Why did Pope John Paul II refuse taking papal oath

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

PAPAL CORONATION OATH

This sacred oath was taken, as recorded in Church annals, by every Sovereign Pontiff of the Catholic Church since Pope Saint Agatho in June 27, 678. Many believe it was even taken by several predecessors of St. Agatho. Who composed it is not known. What is known is that at least 185 Supreme Pontiffs took this solemn oath over the past 1300 years. In this oath, the Vicar of Christ vows to never contradict the Deposit of Faith, or change/innovate anything that has been handed down to him.

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."

This sacred oath was taken religiously for 1300 years up until October 1978. The question must be asked: Why then, did John Paul II not follow his predecessors and take this sacred papal coronation oath? He is the first since the 7th century and before to not do so. Why?

-- JS (A@A.com), January 30, 2005

Answers

A standard question posed by fundmentalists and schismatics who lack any actual substantive criticism they might level against this living saint. Psst ... did ya hear? John Paul II refused to take the Papal Coronation Oath! Whoooaaa! That sounds serious! Of course, 99.9% of Catholics have never heard of Agatho's Oath, and haven't the slightest clue what it is; but refusing to take a Papal Oath - well, that sure SOUNDS serious!

If it were true that "all Popes since Agatho have taken this oath", that would simply mean that some of the WORST Popes in the history of the Church DID recite this bit of verbiage. So, what's the point? Obviously there is no correlation between the recitation of a 7th century liturgical innovation and the quality or holiness of a given Pontiff!

In fact though, there were numerous changes made over the centuries in the coronation oath supposedly written by Pope Agatho (though evidence indicates it is unlikely he actually did write it). The original form attributed to him has not been used since the 11th century. The reason no pope since Vatican II has taken a coronation oath is that a coronation is no longer part of the installation ceremonies for a new pope, a much needed return to the teaching of the early Church, where a pope was first and foremost a shepherd, not a king. And few popes have personified that reality as consistently as John Paul II.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 30, 2005.


Paul.

What does it matter of any catholics know about it. It still remains a fact that no pope has refused, including the conciliar popes. They tok it. The part about changing nothing could be the problem.

Pius X and popes that followed did not worry about who wrote it, they did not hesitate to take it.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 30, 2005.


You may explain to us, then,

Why did Pope John Paul II refuse taking papal oath?

You must KNOW, so cut out the funny business and tell us. You are becoming very tiresome, you know.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 30, 2005.


IF he's a Trad I say the answer ges somehtign liek this.

" He isnt a real Pope."

Just a guess though, that does seem to be the direction this thread's [pster wants us to go...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 30, 2005.


Paul M..just to clarify then..

Pope John Paul II is NOT the only modern Pope who has not taken this Papal Oath,and Vatican II changed the entire procedure for installing a new Pope..is that correct?

Could you elaborate on why that was done..My question is NOT a criticism at all, I am curious as to why the coronation of the Pope was deemed to be a tradition that was not necessary anymore, since I had always thought it was done not to symbolize the secular power of the Papal office but to symbolize that the Pope, as the representative of Christ on earth, was the recognized leader of HIs Holy Church.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 30, 2005.



I find the language saying that he "refused" to take the oath interesting. As if he was against what was in it. Kind of begs the question, doncha think?

If I were to make a wild guess, I would say something like this: The last two centuries have seen the collapse of reliable faithfulness to the Magisterium, and as well, studies in the liberal arts. In today's bi-polar and simplistic, dualistic, modern world, people lack nuance--they tend to think either (1) the Church can't change anything in any way, ever, for any reason; or (2) it can change anything and everything, always has, and always does.

Between these two extremes lies the Church's providential understanding of the development of her own doctrine: a deposit of faith, a series of dogmas, an unchanging Tradition; yet also an unfolding, blossoming, Spiritually guided Tradition. Although I haven't read it, I suspect that John Henry Newman's essay on doctrinal development (which is more a description of the past than a plan for the future) makes this very explicit.

