies description. My wife is not used to seeing such liturgical aberrations. She was flabbergasted. Lex credendi, lex orandi. Not much is believed anymore.

-- Philip (Booglebun@aol.com), December 03, 2004.

Welcome Philip!

What do you think we can do to prevent such aberrations from occurring again and to strengthen Holy Mother the Church?

-- Andy S ("ASK3332004@YAHOO.COM"), December 03, 2004.

Lots of work lately, but wanting to continue with this.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 06, 2004.

Let's not forget faithful and holy priests (and all religious) in our prayers. They are truly gifts from God. Though they receive grace from God for their vocation, they need and deserve our friendship and petitions. Their lives have to be tough at times. Without priests, there is no Eucharist. Let's not take them for granted.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 06, 2004.

"Let's not forget faithful and holy priests (and all religious) in our prayers. They are truly gifts from God."

most true.

if i had been born 30 yrs earlier, i would probably been a priest. my grandmother had me down as the family priest. in days gone by, it was a truly great thing to have a priest in the family. an honour. nowadays, i think people think otherwise.

one priest i knew told me he went to the seminary aged 12.

we have one of the local priests come round our house regularly.

society sets exacting standards for priests etc and loves to see them fall of this imaginary pedastel. both priests i have mentioned have committed indiscretions that serve only to illustrate their humanity and devotion.

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

thread. stay alive.

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

It won't die, don't worry.

Knowledge is one part of a composite. It's worthless to know the doctrines unless they become what we are and what we do.

Pray for the priests, good and bad alike, but especially the good ones. I think a lot of times we tend to direct our efforts towards those who are furthest away... not a bad thing at all for sure, and necessary no doubt, but often times we don't pray for those who seem to be doing well with the Faith. We figure they're alright. We have to though, because they need to persevere in the Faith.

But there's also a need to further their good success, to promote it to new levels. In sales there are several principles that lend themselves well as analogies about the Faith and evangelization. Sure, they are worldly or mundane principles, but they are still in fact shadows of higher truths. For instance, there's this general rule of thumb that 20% of the sales force generates 80% of the sales. You need all those salesmen in the force; high and low producers alike. But a good manager knows that he needs to do whatever he can provide support for that 20%. Also, he also knows that instead of neglecting the other 80% in favor of the 20% high producers, that he needs those top producers in turn to teach the others about their successuful methods and principles of success.

So by catering to the top producers, he knows that the whole body of salesmen will benefit and improve. So we should probably not forget to pray for our best priests to become even stronger and to persevere. They are similar to what's known as centers of influence in sales. Their ability via their sacramental stamp of the Holy Orders makes for powerful leverage in the saving of souls.

Don't forget the good priests. Without the graces coming in a steady stream from the laity who are thoughtful enough to appreciate their efforts, they can run out of steam. You can bet your bottom line that if a priest is good, he's is going to be suffering. The better the priest is, you'd be the last to be privy to it, because good sufferers hide it and hide their pain well. If they are in any way successful in the struggle for souls against the powers of darkness, they are targets, and they will get hit on by the enemy. Hard. It has to happen, because the priesthood is the crucifixion which they knowingly chose in the immitation of Christ. They need the strength to endure it and to persevere through it, and therefore, they need YOU. This grace has got to be procured by the intercession of the laity. You get what you ask for... or don't ask for.

Perhaps the lack of this assistance of the laity accounts for much of trouble we find ourselves in now.

Priests are the favored sons of Mary. Once a priest realizes this and takes stock in it, the demons have just lost a major battle, and strategically, they are in deed doodoo. Yesterday, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, we couldn't get to our regular Latin Mass because of work and so forth. So we went to Mass at the Middle- Eastern Rite close by later in the evening. To digress for a split second, I believe there are such things as good "NeoCatholics"... people who are of genuine good will who are coming to a realization perhaps for the first time the depth and gravity of their Catholic Faith. I like these people. This particular priest, in my experience with him, struck me as one such. I always like him, but at the same time I wondered, you know, "can't you be clearer, can't you be more forthright, can't you do more. Lead for crying out loud." Where, I thought, was the focus of your parish on the guts of the Catholic Faith. And sure, he needed to get this done.

But at any rate, last night's homily was a powerful change. He spoke with forcefulness and clearness on the devotion to the Blessed Virgin like I'd never seen him speak before. The sermon popped my eyeballs out. He was dead on accurate, right to the guts, he was in goooood form. He spoke of the necessity of true devotion to Mary like a saint would have; I know, because I read their works. Heh, I was about ready to jump up and start chearing. But then I remembered I was a traditionalist... lol.

He attributed his insights to a book written by Alphonsus Liguori. Let me tell you, there's a powerful Saint right there. High octane on twin and inseparable subject matters, the Blessed Sacrament and the Mother of God. Can you spell Incarnation? He wrote in language that anyone can understand. Anyone. And still potent enough for the high and mighty intellectuals, because the highest and mightiest thoughts are always the simplest ones.

That book clearly had had a powerful influence on this priest, and he had obviously said yes to Mary, and it showed. People need to hear the truth, and for God's sake, he was telling it, no holds barred.

We need priests to be not just devoted, but entirely instructed by our common mother.

At any rate, I then remembered something. I recently said a small prayer for this priest, if I recall correctly, that he might be devoted to the Blessed Mother, not knowing whether he already was or wasn't, it wasn't based on a judgmental assumption of any kind. It was so small, in fact, I think it was just Ave Maria and that's it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm responsible for anything good that happened here; I'd be ticked if someone thought that. I'm a worthless sinner. Just ask my wife. But I do believe prayers are answered whether we witness results or not.

I'm a firm believer in the power of one well said Hail Mary. Let me tell you why. With that one angelic salutation, and Mary's perfect response to the will of God, the entire fortunes of the created universe changed, and this omninous, incredibly immense and powerful demon, Satan... his chokehold, his monopoly on the destruction of souls was crushed, and the process of his demise was underway. By a purity of a 14 year-old Jewish girl. That's gotta hurt.

