ahow can one think thaat he is catholic, and still not be a Catholic; Read below;

It is a fact that one can be in John Paul II’s “Church” and be pro-abortion. An honest person cannot deny this. John Kerry is a case in point: the Vatican and his Bishops have been fully aware of his obstinate pro-abortion stand for a long time, and yet he has not been excommunicated. Thus, those who continue to say that John Paul II is the real Pope and his Bishops the legitimate hierarchy, but that one still cannot be a Catholic and be pro-abortion, are liars. The “hierarchy” of John Paul II recognizes him as a Catholic. Thus, it is a fact that one can be a part of the sect of John Paul II and be pro-abortion. This alone proves that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. The false traditionalists who obstinately accept the apostate John Paul II – and his disgusting, apostate Bishops – mock the Catholic dogma which condemns abortion by recognizing as Catholic a hierarchy which recognizes pro-abortionists as Catholics. The disgusting, phony hierarchy of the Vatican II sect and John Paul II are so heretical and such a sick joke that they cannot even bring themselves to excommunicate the execrable John Kerry.

-- TC (Treadmill@south.com), January 08, 2005

Answers

abortion is good in some cases when i doesn't happen too late...

a zygote or embryo don't have a life and aren't human beings...so....

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 09, 2005.

Abortion si murder in all cases,thus is worng, and a Zygote or embryo is huan, and I dont have to elaborate sice you dont...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 09, 2005.

"It is a fact that one can be in John Paul II’s “Church” and be pro-abortion."

The attempt to establish a distinction between John Paul II's Church and the Catholic Church will fail. They are one and the same.

"An honest person cannot deny this."

Actually, they can. By drawing out the hidden premises and by drawing the proper distinctions, an honest person actually can deny it. I'll do it for you.

"John Kerry is a case in point: the Vatican and his Bishops have been fully aware of his obstinate pro-abortion stand for a long time, and yet he has not been excommunicated."

Anyone who has an obstinate pro-abortion stance cannot be in the Church, since a Catholic who remains obstinate in this way is already excommunicated latae sententiae. They're already out of the Church. Therefore, no one can truly say that one who holds these views remains within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. One can only appear, outwardly, to be a part of the Church while holding this view.

Furthermore, and this should be more than obvious: the absence of a formal, public decree of excommunication from the Church does not constitute proof of communion with the Church.

What you are doing here is assuming the conclusion in order to attempt a proof of one of your premises. Your premise, put into an explicit form, is this:

"Pope John Paul's Church is different from the Catholic Church"

An attempt to support your invalid distinction is made by attempting to force through another flawed premise, which, if stated explicitly, would like is this:

"John Kerry is inside the Church because he was never issued a formal excommunication."

But of course, that's nonsense, since if Kerry is a pro-abort, he's already excommunicated, despite having never been the recipient of a decree of formal excommunication.

"Thus, those who continue to say that John Paul II is the real Pope and his Bishops the legitimate hierarchy, but that one still cannot be a Catholic and be pro-abortion, are liars."

No they're not. You failed to distinguish between latae sententiae excommunication and formal excommunication, that's all.

Failing this distinction makes it appear as if you are able to put forth your erronious conclusion:

"The “hierarchy” of John Paul II recognizes him [Kerry] as a Catholic. Thus, it is a fact that one can be a part of the sect of John Paul II and be pro-abortion. This alone proves that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church."

But if your argument were actually valid, this absurdity would result:

Unless the Church issues a formal decree of excommunication for everyone who claims to be Catholic while violating the doctrine and law of the Church publicly, then that "Catholic Church" who fails to do so, is not the true Church.

Now that truly is absurd.

"The false traditionalists who obstinately accept the apostate John Paul II – and his disgusting, apostate Bishops – mock the Catholic dogma which condemns abortion by recognizing as Catholic a hierarchy which recognizes pro-abortionists as Catholics."

I say, on the contrary, that one who does not accept John Paul II as the Supreme Pontiff of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, has violated the infallible dogmatic declarations of Vatican Council One and has fallen into heresy.

"The disgusting, phony hierarchy of the Vatican II sect and John Paul II are so heretical and such a sick joke that they cannot even bring themselves to excommunicate the execrable John Kerry."

There's a little trick that Modernists like to enguage in, whereby after having assaulted to truth by propping up one agitating antithesis after another, they revisit the thesis itself to try to rerender it into something it is not. Its a game they play. They want to recast the thesis in an unfavorable light, into something it is not. Strategically, it goes like this:

Assault the Church with an endless barrage of antitheses. Some Catholics will fall for the various heresies and heterodoxies put forth. But the honest ones won't. The honest Catholics shrink from each one, and cling to the thesis, since they want to remain orthodox and loyal. But when they attempt to return to the thesis, they find that the same Modernists who were firing antitheses at them right and left, have even tried to rerender the thesis into something it is not, in order to make it appear undesirable. This leaves the flock dangling and indecisive.