Probably the social climate is such that the Oath is only misunderstood these days and is no longer a useful expression of the Papal office--true as it remains. The trads would read it as proof that the hierarchy has apostated; the liberals would simply defecate all over it.

It's one of those things--like Latin, ad orientam Masses, and Gregorian chant--that tomorrow's priests must labor to raise up God's people, that they can accept them once again.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 31, 2005.


From 2003(greenspun.catholic forum):

I did quite a bit of research on this issue because I never accept stuff I read onthe I-net. This smacked of urban legend to me. Here's what I found: 1) The "Oath" quoted is from a collection of formulae compiled over several centuries and may or may not have been written by St. Agatho;

2) That collection of formulae, including the oath, has not been in use since the 11th Century - - thus, NO pope after the 11th Century has taken that oath.

This is the kind of scurrilious stuff one would expect from non- Catholics who feel the need to make up lies about our Church in order to lure converts, or worse, people who callt hemselves Catholics but who discredit the Pope.

-- Lori Valdez (lolival@earthlink.net), October 30, 2003.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), January 31, 2005.


This pope has apologized for past popes and the Church. He is the only one to do so. Someday someone will be apologizing for him. If they were wrong, what makes him think that he cannot be wrong.

[Pope Saint Stephen (254-257) said, "Let them innovate in nothing, but keep the traditions."]

Then what if a Pope does deviate from Tradition and inaugurates novelties such as ecumenism and pop-music liturgies? Are we bound to follow him in these novelties? Are we bound to defend these innovations?

According to the teaching of Pope Innocent III, and according to the great theologian Juan de Torquemada, and other Saints and Doctors of the Church, the answer is No! We are not bound to follow. We are encouraged to resist. .

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.


The Pope did not "apologize" for anything. No-one can apologize for actions they had nothing to do with. He did express regret over certain immoral behaviors by some Church leaders in past history, but he did not express regret over anything they taught, since they, like he, cannot officially promulgate any doctrinal teaching contrary to the will of God. A "pop music liturgy", while I do not personally approve of such a thing (nor have I ever had the opportunity to see such a thing - have you?), is not a deviation from Tradition since it is strictly a liturgical, not a doctrinal matter. Such a liturgy would deviate from traditions of the past, but not from Tradition. You need to learn the difference. And of course those traditions of the past were deviations from other traditions of the more distant past. While traditions change over time, Tradition never changes, since it is the immutable Word of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 31, 2005.

More bogus Chicken Little theology: ''According to the teaching of Pope Innocent III, and according to the great theologian Juan de Torquemada, and other Saints and Doctors of the Church, the answer is No! We are not bound to follow. We are encouraged to resist.''

Torquemada wasn't any great shakes, Smith. We can hardly worry about him. The saints and doctors NEVER incited the faithful to reject any pontiff; that's ridiculous. ''We are encouraged to resist'' no Pope, but heretics. All your post here is a study in negativism and false doctrine. Every day you sink deeper in your schism.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 31, 2005.



With all due respect the use of customs, discplines and so on , have been used to change the church in such a way, that it is unrecognizable from just 60 years ago.

If it weere for the better who could object. Can anyone seriously say that it has?

When one quotes the terrible decline in attendnce, shortage of priests, closing of churches and so on, you hear "Well there was trouble before V2". Maybe so, but disaster, no.

Next you will hear, "What polls say that"?

The modernists have an answe for everything, but that does not stop the reality of the bloodletting that is draining the church of it's life.

Another hope; Well Africa is growing. Maybe, but the other continents are becoming home to muslims and Islam.

You can deny it all you like but stark reality still goes on.

I am not a beligerant protestant or atheist. Despite a hate monger on these threads, I love my church. Denying the troubles as he does is not going to make them go away.

If this man was on the Titanic he would say "What a lovely night for a swim".

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.


"With all due respect the use of customs, discplines and so on , have been used to change the church in such a way, that it is unrecognizable from just 60 years ago."