People might take issue with me saying these things, may call it holier than thou, pious, nah. People do that. You try to believe, you try out the narrow path, and they set in on you for pride and false piety. That's because their consciences prick them, I think. What you recommend, if accepted, may necessitate them changing their way of thinking and acting. God forbid, huh? lol.

Nah. We need to be holier than thou, as long as the thou that we are holier than is our former self.

But do it! Damn the torpedoes, pick up the Faith and run with it. Believe that if you say one Hail Mary for your priest, your family members, your friends, that the seeds of common miracles can be planted by the Mother of Life. There is only one Life, and that is the life of an eternal salvation. Eternal life isn't here, but it begins here, and the chance of it ends here as well.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 10, 2004.

"How can we assist Holy Mother Church?"

UNITY -- (This concept is foreign to schismatic ex-Catholics/Traditionalist non-Catholics and waning among Pre-schismatics.) A sheep Must be united with his one and only Shepherd on earth -- the Pope. Communion with the Holy Father is Not an option but a necessity. Lest the lamb gets lost, the vulnerable Catholic must follow the Infallible Pope. By obeying the latest Teachings of the current Magisterium, a faithful Catholic proves by his actions, his Union with his Vicar of Christ on earth. All Catholics from every country of the world are "One Body and One Spirit"; One Flock with One Shepherd. Unity brings Peace and Strength.

Schismatic ex-Catholics/Traditionalist non-Catholics have separated themselves from the present-day Vicar of Christ; they continuously malign him, his College of Bishops, and his living Church. Hence, they are Popeless -- Shepherdless. They are outside the sheepfold, running to wherever they please, guided by the errors of private judgment, and of course, disobedience. They are knowingly in communion with illicit "priests" who are not in communion with the Pope; thereby partaking of unauthorized sacraments. They relentlessly criticize the inerrant Novus Ordo Mass -- instituted by the Divine Authority of Vatican II.

" Thanks for that wonderful compliment ... It is certainly gratifying to be considered among the elite."

The above statement proves that schismatic ex-Catholics/Traditionalist non-Catholics are elitist.

Member,
The 2000-Year-Old Holy Catholic Church, the Ark of Salvation: 1 Supreme and Infallible Pope (St.) John Paul II, Successor of St. Peter, the Rock, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, 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. "All roads lead to Rome."

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 10, 2004.

The above statement proves that schismatic ex- Catholics/Traditionalist non-Catholics are elitist.

What's yer point, little Novus Ordo troll man?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 10, 2004.

One thing about Joseph,is his utter trust in the conciliar church. He can throw out everything before 1958. That is some 2000 years of house cleaning. I wonder if he can get a seat in church on Sunday with all those one billion people trying to squeeze into their seats.

-- TC (Tedmill234@south.com), December 10, 2004.

"By obeying the latest Teachings of the current Magisterium..."

There are no latest teachings. No doubt, though, that a Modernist and subversive AntiCatholicism would have us believe as if there are.

At any rate Joseph, don't mind if I for one ignore your attempts to light fuse to an argument. Ironically, to fall for your bait would be to play into to a mechanism which seeks to rend unity, of all things.

I don't want to rend unity, thanks anyways. I want to help Holy Mother Church.

So, onward and upward. Have a nice life.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 11, 2004.

Joseph made a very important point though. Unity is one of the marks of the Church. Real unity. Dividing the Church can only be in Satan's best interests.

If we can avoid ad hominem and stay focused on the topic, I think some good fruit can result from this thread.

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

But do it! Damn the torpedoes, pick up the Faith and run with it. Believe that if you say one Hail Mary for your priest, your family members, your friends, that the seeds of common miracles can be planted by the Mother of Life. There is only one Life, and that is the life of an eternal salvation. Eternal life isn't here, but it begins here, and the chance of it ends here as well. - Emerald

All I can say is AMEN brother to that and everything else you said in that post. Well said and very true.

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

"Unity is one of the marks of the Church."

No argument there. Unity is a dogmatic imperative. It is completely impossible to consider Catholicism apart from unity.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 13, 2004.

Now the big question. How do we live that unity and be true to unity in the life that God gave us?

I'll start off by saying that to do this, we must abide by the holy Catholic faith. Another part is to be in communion with the successor of Peter. I realize that this begs a whole mess of details though.

If our Blessed Mother could feel sorrow in Heaven, I believe that division of the Church would be something that causes her great sorrow. I imagine it to be something like seeing your son's living body torn apart, piece by piece. What can we do to prevent this from happening further. Or better yet, what can we do to heal the Body. Prayer and sacrifice are biggies.

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

What can we do to prevent this from happening further. Or better yet, what can we do to heal the Body. Prayer and sacrifice are biggies.

Biggies indeed! The biggest there are, as far as remedies to the current crisis go. Remember, the Catholic Faith is not easy, but it is simple/b>. That it, it's very difficult to live by, if your intention is to take it to the hilt & really live it; but it's simple as far as the means at our disposal for knowledge of and perserverance in the Faith.

Look at any of the approved apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary through the centuries. In them, you'll find the essence of the Faith in a nutshell, addressed to everyone from the Pope to the poorest illiterate slave.

Pray.

Do penance.

Make sacrifices.

Say the Rosary.

Wear the Brown Scapular.

Go to Confession & Communion often.

Stay close to the Hearts of Jesus & Mary.

If this is what you're doing, if this is how you're living your life despite everything that the world, the flesh, & the devil throw at you, how can you not save your soul? How can you not draw down piles of graces on yourself, your family, & the Church?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 13, 2004.

Add to the above list:

Learn HTML.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 13, 2004.