The thesis is traditional Catholicism. You would have people believe that rejection of the papacy is a prerequisite for traditional Catholicism.

I would like to either talk you out of heresy, or expose your Modernism, one or the other. At your service.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 09, 2005.

Emerald; To call me a modernist in disguise is about the worst thin possible. I am an unabashed sedevacantist for which I do not apologize.

If Kerry is automatically excommunicated, why do they still give him communion?

They fail to diferentiate between Kerry and a "nobody" that is excommunicated.When a "nobody" receives it is unknown to the people recceives. but when Kerry receives it is a public scandal. This makes the Church look foolish indeed.

It is as if they are talking out of both sides of their mouth, declaring abortion the most henious of crimes, and then offering the the Host to the best known abortionist in the nation.

That man has to make a public abjuration before the Church would accept him back.

The Vatican left the Catholic Church in 1962 and became the church of apologizing for every pope before that time.

The evangelizing church became the church of the "simehow someway" church.

You know, "somehow someway everybody is in the Church". JP proves it by his visit to every sect and culture in the world . lauding them while he is there but not uttering a word about the saviour Jesus Christ.

If that is the Catholic Church tell that to Thoma More, John Fisher, Isaac Jogues and the rest. That is if you want a good laugh.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 09, 2005.

When Our Lady of La Salette told Melania Calvet in 1846 that "Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ she must have meant the current times. To that add the warning from the Fatima apparitions to open the 3rd secret by no later than 1960. It would then be more clear. John 23 opened it, read it in 1959, put it away, and said, "This does not apply to me". He was right on because he opened that horrid council in 1962 and sold out the Catholic Church.

The facts are there. It went down faster than a broken elevator in a skyscraper.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 09, 2005.

According to the Catholic Enyclopaedia, 1913, "An exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e. were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as 'de fide catholica'. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto, cease to be pope." Taking all this into consideration, we are forced to conclude that the Roncallists are in schism and constitute a heretical sect. As such we are strictly bound to reject them.

But what of the millions who never apparently formally consented to the Roncallists' schism, but nevertheless mistakenly followed them?

These too are culpable.

They all knew, or ought to have known their faith and their catechism, and they ought to have seen that what the Roncallists were doing, perverting doctrines, the sacraments, traditions and practices of the Church, was wrong and protested, and when protests failed, publicly separated themselves from these heretics, as God commands us to do. So these people have no excuse, and cannot pretend to be still 'Catholic.'

But these people could not remain with the Roncallists unless they personally consented and partook of the crimes of the Roncallists! Therefore, regardless of their claims to be still 'Catholic,' they are, at the least schismatic and largely even heretics, and are to be regarded and treated as such. To them, as to all other heretics, I once again extend God's invitation to abandon Satan and his works, and join themselves to the one and only true Church of God, outside of which there is no salvation. Let every man choose whom he shall serve, God or Satan. As for me, I choose God.

They are foolish men who adhere to these antipopes. You call them ‘Fathers’, but when you ask them for bread, they give you a stone; ask for fish and theygive you a snake; ask for an egg and they give you a scorpion. Staying with them is, then, unprofitable.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 09, 2005.

"Emerald; To call me a modernist in disguise is about the worst thin possible. I am an unabashed sedevacantist for which I do not apologize."

I don't know that you're a modernist in disguise; I can't have knowledge of that sitting at this end of the keyboard. What I can do is to attempt to show that the sedevacantist position cannot be properly concluded in light of the current pontificate or the two or three which preceeded it.

As a sidenote, I have caught non-Catholics arguing the sedevacantist position as if they were Catholics, though, with the intent of encouraging traditional Catholics to leave the Church. Now I'm not saying you're doing this, because there's no way I can know that. But at the very least, I know you hold the sedevacantist position, and could attempt to show how it is a deviation from the right path to believe that the Chair of Peter is unoccupied.

"If Kerry is automatically excommunicated, why do they still give him communion?"

They shouldn't.

"They fail to diferentiate between Kerry and a "nobody" that is excommunicated.When a "nobody" receives it is unknown to the people recceives. but when Kerry receives it is a public scandal. This makes the Church look foolish indeed."

You're right. It makes everyone look bad.

"It is as if they are talking out of both sides of their mouth, declaring abortion the most henious of crimes, and then offering the the Host to the best known abortionist in the nation."