A: This is true if your concept of "the Church" is based solely on externals. However, by that measure you would also have to say that the Pre-Vatican II Church was "unrecognizable from the Church of the Apostles", a charge which Protestants, who have no concept of the essence of the Church, often do make. On the other hand, if you do fully appreciate the essence of the Church, that which truly makes the Church the Body of Christ and the channel of salvation for all men, apart from and overshadowing all the externals, then it is immediately obvious that the pre-Vatican II Holy Catholic Church IS the Church of the Apostles, and that the Holy Catholic Church of today IS the Church of pre-Vatican II. It cannot be otherwise. Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of time, and He is.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 31, 2005.


Dear Schismith:
I'm not a hatemonger. I labor to help you repent; a spiritual act of mercy. You may not appreciate it; but I remind you that instigating the faithful into SCHISM is a grave sin; it MUST be. You're sending souls to hell if they follow after you.

You think I'm mistaken? Aha! But I haven't denigrated the Pope; YOU have. I haven't spread gloom: ''. . . the bloodletting that is draining the Church of it's life.'' You have.

--I love Jesus Christ; I answer his call to Holy Mass, the sacraments, veneration of His saints, charitable contributions, denouncing sin.-- Yet you call me ''Modernist!'' Because I won't raise a sweat over EXTERNALS; things like marble altars and the Latin language.

And; worst yet; you express disdain and contempt for protestants and denominational Christians. Just like the Pharisees did at the Anawim; sinners, lepers and the poor; all of whom Jesus loved so much.

Pharisees had a love of ostentation; just like YOU. A glamorous Temple; just the kind YOU admire; and no pretense of love for their neighbor. You haven't expressed love for non-Catholics. You just love LATIN, and silence in the congregation. (Nobody replies in Latin.) You're offended because the Pope seeks out sinners, and for his efforts to reunite Christians. You'd rather have NO unity; no calls to love our brethren. You don't have FAITH. No faith in the Holy Spirit, and no faith in the Catholic Church. I'm telling you the truth, not hate-mongering. You MUST listen; schism is a grave offense against God, the Church and the faithful.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 31, 2005.


Question; The pope seeks to reunite sinners.

Tell me how he is doing that.

Qiestion; The church is in change for the better.

Is it accomplished by making it as small as when it started out.

Bottom line and no spin; Where have all the Catholics gone, and where are all those protestants coming in.

No one here has addressed the problem; The dialogue agenda has brought nothing in over 40 years. If downsizing the church was the answer, they have succeeded.

I love the latin? Not necessarily. The Tridentine Mass in English would do nicely. However what happens when I go to Europe.

If it were in Latin I am used to it, but I do not know German, or French, or Swahili. Latin for latin's sake was not the reason. The reason was a universal language that one could find comfort in wherever he went.

Doesn't Catholic mean universal?

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.


''If downsizing the Church was the answer, they have succeeded.'' You ask for ''the answer,'' yet have no idea what question you're asking. No-- our holy mother Church is not diminished, and not down-sized. Not any more than a sinner is out of the Church while he/she still has time to repent. Many of the ones you count as ''lost'' are sure to come home; and some who feel justified in an assumed state of grace may yet go to the devil. (I keep warning you.)

You evade the subject of love. You don't even contest the fact you're prejudiced against all non-Catholics and detest anything that ''resembles'' protestantism (in our Novus Ordo congregation.) It's the apparent; that external appearance that concerns you. Not internal goodness or charity or faith. You're motivated by anger against our clergy and our Holy Father. You have no impulse to real Communion or love. Your charity is going cold.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 31, 2005.



Your vituperations aside, ( of which there are many). If you were in politics you would surely be elected.

You have the correct agenda. When you have nothing of substance to say, attack the opponent, shout, make unsubstantiated accusations, but never never, answer the question. Nice going for someone not wise to the game, bu easily spotted by one who has seen that used.

Who said anything about no love and lost souls. Not me.

I just said that the church has lost attendees and did not say that they were lost. That is what you read into things that are not said.