Here is something from traditio that tells some of the story;

And JPII Promotes Him! Meritocracy is a government by those who have merited it. JPII uses the very opposite form of church government, a kakistocracy, government by the worst. It seems that JPII goes out of his way to appoint immoral, incompetent, and irreligious men to the highest positions in Newchurch. Ratzinger is a good example. As Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, the man is writing that Our Lord Jesus Christ is not the Messias for the Jews, that the true faith is not exclusive to the Catholic Church, etc. JPII appointed Abp. Weakland of Milwaukee, who embezzled half a million dollars from Newchurch to pay off his catamite. He appointed Bp. O'Brien, of Phoenix, who ran over a man in his car and tried to conceal his crime. Then showed no remorse until he was being sentenced.

Now we can add Wilton Gregory to the list. This man just ended his term as President of the U.S. Conference of [Newchurch] Catholic Bishops. His administration has been a scandal. The crime wave that includes all the bishops of the United States has increased during his administration, and two eminent chairmen of the bishops' own Investigating Committee were fired because they told the truth about rampant crime in Newchurch in the U.S.

What does Dilbert say? If a man fails at one job, promote him to a higher job. So now JPII, who can't seem to utter one word of censure against his own appointees when they deflower youth, steal from the Church, and act like (as one FBI agent put it) the Mafia, has kicked Gregory upstairs. He goes from the berg bishop of Belleville, Illinois, now to become Newchurch archbishop of Atlanta.

The pope is supposed to be the Church's teacher, right? Well, he's teaching us plenty. He's teaching us to be as corrupt as possible so that we can attain the highest "plums" of the Church. What is that other than about as demented as you can get? If the truth were known, it may be that the man's mind went long ago, and the papacy of JPII has been null and void since about the mid 1990s.

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

December

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

"What can we do to prevent this from happening further."

Andy

what about the children? what about the Catholic schools around the world that teach about different world religions, rather than catechising?

maybe i'm way off beam here, but that's the trend as i see it.

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

No, you're absoulutely right Ian. Children are the future. That's why shoddy catechism is such a travesty.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004.

what about the children? what about the Catholic schools around the world that teach about different world religions, rather than catechising?

If I may interject, I can honestly say that I knew next to nothing about the Faith after 12 years of "Catholic" education. Those gaps were filled in, to a large degree, by a one hour meeting with a Traditional priest and a pocket catechism.

It's another wickedness of pastors & bishops that they endeavor to hide the truth of the Faith from young children. Our Lord did not mince words about what fate such men would meet in the hereafter.

Catholic homeschooling provides a great remedy to the situation. There are tons of resources available.

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

Those things are, of course, good in themselves. The problem comes in with the lack of follow-through on the level of the hierarchy. -jake Very good point jake. I don't rightly know. I'm not sure if the bishop encourages these things or if they are there because of the priests and laity. My "impression" was that the things I mentioned began because of motivated laity who initiated them, and the parish priest who supported it.

In at least one parish, I believe it was the priest who initiated it instead. I should check to see if they were encouraged by the bishop or not. I know JPII encourages these things at his level (e.g., ROSARIUM VIRGINIS and ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA).

-- Andy S ("ask333@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

Ooops. Wrong thread.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004.

For schismatic ex-Catholics/self-styled traditionalist non-Catholics to call the Holy Catholic Church as "Holy Mother Church" is absurd and pretentious.

OBEDIENCE -- (This concept is foreign to schismatic ex-Catholics/self-styled traditionalist non-Catholics and waning among self-styled traditionalist pre-schismatics.)

To be a Catholic is to Obey the Pope/Magisterium and to Submit to His/Their Discipline and Guidance. The Sovereign Pontiff has the Inviolable Primacy in the Teaching of faith and morals and the Inviolable Primacy of Jurisdiction and Government of the Entire Church. There is neither such a thing as an "Independent Catholic Church" nor an "Independent Catholic". Each Catholic has a responsibility to Obey the Holy Father. Obedience to the One Pope brings Unity.

The office of Divine and Authentic Interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition solely belongs to the Teaching Authority of the Pope/Magisterium and Not to the petty errors of private judgment of schismatic ex-Catholics/self-styled traditionalist non-Catholics and self-styled traditionalist pre-schismatics who are in obstinate defiance of Holy Mother Church.

Obedience is an indispensable Catholic virtue. A faithful Catholic obeys the latest Teachings of the Holy Spirit through the Divine Teaching Authority of the Magisterium -- in Perfect Harmony with All the Teachings of the Holy Spirit throughout the ages through the Divine Teaching Authority of the Magisterium. The Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself but explains Himself further through the current Magisterium. He helps the Church in meeting the challenges of the Third Millenium.

Pre-schism is an illness of disobedience. It would have achieved its height when error and vulgarity become the average verbiage. Disobedience to Divine Authority is the devil's ancient expertise.

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 15, 2004.

"Children are the future. That's why shoddy catechism is such a travesty."

I'm finding out more and more every day, especially lately, how true this really is. Or should I say also, how true it is conversely as well... in other words, how effective good catechism is. My oldest is 12, and the youngest under 1, so the effects of putting an effort in are just beginning to manifest themselves. It's been a real mind- blower to watch how they soak in the Faith and love it. There's no ramming it down their throats at all; they take a very natural interest in it. And that's the full strength stuff, uncut and not watered down. They understand it deeply, and you can only say, hey that's grace. Our efforts for them are flawed, but they take it and run with it in a way that puts adults to shame.

It really is true: the most horrible thing any Catholic parent could do to their children is to fail to instill in their hearts and minds the Catholic Faith. Not a little chat every week or so, but every day; and the Rosary every day. Tell the truth, tell it like it is with no toning it down. We have to make the Faith the chief objective of our households again like it was always supposed to be; key to the future restoration and strength of Holy Mother Church.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), December 15, 2004.