That's correct; it is sending a mixed message, and it's weak. It's a scandal and a joke.

"That man has to make a public abjuration before the Church would accept him back."

Right. They really should call him onto the carpet and force him to make a choice. If he chooses to hang on, to be obstinate in his pro- abortion stance, then they should toast his * with a full-on, public decree of excommunication. Then they should turn around to whoever is watching and say, hey, you got a problem with it, and if so, ask who wants to be next.

"The Vatican left the Catholic Church in 1962 and became the church of apologizing for every pope before that time."

There is in fact a certain sense in which it can be said that "Rome has lost the Faith" or that the "Vatican has left the Catholic Faith" or something along those lines, but you have to really, really clarify exactly what you mean by that. Because it's true in a certain way. The Vatican right now is full of filthy prelates who have in any number of ways personally lost the Faith and work towards the destruction of the Church. There is a New Theology which is heretical, most of which rely entirely on ambiguous texts for their subsistence. And the new rites are just plain limp and weak; milktoast in their expression, though they still persist in validity at minimum standards in regards to matter and form.

If anyone wants that the above is untrue, let them claim otherwise; let them come in and well fight about it. It's an obvious fact, and I'd take them on.

But the Church will endure this as well.

"The evangelizing church became the church of the "simehow someway" church."

I know. It's an embarrassment. Not to mention the probable huge toll in lost souls.

"You know, "somehow someway everybody is in the Church". JP proves it by his visit to every sect and culture in the world . lauding them while he is there but not uttering a word about the saviour Jesus Christ."

He talks about Christ a lot; I can't say he doesn't. But this thing about "somehow someway everybody is in the Church", you're right. He does seem inclined to think way. But that doesn't make it true, and certainly does not make it doctrine or a new teaching of the Church. Even he can not make it so.

But if you take the sedevacantist position, remember that we do have infallible dogmas concerning the papacy that must be honored. They must be adhered to. There is no choice in this matter if one is to remain Catholic.

Here's what I'm saying: we have all this bad stuff going on. I would be the first to stand up and agree with you on that fact. What I'm trying to get across is this: concluding that the Chair of Peter is vacant, at this point, is a theological speculation. In fact, even the proposition that "a pope cannot be a material heretic without losing the papacy" is also, of itself, a theological speculation.

Always and everywhere, it is a major theological "don't" to put theological speculations ahead of dogma in the order of allegiance. Dogma is to be always-believed, no matter what. No matter what.

There's nothing unCatholic about saying that a particular Pope is lousy. But you can't decide, because of that, that he's not the pope. Example: you may be angry at your father, and you may be correct in that anger. However, this does not require that you disown him. Not a perfect example, but somewhat close enough.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 09, 2005.

By the way TC, if I come across as nasty or combative, please don't take it personally. From this end, I have zero bad sentiments at all; just trying to deal with it clinically.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 09, 2005.

> "It is a fact that one can be in John Paul II’s “Church” and be pro-abortion".

A: Yes, of course one can. If one could not be in the Holy Catholic Church and also be a sinner, there would be no Holy Catholic Church. If the only members of the Holy Catholic Church were those who currently fully understand, accept, and live by every truth the Church professes, it would be a very small Church indeed. Fortunately the Church is designed for sinners, to gradually bring them into the fullness of truth. Fullness of truth is not a prerequisite for individual membership in the Church. It is the eventual result of such membership.

> "John Kerry is a case in point: the Vatican and his Bishops have been fully aware of his obstinate pro-abortion stand for a long time, and yet he has not been excommunicated".

A: Aren't we lucky that the Church doesn't excommunicate every obstinate sinner! First let's excommunicate all those who are tainted by the pro-abortion rhetoric we are bombarded with every day. Then let's excommunicate all those who obstinately use artificial birth control. Then perhaps all those who obstinately participate in sexual relationships outside of marriage - OUT! All who use pornography - OUT! All who shoplift - OUT! All who attend illicit Masses - OUT! Have I touched on your particular areas of sin yet? If the Church excommunicated all obstinate sinners, none of us would be around for long. Fortunately the Church is designed as a hospital for sinners, not a club for saints. All of its members are sinners. That's why it exists.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 09, 2005.

But Paul, you have to think this through. Being a public advocate for one of the more heinous crimes is just a tad beyond being your average "sinner in the Church falling and getting up again". We're talking about something at the level of hardened hearts and near complete spiritual blindness... someone willing to let babies die because his career depends on it, or would profit from it. You have to be willing to make the concession of a distinction of variation of degree in this situation.