They understand it deeply, and you can only say, hey that's grace. Our efforts for them are flawed, but they take it and run with it in a way that puts adults to shame.

I cxan attest to this personally. My oldest is 7, and she's never had anything but solid catechesis from the Baltimore Catechism, reinforced through Catholic homeschooling, and our own efforts, of course. My wife's uncle uncle died earlier this year, and my mother in law was talking to my daughter about it recently, using words most anyone would with a 7 year old, saying "Uncle Jim lives up in heaven now."

My daughter's reply: "Not necessarily."

That's my girl.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 16, 2004.

guys,

at what age can you realistically start?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 16, 2004.

at what age can you realistically start

Satrt teaching catechism? I'd say formally in Kindergarten, though it starts from infancy (through example, mostly). My twins are in Kindergarten now, but they've picked up huge amounts of knowledge (for their age) simply by being in the same room when my older daughter is taught. They're both of average intelligence, but can rattle off a good number of answers from the catechism from memory.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 16, 2004.

jake?

I presume then, that Uncle Jim was Catholic?

Heheh..sorry, couldn't resist that one ; )

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 16, 2004.

I presume then, that Uncle Jim was Catholic?

No. He was baptized Catholic as an infant, but then later apostasized into his wife's Protestant sect.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 16, 2004.

Jake,

The you can re-assure your daughter that if her uncle loved Jesus and believed in Him--that he is surely in heaven, as Jesus promised he would be.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.

The you can re-assure your daughter that if her uncle loved Jesus and believed in Him--that he is surely in heaven, as Jesus promised he would be.

I have no way of knowing for sure what the state of his soul was at the moment of his death, when his eternity was irrevocably fixed. I do know that he died bitter & angry at God and all alone, having refused to allow a priest to come see him and give him the last Sacraments. Still, how God judges you & I don't know. He may have had an extraordinary supernatural favor done for him that allowed him to squeak into Purgatory, or he may well have gone into Hell for all eternity. My daughter's answer was the correct one. Yours is full of holes.

From the mouths of babes. And stuff.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 17, 2004.

Some people like to stay out late and D.A.N.C.E.

And then they go to church next day to show their H.A.T.

They wear so much upon their face of P.A.I.N.T.

And then they laugh at me because i'm S.A.V.E.D.

the bells of hell go ting a ling a ling for you, for you not me,

The angel voices sing a ling a ling, they have a charm for me,

Oh death where is thy sting a ling a ling,

How grave thy victory,

No ting a ling a ling no sting a ling a ling a ling, but sing a ling a ling for me,

The Protestant act of contrition.

The bells of hell go ting a ling a ling for you, for you not me,

The angel voices sing a ling a ling, they have a charm for me,

Oh death where is thy sting a ling a ling,

How grave thy victory,

No ting a ling no sting a ling a ling a ling, but sing a ling a ling for me,

The Protest act of contriction.

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

Sorry about the Protestant act of contrition remark. It wasn't Christian.

Faith's messages knocking my church seems to bring out the best in people... don't they.

-- TC (Treadill234@south.com), December 17, 2004.

As a Catholic--you may not think you can know if you are saved.

But as a ex-Catholic, I can know because I believe God and His Word which tells that that we can know that we are saved.

Your daughter doesn't know any better. All she can do is trust you jake--and since you can't be sure of anything as a Catholic, why would it be any different for her?

My children all know that purgatory doesn't exist and that they can be sure of salvation in Christ alone.

1 John 5:13-15

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us– whatever we ask–we know that we have what we asked of him.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life...

...whether we want it or not? I mean, you don't think it's possible for Catholics to be saved, correct? You've called my religion "false and idolotrous." If the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, how can its members have a claim on heaven?

My daughter's great uncle was a Protestant, and died at enmity with God, was he dragged kicking & screaming into paradise?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 17, 2004.

I never said that it was impossible for a Catholic to go to heaven. It just depends on what you believe. I think many Catholic people can be born-again, in spite of their religion.

Whose talking about force--can faith be forced?

Perhaps you only think your daughter's uncle was at emnity with God. Why? Because he wouldn't see a priest on his deathbed?

Jesus is the only priest we need. He is High priest. Perhaps uncle Jim knew that, and Jesus, dwwp in his heart.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.

lol...make that *deep*

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.

it would be extremely informative to hear more on this thread. back on track.

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

Ian:

Good thinking. St. Louis DeMontfort knew well what life in our times would be like:

“Towards the end of the world, ....Almighty God and His holy Mother are to raise up saints who will surpass in holiness most other saints as much as the cedars of Lebanon tower above little shrubs.” “These great souls filled with grace and zeal will be chosen to oppose the enemies of God who are raging on all sides. They will be exceptionally devoted to the Blessed Virgin. Illumined by her light, strengthened by her spirit, supported by her arms, sheltered under her protection, they will fight with one hand and build with the other. With one hand they will give battle, overthrowing and crushing heretics and their heresies, schismatics and their schisms, idolaters and their idolatries, sinners and their wickedness. With the other hand they will build the temple of the true Solomon and the mystical city of God, namely, the Blessed Virgin... “ “They will be like thunderclouds flying through the air at the slightest breath of the Holy Spirit. Attached to nothing, surprised at nothing, they will shower down the rain of God’s word and of eternal life. They will thunder against sin; they will storm against the world; they will strike down the devil and his followers and for life and for death, they will pierce through and through with the two- edged sword of God’s word all those against whom they are sent by Almighty God.” “They will be true apostles of the latter times to whom the Lord of Hosts will give eloquence and strength to work wonders and carry off glorious spoils from His enemies. They will sleep without gold or silver and, more important still, without concern in the midst of other priests, ecclesiastics and clerics. Yet they will have the silver wings of the dove enabling them to go wherever the Holy Spirit calls them, filled as they are, with the resolve to seek the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Wherever they preach, they will leave behind them nothing but the gold of love, which is the fulfillment of the whole law.” “They will have the two-edged sword of the Word of God in their mouths and the bloodstained standard of the Cross on their shoulders. They will carry the Crucifix in their right hand and the rosary in their left, and the holy names of Jesus and Mary on their heart. “Mary scarcely appeared in the first coming of Christ... But in the second coming of Jesus Christ, Mary must be known and openly revealed by the Holy Spirit so that Jesus may be known, loved and served through her.”

-- jake (j@k.e), December 21, 2004.

Lets not talk about uncle Jim anymore---makes me more nervous than I already am.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 21, 2004.

Faith, salvation is a process. We don't "get" saved, we are being saved, being transformed, from "glory to glory," until we reflect His radiance.

You will not take your carnal sinful self into heaven before the glory of God. A person must be literally and intrinsically "made holy" before they can stand in the presence of God. "Without holiness no one can see God."

The "altar call" type of methodology practiced by some sects wherein one is called to "receive Jesus Christ as their personal savior," is unbiblical was not historically practiced until recently.

The Biblical way of salvation is the "way of the cross." Not "I believe" therefore "I'm saved."

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2004.

Lets not talk about uncle Jim anymore---makes me more nervous than I already am.

The thought of Hell makes saints.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 21, 2004.

Jake--

Your little exerpt is really creepy.

This is so blasphemous that I want to scream...

"But in the second coming of Jesus Christ, Mary must be known and openly revealed by the Holy Spirit so that Jesus may be known, loved and served through her."

There isn't but even a small hint in God's Word that this will be the case at His return.

You are believing deceiving spirits.....

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.

"There isn't but even a small hint in God's Word that this will be the case at His return."

At the beginning, Genesis 3:15, the promise: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

In the middle, Canticles 6:8,9 One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and declared her most blessed: the queens and concubines, and they praised her. Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?

Near the end: And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

There are two senses of woman here which need to be taken note of so as to avoid confusion. However, the two senses are initimately and inextricably related. In one sense, the woman is the Church. Without going into great detail as to how-so or why-so, simply put, the Church submits to His love. In the another sense, the Blessed Virgin Mary's Fiat response to the Holy Ghost being the very essence, source and paradigm, Mary is archetype of submission to the love of God for the entire bride of Christ, the Catholic Church. Which Church is one, and which is His beloved.

Faith, what you call blasphemy has its fingerprints throughout Sacred Scripture from cover to cover, from Genesis to Wisdom to the vision of St. John, the apostle who stood at the foot the Cross and who heard with his own ears the Savior bequeath His own mother to him and thereby to the Universal Church. It is found to be expressed in prayers and liturgies which predates the Protestant Revolution by a thousand years.

St. Louis De Monfort was a friend of the Cross, and you will almost always find him depicted as such.

To be know Christ is to know His mother, to know His mother is to know Christ. To claim to know one and not the other is evidence of knowing neither.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 22, 2004.

I know St. Louis is well known for True Devotion to Mary but The Love for Eternal Wisdom lays a solid foundation for understanding the context of his writings on the Blessed Mother. Chapter 14 in The Love for Eternal Wisdom is an excellent writing on Christ and the Cross.

His book also makes an excellent companion for anyone studying the Book of Wisdom.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 22, 2004.

Eternal Wisdom is Jesus Christ.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 22, 2004.

Faith: If you want Jesus to be nice to you, be nice to His mom. Can't hurt.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 22, 2004.

I will be nice to her when I am in her presence. I am sure we all-- all saints--will be nice in heaven. Afterall--evil will have been conquered, and it may not enter heaven. Only nice people will be there.

As far as this counterfeit Mary--sorry., but I will not acknowledge it. There is no way that this is the Mary of the Bible who you build shrines to.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 22, 2004.

Faith,

I'm sure Mary is relieved that you will be nice to her when you're a saint in heaven.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 22, 2004.

EMERALD SAID THIS:At the beginning, Genesis 3:15, the promise: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Im sorry, there are two things wrogn here...

The firts beign that you obviosiuly rley on the douat-Rheims ible, as it continues the minor error int he Latn Vulgate. It shoidl read, and indeed does read in all other Bible translatosn taken frm the origional languages, as follows. I quote Genesis 3:15 form variosu other Bibles. The KJV beign the only en npt using "He", instead using "It", because they thought it more accurate. ( Hebrew is a gendered language, and a seed in english is an It. However, iN hebrew it reads "He shall")

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.(KJV)

and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.(ASV)

and enmity I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he doth bruise thee -- the head, and thou dost bruise him -- the heel.`(YoungsLiteral )

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.(Darby)

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel."(world english.)

The Verse does nto refer to Mary.

Likewise,unlike most christains, but like most Jews, I do not see htis as athe very firts Prphecy of the Messiah. It was never udnerstood as a Prophecy of the Mesaiah until the middle ages, when it was ascribed this menaing. However, the Verse was never itnended to be such. Instead, its a curse placed upon the Serpent. ( Never once called Satan, btu this is another topic altogather.)

The verse is a curce on the serpent, syaing that He and his issue shall be enemies wiht what Issues fourth from eve, and even today man and serpent are at odds one with another.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 22, 2004.

But Zarove, the parallel between Eve and Mary has been echoed throughout the ages, dating all the way back to the 2nd century.

Mary, the New Eve Rev. Matthew R. Mauriello Missal of Bernhard von Rohr, Archbishop of Salzburg ca.1481 from Eva Und Maria Verlag Böhlau The first insight regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given by the Church Fathers was the vision of Mary as the New Eve. The earliest patristic texts regarding the Eve-Mary parallel begin in the later half of the Second Century. St. Justin, the Martyr, (+165) in his work, Dialogue with Trypho, states that, "Christ became a man by a virgin to overcome the disobedience caused by the serpent ...in the same way it had originated." The name Eve is taken from the Hebrew word, HAWAH, a verb which means "to live." "The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living"(Gen. 3:20). Eve, the first woman, was a virgin at the time that she was tempted by the serpent in the garden. Thus, Eve, a virgin, conceived disobedience and death, whereas, Mary, a virgin, conceived the Word in obedience and brought forth Life.