"If the only members of the Holy Catholic Church were those who currently fully understand, accept, and live by every truth the Church professes, it would be a very small Church indeed."

Consider this, though:

"Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church's enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith." -–St. Peter Canisius

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 09, 2005.

All who attend illicit Masses - OUT!

You mean, SSPXers are "in?"

-- jake (j@k.e), January 09, 2005.

Paul M.,

Don't you think that all true Christians are forgiven sinners?

And what does that mean?

To be forgiven--one had to *repent* and confess Jesus is Lord. One had to ask Jesus into his life and enable him to walk according to God's will. Yes?

If someone is a practicing sinner--are they saved? Are they truly in communion with God? Remember that stumbling and making mistakes that we regret is a far different thing than from deliberately sinning.

Someone who professes faith in Jesus Christ and then eagerly participates in these type of sins--needs to be corrected. While my church is tolerant of all sinners--it in no way tolerates the sin.

John Kerry does not know the Lord.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 09, 2005.

Faith, you use the word saved so loosely and incorrectly that you render it meaningless.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 09, 2005.

My understanding of *saved* is biblical Andy.

If we are delivered from the power of sin and its penalty., then we ought to be walking in Him, with His strength.

If we aren't saved, or if we haven't been delivered, then we can't possibly follow Him.

What is it that you think we are saved from?

I think it is ultimately from final judgement because we are found innocent in Christ. There is no condemnation for those who are in Him.

Eternal life is a blessing we receive because we are saved.

What's so off and loose about that?

I think most people confuse salvation with eternal life. One does lead to the other--but they are different things.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 09, 2005.

Oops.., I meant Emerald, sorry.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 09, 2005.

Eternal life is a blessing we receive because we are saved.

What's so off and loose about that?

On its own, that statement means nothing.

It's a platitude.

It's a bumper sticker.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 09, 2005.

Like usual jake., your cliche' is useless and meaningless because you offer nothing more.

Allow God to speak to you, rather than the leaders of your heretical sect.

According to God's Word--salvation is the deliverance from evil and the power of sin and the penalty thereof. You may not like that concept, but so what?

Perhaps your bumper sticker could read:

"I earn everything I get!"

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 09, 2005.

Emerald;

Read cum-ex-apostolatus officio, Feb. 15, 1559. A dogmatic papal bull. If the V2 "popes" don't fit that one, no one does, and there is no such thing as a heretic. It is just a useless word.

You said that this "pope" has led many into hell. Does that sound like the Lord wanting all to be saved?. It would make the Lord a liar. So who do I choose, my Lord's integrity, or JP"s integrity. Not a difficult choice.

I have plenty of my own sins to pay for, much less choosing sides with an Anti=Christ. He is not worth it. Yes, I pray for his soul llike the sinners that we all are, but I would not pray for him a a pope. The evil that he has perpetrated for the past 25 years is just too much.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 09, 2005.

Faith; if you are saved, then why do you face judgment?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 09, 2005.

Perhaps your bumper sticker could read:

"I earn everything I get!"

Well, it could read: "I'll get what I deserve."

-- jake (j@k.e), January 09, 2005.

Well then jake--

....you are in big trouble, because the Scriptures reveal that we deserve nothing!

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

Emerald,

Why do you ask me why do I face judgement if I am saved--or better-- why does the church face judgement if it is saved?

I do not believe that those who are saved, face judgement. We are those names found in the Book of Life.

Our deeds--good or bad, are judged for their worth. And we are rewarded accordingly. But this has nothing to do with judgement unto salvation.

1 Corinthians 3:13-15

...his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

....you are in big trouble, because the Scriptures reveal that we deserve nothing!

We are damned by default, that is correct.

We have also been provided a Remedy. Whether or not we choose to recognize & apply It has eternal consequences.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 10, 2005.

You can discount this or not, but it must raise some doubts in an objective mind;

Former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams cites declassified U.S. intelligence documents allegedly showing that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope Gregory XVII at the conclave that, two days later, produced John XXIII.