St. Ireneus, Bishop of Lyons, (+202) is considered the first theologian of the Virgin Mary. He took up St. Justin's Mary-Eve theme and further integrated it into his theology. Therein, Mary is treated as the New or Second Eve who is the beginning of the second Creation or re-creation of humanity through the Redemption.

He wrote, "The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosened by Mary's obedience. The bonds fastened by the virgin Eve through disbelief were untied by the virgin Mary through faith." (Adv. haereses,3:22)

Jesus Christ is the New Adam, the Lord of the New Creation ( I Cor. 15:45-49 ) and Mary the New Eve who undid what the first Eve had done. The first Eve disobeyed God and thereby brought sin and death into the world. The New Eve, Mary, obeyed and believed God's message which was given to her at the Annunciation ( Lk .1 :26-38 ), and brought salvation and life to the world in her son, Jesus, who crushes the head of the serpent. Mary, like us, shares in this victory .

Tertullian ( +220 ), another Church Father, used the Eve-Mary parallel as a secondary argument in favor of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ and emphasizes the act of faith involved. Building on the insights of Justin, Ireneus and Tertullian, the theme of the Eve- Mary parallel was expanded upon after the Council of Nicaea in the year 325.

St. Ambrose of Milan ( +397 ) writes, "it was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God." St. Jerome (+420 ) succinctly stated, "Death through Eve, Life through Mary." (Epist. 22,2 I ). St. Peter Chrysologus ( +450 ) picked up on this theme in his writings, "Christ was born of a woman so that just as death came through a woman, so through Mary, life might return." . . . . . . . . . .

*********

Also, Zarove the "it" translated as "He" is a neutral gender word in the original language. My Bibles all contain a footnote on that as well.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 22, 2004.

Good link, Andy, thanks.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 22, 2004.

The Hebrew "HUH" is masculine. Is says "He". However, like the French language, Hebrew has genders for everyhtingv. As I explaied, thr KJV translators chose it because in english a seed is an it. Most Choose to translate it "He" because its gramaticlaly spacific and they like the christology of the alledged Prophecy.

It cannot be translated "She".

That said, I concern myself not withhte Second century Ideas abouththe passge, its clealry neither about Mary, nor is it about Jesus. Its not even a Prophecy. Its a curse paced pon a Serpent.

The womans seed and the Serpents Seed wodl be enemies. ( note: If this where prophetic and revealing Christ, why doesnt it say hthe womans seed owul crush the serpent, and wht mention the seed instead? Its there offspring which is mentioend.)

The Idea of the New adam and New eve is aceptable Midrash, but in a p;lain reading, its harldy acceptable.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 22, 2004.

"The Hebrew "HUH" is masculine."

Now that makes sense. Because that's exactly what I say after my wife finishes telling me something, and I wasn't listening.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 22, 2004.

Zarove

a curse on a serpent?!?!

not being funny, but what about cockroaches and spiders etc - also cursed?

i do have a serious point to make - that the Vulgate translation is not an error but deliberate - and that "she" is correct no matter whcih way you look at it.

but this "curse on a snake" business?

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

Read Genesis chapter 3.

It never once said thast Satan asusmed for form of a Serpent, nor does it say that Satan possessed he serpent. it starts out in verse one saying the seprent was the most clezver of all the animals. It makes no refeence to Satan in the entre Chapter, or for that matter int he entre book of Genesis.

Genesis 3:15, the supposed Prophecy, was traditionally understood prior tot he Advent of Jesus as beign a curce placed upon the Serpent, not a Prophecy of the coming Messiah, as it was later interpeted by Christain faihtful int he Middle ages.

Simpley put, Genesis chapter 3 Descirbed a serpent tempting eve, and not Satan.

Also of interest, Paul had the ability ot clarify that this was, indeed, Satan, when he Made mention of this episode in 2 Corinthians chapter 11 Verse 3 , but even the apostle who was traiend in rabbinical shcolarship fp th day made no allusion tot his beign satan.

3. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

It i not written that Satan's head wodl be crushed byt he Mesiah, it is written that the seed of the Seprent and the seed of the woman woudl be enemies. Teh seed refers to there offspiring, and succeeding generations, not to Christ or Mary.

I mean, relaly, if the Seed of the woman is Jesus, as many suppose, as a Literal seed of eve, why is it that the verse doesnt read heat her seed owudl crush the Seprents head aloine? Dos Satan have issue? Obviosuly, as a spirit, he des not.

Satan has no seed, yet a Serpent des, and it is to this that the verse refers.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 23, 2004.

Zarove,

Doesn't Revelation describe Satan as a serpent? I'll grant that it's not explicitly stated that the serpent from Genesis is Satan, but this seems to be how Christians have come to understand it over time.

I think this came about as an understanding based on other passages such as Isaiah 27:1-3

"1 In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword, his fierce, great and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea. 2 In that day- "Sing about a fruitful vineyard: 3 I, the LORD , watch over it; I water it continually. I guard it day and night so that no one may harm it."

and Revelation 12:8-10

"8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. "

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

BTW, for the Catholics here, when was the last time we thanked a preist face to face for their service? They truly are a gift from God. Even the "not so good" priests deserve our gratitude. I'm coming to appreciate priests more and more.

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

Yex, and this is also the way it was explained. we know satan tempted edve because satan is described as a Serpent in Revelations... but this does not relaly direclty conenct to Geneis. No where int he entire Bibel does it say saran tempted eve, either in the orm of a serpent, or else takign possession of a Serpent.

revelations is often used as evidence to support that it was indeed satan in eden, but as you noted, there is no direct reference,a nd the entre ook of revelations is figuratve.

I woidl need a verse that sayd " Satan took the form of a serpent and tempted eve", or the other great theory " Satan entered the bodt of a serpent and tepted eve" before I beelvied it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 23, 2004.

I see your point Zarove, even though I disagree. I have to say that you seem consistent in the rule you apply for interpreting the Bible. I'd be interested in seeing you post on the How do yo interpret Scripture? thread.

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

Zarove:

Matthew 3[7] And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he [St John the Evangelist] said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?

Jesus speaking:

Matthew 12[34] O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

St Matthew 23[33] You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

it would seem that those that opposed Jesus' will [Jewish religious leaders] were considered by Him as descendants of the serpent.

furthermore, He also said of them:

St John 8[44] You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

now, that's all based upon a quick word-search in an on-line Bible. but it suggests that, in imagery at least, as used by Jesus, Satan can have offspring.

personally, i accept that this is a curse on a serpent, is a view point; but why were the other animals that fall into the same category (we don't like [ie we fear] them, they don't really seem to like [ditto] us) - tarantulas, rats, cockroaches, etc - also cursed?

as for the Jewish [religios leaders again] understanding, is that relevant? perhaps, if they had understood it as a promise, they would have accepted Jesus as Messiah and God?

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

But the fact that it wasnt understood as Propehtic woudl seme to indicate that it wasnt a prphwcy, sicne the poitn of Propehcy is to tell in advance what was to be. If what was told wa sunknown tot he peopel, then the Propehcy is moot.

The other verses, incedentally, are fgurative, and not Literal.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 23, 2004.

"..woudl seme to "

i could argue it the other way, but both are acceptable points.

however, moving on a little, i would struggle to accept that the Vulgate is a mistranslation, as is commonly mooted - St Jerome gets the neuter "seed" right in a bunch of other words and "ipsa" sticks out like a sore thumb. i think it reflects the faith. i also think that, though you do not believe it is a prophesy, if it is (as i believe), it is correct that Mary too obliterated the serpent. indeed, you can't deny it at all in the allegorical sense.

but i would say that.

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

If every Catholic began to say their Rosary faithfully every single day, we could very quickly win back the entire world to unity in the Catholic Faith.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 30, 2004.

You are so right Emerald. With the world falling apart at this present time it is more necessary than ever.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 30, 2004.

Think of what could happen if just the Catholic men in the U.S. would stand up & act like Catholic men. The entire West would be led

LED. L-E-D. LED

out of its misery.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 30, 2004.

Good point jake.

In a Catholic Bible study a while back, I heard that the Hebrew concept of the serpent in Genesis is more like a dragon rather than the small sneaky garden snake we typically see pictured in kids books. Adam might have been fearful for his life had he stood up to the serpent/dragon and defended Eve in accordance with God's precept. That idea has stayed with me since and has affected my view of what it means to be a husband and father.

The war that began with that first battle Adam lost, continues to this day. Let's not stand by in fear. Like jake said, Catholic men should act like Catholic men. It's a war we fight defending our loved ones from that ancient enemy. The Rosary is the greatest of weapons in these battles. Of course, we never fight alone.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 30, 2004.

"Serpent" translates "nachash" = whisperer, enchanter, incantor; diligent observer, learns by experience, hisses like a snake.

Then Strong's cross-references Nachash with gaown -- pride, pomp, swelling arrogence.

Enough to make your skin crawl!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 30, 2004.

The Rosary is the greatest of weapons in these battles.

Te more you say your Rosary, the more you want to say your Rosary. In a family, and as a family, of course, is the best way. Along this vein, the role of sacramentals shouldn't be downplayed. Keep Holy Water in the house. I have St. Benedict medals in the kids' rooms. Let children see these things, and the exterior acts of piety they inspire.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 30, 2004.

In that vein I have those medals on the window sills, and a small crucifix at the front and back door.

The Jehovahs can't miss it.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 30, 2004.

We don't have that many musicians out here "cow-land" to add to our music. We do have an organist from the area (she's not Catholic) but she helps at special times of the year. She is a treat as she is truly excellent at her craft.

There is nothing more gratifying to me as a songleader than seeing people REALLY putting their heart and souls into their song. It does seem that that is easier done with "simpler" songs. Not everyone is a virtuoso!

There is a quadriplegic who sits in the front pew every Sunday. Watching her face as she struggles successfully to worship God sometimes brings me to tears. If ever I get got up in "myself" I look to her unpretentious worship, and it humbles me.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 30, 2004.

Good grief! I posted the above on the wrong thread!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 30, 2004.

Good grief! I posted the above on the wrong thread!

Ego te absolvo.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 03, 2005.

How can we assis Holy Mother Church? That is the question. The answers are varied. Prayer is first and foemost and without that the rest is just wasted time.

I read these threads and then go over to the other group. They think that by denying anything is wrong the bogy man will go away. Not so. If Athanasius did that I wonder to where the church would have drifted.

Maybe the modernists really like it that way and the changes are just what the doctor ordered. Never mind that they sold more real estate in the past year than most of the brokers in the world.

I think that I must be nuts to even have a discussion with them. How do you have a rational discussion with someone who says that Vatican II and it's aftermath are teaching the same thing as always, except that today it is with a more enlightened understanding. I can't figure it out.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 05, 2005.

How do you have a rational discussion with someone who says that Vatican II and it's aftermath are teaching the same thing as always, except that today it is with a more enlightened understanding.

You can't, because there's nothing rational about the premise that the understanding of Church teaching can "develop" into the exact opposite of what it originally, clearly, and unambiguously said. They can bridge the gaps between, say, the Assisi abominations and Moratalium Animos, saying there's nothing in either that contradicts the other. Incredible! Yet, there are the lenghts to which they'll go to excuse and promote the regime of novelty.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 05, 2005.