In 2003, former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams, author of the recently-released Osama's Revenge, published a book called The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia (Prometheus Books). Although the book deals with alleged Vatican corruption in terms of money and power and has a decidedly liberal flavor, Williams also-- almost as a side-note--includes some straightforward, objective information on the papal conclave of 1958. In what cannot be called anything other than a stunning series of claims, Williams, who is not a Catholic traditionalist, asserts:

In 1954 Count Della Torre, editor of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, warned [Pope] Pius XII of [Cardinal Angelo] Roncalli's Communist sympathies. Other members of the "Black Nobility" expressed similar concerns.[5] Nor did Roncalli [later known as "Pope John XXIII"] escape the attention of the FBI and CIA. The agencies began to accumulate thick files on him and the questionable activities of other "progressives" within the Vatican, including Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Paul VI). [...] Pius XII had appointed Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as his desired successor.[7] Siri was rabidly anti-Communist, an intransigent traditionalist in matters of church doctrine, and a skilled bureaucrat. . . . In 1958 [on October 26], when the cardinals were locked away in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope, mysterious events began to unfold. On the third ballot, Siri, according to FBI sources, obtained the necessary votes and was elected as Pope Gregory XVII. [8] White smoke poured from the chimney of the chapel to inform the faithful that a new pope had been chosen. The news was announced with joy at 6 P.M. on Vatican radio. The announcer said, "The smoke is white. . . . There is absolutely no doubt. A pope has been elected."[9] . . . But the new pope failed to appear. Question began to arise whether the smoke was white or gray. To quell such doubts, Monsignor Santaro, secretary of the Conclave of Cardinals, informed the press that the smoke, indeed, had been white and that a new pope had been elected. The waiting continued. By evening Vatican radio announced that the results remained uncertain. On October 27, 1958, the Houston Post headlined: "Cardinals Fail to elect pope in 4 Ballots: Mix-Up in Smoke Signals Cause False Reports."[10] But the reports had been valid. On the fourth ballot, according to FBI sources, Siri again obtained the necessary votes and was elected supreme pontiff. But the French cardinals annulled the results, claiming that the election would cause widespread riots and the assassination of several prominent bishops behind the Iron Curtain.[11] The cardinals opted to elect Cardinal Frederico Tedischini as a "transitional pope," but Tedischini was too ill to accept the position. Finally, on the third day of balloting, Roncalli received the necessary support to become Pope John XXIII. . . .

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 10, 2005.

Yes jake, but that alternative is a gift--something we cannot earn and never deserved. It comes by God's mercy to those who believe in His Son and have placed their faith in Him. The end.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

TC,

How could you believe that this seat could possibly be that of Christ? The position is obtained not by sovereign election, but by murder?

Oh please.

And you should know that this isn't only since the day of Vatican II.

Do you know the History of the middle ages?

What about Pope Ursinus and Damasus? Have you ever heard about the simultaneous election of these two?

An apostolic line of succession operated by armed force?

Really??

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

Faith;

I am not claiming that all popes are angels, some may even be devils, but many are saints.

Nevertheless Faith, Unless you die as a Catholic you are toast.

We shall know on the other side, however Our Lord said "On this rock I will build my Church" That is church not Churches, singular.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 10, 2005.

That's okat TC. I'll take my chances since I believe that the Rock is Jesus Christ--and not Peter.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

Faith. Iwill give you one thing. You are strong in your beliefs, but even though I think that you are a heretic, you are far from the worst.

The worst are the neo-catholic modernists. They are further away from the faith of Jesus Christ than you are.....much further away!

-- TC (Treadmilll234@south.com), January 11, 2005.

Well TC,

Thanks? I guess?

Lol!

But I am not far away from my Lord and Savior. I think I know Him pretty well. He reveals more and more to me everyday as I walk with Him.

I am not perfect, and I know I disappoint Him often enough. But each day, I get just a little closer....

And because of Him, my life is forever changed. I also see how He has worked in the lives of those around me whom I love and pray for.

My biggest prayer is for my husband, who is not a believer. Lately, I see things in him that I would never have believed :)

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 11, 2005.

Faith;

Let us pray for each other so that the Lord will lead us to where He wants us to be.

I will pray for your husband also. We don't want Satan to get anyone if we can do something about it.

God bless you.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 11, 2005.

"I am not perfect, and I know I disappoint Him often enough. But each day, I get just a little closer.... "

And someday, "We all, with unveiled faces beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory . . ."

Metamorphis, it's a great thing!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 11, 2005.

TC

"The worst are the neo-catholic modernists. They are further away from the faith of Jesus Christ than you are.....much further away! "

fyi, Faith believes that the Church - whether or not in an inter- regnum, as you argue - is the Whore of Babylon. this is just one belief of Faith's. but it is enough.

you might wish to re-consider your [no doubt well-intentioned] rapprochement - because you simply can't argue that ecumenism is bad whilst at the same time giving succour to the visible enemies of the Church.

i can't, either, imagine that Faith will be insulted by this description - "enemy of the Church". from a Catholic perspective, is there anything worse, TC? you tell me.

sorry faith. this is none of yr doing, i know.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 12, 2005.