Wake up, thread. Watch and pray.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), January 18, 2005.

Wake up, thread. Watch and pray.

*snork* Huh? Oh.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 21, 2005.

Watch and pray, and stay away from the Novus Ordo, or it will tear out any faith that you have left in you.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 21, 2005.

Millions realize that that is not true, by personal experience. Which pretty well demolishes your pessimistic, unfounded theories.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 21, 2005.

Millions realize that that is not true, by personal experience.

The New Springtime has caused many people to lose the Faith. I know this from personal experience. TC's statement can't be rejected as false simply because many more choose to remain fat, dumb, and happy.

Which pretty well demolishes your pessimistic, unfounded theories

Does not. Doesn't "demolish" a thing. God destroyed the entire world with a Flood, and chose to save one man & his family, beacause they were the only ones doing what they should. One family. The rest of the world was wrong.

Pretty much demolishes your "millions of Novus Ordos can't be wrong" theory.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 21, 2005.

God destroyed them precisely because they had forgotten about Him and were living ungodly lives. Just the opposite of those who faithfully worship Him as His Church teaches He should be worshipped.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 22, 2005.

"Millions realize that that is not true, by personal experience."

As a sidenote, the idea of personal experience is something which was addressed by Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical against the Modernists Pascendi Dominici Gregis. This section deals with the Modernist as a believer:

"Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate."

Trent: If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration, let him be anathema.

Which pretty well demolishes your modernistic, unfounded theories.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 22, 2005.

If I may be so bold. Html.

"Millions realize that that is not true, by personal experience."

As a sidenote, the idea of personal experience is something which was addressed by Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical against the Modernists Pascendi Dominici Gregis. This section deals with the Modernist as a believer:

"Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate."

Trent: If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration, let him be anathema.

Which pretty well demolishes your modernistic, unfounded theories.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 22, 2005.

"If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer."

Ka-BOOM!

-- jake (j@k.e), January 22, 2005.

No religion is all truth., and thankfully--God's church is not a religion at all.

God's church is a body of believers, those found in Him by faith. Christianity is a relationship--not a religion.

You are all arguing for earthly man-made doctrines and teachings....

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

Let me ask you a hypothetical, Faith. Jesus tells us in Matthew that if we have a grievance against our brother, to "take it to the Church" after attempting reconciliation. Now, if you have a skirmish with a sister-in-the-Lord from a different church other than the one you go to, which church do you take your grievance?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

Can't I ask you the same question, Gail?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

You go first!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

In my opinion, that verse is not inteneded that you can just go out into the world and call anyone up to your church elders for confrontation. What about unbelievers?

Don't you get the impression that this verse is refering to people from within the same congregation?

Remember that even in those early days--each church was its own governing body. So if someone from Corinth had a dispute with someone from Thessalonica--what church would they go to?

Don't you think that they would go to fellow believers?

If I had a problem with my friend next door who is Catholic, I certainly could not bring her to my church, nor could she bring me to hers--but we could seek help from other Christian friends.

If she was in my church--then I would, as a last resort--take it to my church elders.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

"Don't you get the impression that this verse is refering to people from within the same congregation?" One Church, yes.

*****

"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]" Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians,3(A.D. 110),in ANF,3:80

****

All of the dilemnas you mentioned were nonexistent pre-reformation. You're precisely correct, you wouldn't bring a Presbyterian before your Baptist board, and likewise I doubt you would be willing to subject yourself to the authority of your friend's church. But Christ didn't address these verses to a bunch of self-ordained autonomous churches, He addressed them to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Furthermore, Christ had already addressed the "bunch of friends" scenario you suggested.

Matthew 18:16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.

Mathew 18:17. And if he refuses to listen to them, TELL IT TO THE CHURCH, and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax gatherer.

Taking it to the Church is the last resort, and excommunication is a possibility of there is no repentance. Christ's words however are null and void within Protestantism because of its many factions.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

Poppycock--

Division and problems have existed since the begining. Paul was speaking to it immediately.

There was not One Church in the early days, but many churches...all having their own governing board, and none answering to any other particular church, including Rome.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

Afraid you are dead wrong, Faith, the Church was ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, and that is why Christ's words are pertinent to IT! Protestantism CANNOT possibly obey Christ's command because it's structure was not ORDAINED by Christ.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

Christ's church is the holy, catholic and apostolic church--it just isn't the Roman Catholic Church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

“And must there not result from this ever-growing spirit of immortification, a general effeminacy of character, which will lead, at last, to frightful social disorders. The sad predictions of Pope Benedict XIV are but too truly verified. Those nations, among whose people the spirit and practice of penance are extinct, are heaping against themselves the wrath of God, and provoking His justice to destroy them by one or other of these scourges—civil discord, or conquest… The word of God is unmistakable: unless we do penance, we shall perish. But if our ease-loving and sensual generation were to return, like the Ninivites, to the long neglected way of penance and expiation, who knows but that the arm of God, which already raised to strike us, may give us blessing and not chastisement?”

Dom Guéranger, OSB, Liturgical Year

-- jake (j@k.e), January 23, 2005.

arise.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 29, 2005.

"Friends of the Cross, you are like crusaders united to fight against the world....like brave and valiant warriors on the battlefield, who refuse to retreat or even yield an inch. Be brave and fight courageously....combine your efforts to acquire the eternal treasures hidden in the Cross. Pleasure-seekers unite to enjoy themselves; you must be united to suffer"....

St. Louis Marie de Montfort (1673-1716), from

-- jake (j@k.e), January 29, 2005.

Top.

-- jake (j@k.e), February 04, 2005.

Yeah let's do more on this thread.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 04, 2005.

Link to source of jake's quote.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 05, 2005.