Ian;

Faith does not have the experience from inside the Church that the neo's have. They have far less of an excuse than she, and I believe that they will be held more accountable.

They come over here sometimes from the other Catholic groups, and I snoop over there quite often.

The so called logic of Paul, Eugene and their ilk is amazing.

These people are supposedly Catholic but they are the most rabid heretics that I have ever read. They discount the chuch before V2 as though it never existed.

They pay a sort of lip service to it, but it means nothing. Tey see their church ( and I do mean their church, because it is not Catholic), collapsing aaround their ears, but their eyes are closed.

The excuses are illogical and lame, and their church truly began with V2. To attempt discussing anything with them, (as emerald does), is little short of insane.

I truly believe that the V2 church has made life easier (if less holy for the people who stay there. It is tough to be a traditionalist, even tougher than in our parents day when they walked to the corner church and it was the same as a church anywhere in the world. Now it is surprise time every time yo walk into one of those places. It is a contest to see who can bring Our Lord down further than the next guy.

Indeed Ian, they are not Catholic, and with Faith (who knows) she may become a catholic some day. However if she goes Novus Ordo, she has gone nowhere. Why go somewhere where she still would not receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Phony priests, phony ordinations, phony consecrations, and a phony pope.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 12, 2005.

Ian;

I just looked in at that other website. I see that you have fallen into the trap of trying to argue logically with them. I m not wrong as they cannot see the forest for the trees.

Baptism; We say it every sunday, and yet they do not believe it. "One faith, one baptism", Gospel of John. But what the heck, it is hopeless.

But I do have good news. I just saved a bunch of money on prozac"

-- TC (Treadmill@south.com), January 12, 2005.

Correction; That should be Apostles Creed, not St. John's gospel;

Here is soething else;

You are correct in your analysis of the Biblical text. The "it" against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, referred to in Matthew 16:18/DRV, is the Church (Latin ecclesiam, Greek ekklesían).

Your analysis makes a lot of sense and accords with the principles of dogma treated at Vatican I. The pope is not the be-all and end- all, but has his appropriate role in the Church, just as do bishops, priests, and the laity. Certainly the head is not all there is, any more than (to use your metaphor), the head would exist without a body, like the disembodied head of the Wizard of Oz.

There is a tendency among extremists these days to make the pope equivalent to God, a heresy known as papolatry, that is, divine worship of the pope (Greek latria). This appears to be an extension of the modernistic personality cults that spring up around movie stars, rock stars, and sports stars. But there have even been many periods in the past when the Church had no living pope (or didn't know for sure who he was) -- over 260 of these periods between popes, lasting from several weeks to several years.

No one disputes the fact that there has not been a living pope every minute of every day since A.D. 33. So what does the Church rely on during papal interregna? The Church always has Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to rely upon, that is, Public Revelation, left to us by Our Lord, as well as 260 popes and 20 dogmatic councils. So the Church is never without guidance, never without a pope, because it always has some 260 to refer to. The point is that the gates of hell have not, and will not, prevail against the True Church. We have Our Lord's promise of that in what called the dogma of indefectibility.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 12, 2005.

Ian; On the one baptism thing in which the 3 baptism folks are heretics; Enugh popes have defined one baptism.

ALL WHO DIE WITHOUT BAPTISM ARE LOST

It is a defined dogma that all who die without the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be saved.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Not only this, but all of the following eleven arguments from the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church prove that only the sacramentally baptized can be saved. Thus, all the pagans, Jews, Muslims, infidels, etc. who die without baptism, which incorporates one into the Catholic Church, are lost.

1) The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (de fide, Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5).

2) Unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot enter heaven (de fide, Florence, Exultate Deo).

3) The Church understands John 3:5 literally every time, as it is written (de fide, Trent Sess. 6, Chap. 4), and with no exceptions (de fide, Florence: Denz 696; and Trent: Denz. 791, 858, 861).

4) The Spirit of Sanctification, the Water of Baptism and the Blood of Redemption are inseparable (de fide, Pope St. Leo the Great).

5) All Catholics must profess only one baptism of water (de fide, Clement V, Council of Vienne).

6) There is absolutely no salvation outside the one Church of the faithful (de fide, Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council), which only includes the water baptized.

7) Every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved (de fide, Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam), and it is impossible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide, Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2).

8) One must belong to the Body of the Church to be saved (de fide, Eugene IV and Pius XI), and only the water baptized belong to the Body of the Church.

9) The Church is defined as a union of sacraments (de fide, Eugene IV, Cantate Domino; Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam), which means that only those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism can be inside the unity of the Church.

10) All true Justification meets up with the Sacraments (de fide, Sess. 7, Foreword to the Decree on the Sacraments).

11) The Sacraments as such are necessary for salvation though all are not necessary for each individual (de fide, Profession of Faith at Trent and Vatican I; and the Profession of Faith for converts), which means that one must at least receive one Sacrament (Baptism) to be saved but one doesn’t need to receive them all.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 12, 2005.

TC

thanks for the info!

re- Catholic Greenspun, fyi, truth is, i went over there trying to find answers - not to influence anyone's mind. i'll just keep asking questions and see what happens.

what i still can't understand is how there is compatibility between the "old" Dogma and the "new" Church. maybe my eyes just need opening? but i do need to be sure before i hop off the fence in one direction or the other. at the minute, i go to Indult where it can be found, NO otherwise. that can't really continue, i think; though maybe it can.

to my current mind, the worst position to be in is not the Kung-ite camp (infallibility was invented, baby, so chill out) or the trad camp (infallibility honoured in all its gory detail). its being in the middle - where you argue infallibility and then pick and chose which infallible teaching you accept.

that seems to me, at the minute, where the Church lies. bit like my on position, maybe ;-)

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 13, 2005.

TC

Wouldn't number 7 in your list above apply to the Roman Pontiff we have now?

I for the most part grew up in "novus ordo," left the Church and have now returned but am intersted in the feelings of those who do not accept VII. I'm doing what the Church says, repect John Paul II, and wouldn't want to be off on my own again.

My 20 year lapse leaves me in no position to throw stones. But I remember John XXIII was highly regarded by everyone in the early 60's. There were pictures of him in some of my classrooms.

For those of us (in my age group) who left the Church, and there were many, we are coming back to the same Church we left. I only have vague memories of pre-Vatican II.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 13, 2005.

TC, Faith was raised Catholic.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

I once heard of a duck who tried desperately to defame the swan. At one time, the duck was a swan, but the duck realized that it was no longer a swan. Deep inside the duck there really still lived the swan, but the duck felt that those days were gone, hence the antagonism(sp?) towards the swan. One day, the duck shall return to its original state and beauty of being a swan.

"Quack, quack!"

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.

Ian?

When you say that I am an enemy of the church--what do you mean? Who is the church? Is it the people as it should be? I don't think so. The Church as far as I can tell--is the hierarchy.

So in many ways, I am against that. This is because I believe it is the work of the devil.

But I love the people. Too bad it isn't really their church. They have no say., no control., and no hope of ever really learning the truth because it is hidden away from them. The truth is lost in a thinly disguised mess of false doctrines that seem right.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 13, 2005.

Faith? Are you possesed by a demon or something? You are calling God's Church the work of the Devil. Don't you even fear what could happen to you for saying such things about God?

Wouldn't it be best just to walk away from the Catholic Church and leave it at that? At least, you could walk away without the blasphemous attitude towards the Church. Talk about malice and inciting discord towards those who are Catholic.

Yes, Zarove. I will not post on this matter. I'll drop it for now. I'm sure Faith will continue to call us Devil worshippers pretty soon.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.

Jim;

TC "Wouldn't number 7 in your list above apply to the Roman Pontiff we have now?"

It certainly would if he kept faith with all his predecessors(prior to V2.

He obviously has not. If he passes on the deposit of faith as it was handed down, of course we have to obey. A pope however has no authority to change dogma to suit his own thinking. The power of pope is not an unlimmited one. He also ha to stay within the teachings of the church.

No, I did not know that Faith was an ex Catholic. All the more reason we should pray for her.

0

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 14, 2005.

TC,

What dogma has John Paul II stated "infallibly" that is in contradiction to any dogma declared by previous popes?

Is it your assertion that Christ has allowed the Church to be shepherdless for 40 years? Even if John Paul II reversed everything in Vatican II, modernist elements would still be in the Church. The war would not be over.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 14, 2005.

Andy;

He has not stated anything infallibly. He does not have to in order to accomplish what he wants.

Just repeat the heresy over and over again in the news and in his writings (even before becoming "pope").

In Germany before WW2 Goebels learned that if you repeat a lie long enough it bbecomes the "truth".

JP knows that lesson well. Is ecumanism a defined doctrine by him..No. Is salvation outside the church defined by him.. No. But it is being accepted throughout the Catholic world and that is all he needs to do.

The man is clever.. very clever, and that is the danger.He can destroy, (well almost destroy) the church, and yet he is being praised for it.

Imterregnum does not necessarily have time limits. Time is meaningless to God.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 14, 2005.

Rod;

Be careful in identifying a swan as the Catholic Church.

From my days studying animal behavior (experimental psychology), swans look elegant but they are extremely territorial and foul (fowl?) tempered. It is even questionable whether white and black swans can live in the same area. When there is an abundance of natural food and shelter, they still drive off other aquatic birds such as ducks, geese herons, and egrets that are important to the ecosystem and depend on the same environment. On the other hand, ducks and various other birdlife – perhaps with the exception of predator birds - are able to live in the same area without conflict.

I still like my motorcycle analogy, full dress and cross country… both types are motorcycles yet neither can be the other as they travel over different types of roads and trails to arrive at the same city on the hill. Catholics should be comfortable with that understanding, "different accidents, same substance."

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 14, 2005.

Hi Robert.

Hmmm. After having a good look at the history of the Catholic Church, the swan may seem like the fitting bird. But, I do understand what you have pointed out. BTW, I'm a duck and I know what the swan thinks of me. But, unlike that ugly duck, I don't go quacking at the Church with foul singing.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

Faith: "Ian? When you say that I am an enemy of the church--what do you mean?"

[in same post] Faith: "This is because I believe it is the work of the devil."

Ian: "Happy New Year, Faith!"

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 14, 2005.

Can I be an archeopteryx? Oh I forgot, sem creationist guy said they where frauds...( Im not harpng Faith, just a bad joke.)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 14, 2005.

We All come from the same Church. Thats my thought. Even those who aren't Catholic. Guess that reveals my cafeteria tendencies. However, I still don't get your answer because you are questioning the Pope based on past Pope's teachings. If I understand how this is all supposed to work, the current Pope will not be lead us astray. It can't happen!

How do you know you are right? Can't the Holy Spirit reveal more perfect understanding, or did it stop before Pius XI. Is it all over now. Are we done with undrstanding revelation?

Hi, Rev. Fretz, nice to see you post. Been a while.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 15, 2005.

Thanks Jim;

What you described is Dr. Bart Ehrman’s (Lost Christianities) designation of the ‘proto-orthodox’ church that existed along with the multitude of Christian communities in the first three centuries. Some of those churches were identified as heretical, such as the Gnostic and Ebionite communities. The majority of congregations (East and West) rallied around the growing influence of the proto- orthodox church in Rome.

Why? The standard answer for every Catholic and Reformation Christian who affirms the Nicene Creed: truth with a capital “T.” Historically, Rome was also the source of money, power, and cultural acceptance that was shared with other proto-orthodox churches in the empire, while the ‘heretics’ withered on the vine.

This centralized power in Rome, rather than Jerusalem or Antioch, was accepted by the rest of the bishops – particularly in the east - because it was ‘neutral territory’ and the process of church wide decision making was still (and continued for many centuries) by council.

Finally, I guess no one got my joke about “accidents and substance.” It depends on an old joke: “What is the definition of a motorcycle? An accident waiting to happen.” Which underscores the old dictum, “Never explain a joke.”

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 15, 2005.

Rev Fretz,

I have enjoyed reading Bart Ehrman. Lost Christianities was facinating. Have you ever read anything by Luke Timothy Johnson. He has an interesting approach that is informative but somehow stays within traditional teaching. I think he was a monk.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 15, 2005.

Dear Jim;

Thanks for the lead. Here is an interesting article from Beliefnet. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/133/story_13333_1.html

Peace, Bob Fretz

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 15, 2005.

I reluctantly have to decide that the current pope is an enemy of the one and only true Catholic Church. He ha sold out to the world and in particularly to those who want the downfall of the church.

More Papal Treason On Sunday, March 26 , 2000 the Pope prayed at the "Western" or "Wailing Wall" in Jerusalem, making remarks betraying Christianity -- begging the forgiveness of the heirs of Caiphas.

Here is the "prayer" the Pope placed within the wall: "God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your name to the nations," said the note in English, which was later moved to the Israeli Yad Vashem Holocaust museum to be preserved. "We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer. And asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant. Jerusalem, 26.3.2000. Joannes Paulus II."

Not one word about Jesus Christ, His Crucifixion or Resurrection, just a nonsensical supposition that the Khazar Zionists from eastern Europe who have scourged the Middle East with blood and fire, and who have as their supreme holy book not the Bible but the Talmud, are somehow "the children of Abraham and the people of the covenant." It is a strange Covenant that includes neither Christ nor the Bible.

The Pope is idolizing a nation of people, putting them on a pedestal for worship, exactly as the Talmud does. What a sad, sick joke on Christianity. John Paul II has betrayed the Gospel not for 30 pieces of silver but for media approval and fame.

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

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 27, 2005.

bump 234

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 27, 2005.