Difficult as it may be, has attendance gone down dramatically since V2 or not? Try to answer without going into a tirade Just a yes or no will do.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.


You have a very low vituperation threshhold; I was not smearing you, just telling the facts. You vituperate His Holiness, the Church, me and all the faithful.

I make plain what you never do: speak with love, advance better understanding, tell the whole truth.

The facts are, we have a long way to go; the population of our country has exploded; and the Church isn't ''rich'' as some would tell you she is.

But she isn't losing the faithful. She's losing people like yourself, who want no part of ecumenism, Pope or prelature. You feel a law unto yourself. And yes; she is welcoming many protestants home once more. We number a few here; such as Gail and Michael. We love the Jews as brothers; we haven't reviled a single one. You are more intent on hatred for all Jews who won't toe the line. Instead of praying for them, as I do. All in all, your love threshhold is very HIGH. Nothing gets out of your cold heart.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 31, 2005.


You are off on another teaar Mr. C. Just a yes or no.

Of every 4 attending Mass before V2, now it is one.

Maybe it is my "lack of love" that drove them out of the church.

100.000 converts a year back then, now a paltry 10,000 . And that includes Gail.

Rant and rave all you like, those are the facts.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.


JS, if these are facts, perhaps you wouldnt mind showing us the non- biased source you got them from. as i hear tell from my elders, mass attendance before V-2 wasnt so hot either, and as i hear tell, the overall number of catholics was falling prior to vatican 2, meaning its a case of correlation rather than causation.

I'd be interested in any polls you can show us which are not skewed, however.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 31, 2005.


Are catholic college polls good enough?

Mass attendance: A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.

Maybe 18 percent or less today in 2005.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.


The Catholic Church isn't promised myriads of new souls a year by Christ; nor is her flock meant to multiply like minnows in the Okeefenokee. Is that what you thought, Smith?

Numbers give no indication of holiness, nor does the Church number only a scant few of the saved, for that matter. Over 2,000 years her growth is significant enough. From the 1960's to now they're still formidable in holiness and greatness.

Is the Church about to multiply salvations or lose many more? Only God can say. The important thing is for us to remain faithful and set the example for all those to come. We follow the successors of Peter. God adds the increase. Praise Him and keep the faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 31, 2005.


Hey Johnny boy why don’t you dig up a poll which asks people WHY they don’t go to Mass? I bet for every Mass-misser who answers “Because the Pope didn’t have a coronation / introduced vernacular liturgies / ecumenism / Vatican 2” etc. there will be at least ten who don’t go because they think the church is too “old-fashioned and mired in tradition” re morality and liturgies, not ecumenical enough etc.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 31, 2005.

Now there are two of you who can't face the truth. Alibi, alibi, alibi. OK keep it up and see the numbers drop even more.

Or you can fight for the church and at least try to save it from further loss of people.

Even if you don't succeed you can say you tried.

You may not like it but the people going to the traditional mass are increasing. They have no problem getting priests and nuns. I have yet to see a deacon or a need for altar servers. I know, you say that they are schismatics. Well they are living a Christian life with beautiful families etc.

Maybe what you should do is recruit a few schmismoes.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.


Haha! ''people going to the traditional mass are increasing.'' Are you mice?

But, seriously: WE have the traditional Mass, Mr. Smith. Mass as the bishops and pontiff of Jesus Christ's Church authorize. The Traditional Catholic is by definition he/she who doesn't oppose the Pope and our bishops. By that criterion, you're leaving Tradition behind for Schism.

Let's have your rationale for this lapse, Mr. Smith. I hope you don't stonewall it again, trying to distract by quoting another 12th century papal document.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 31, 2005.


For once Mr. C. you are correct. Why should a church that is barely forty years old worry about a 12th century document.

-- JS (A@@A.com), February 01, 2005.

Is the See of Peter only forty? I suppose Rome was built in a day after all; according to you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 01, 2005.

Maybe the old tenants moved in 1958 and the new tennants called the property Novus Ordo, meaning new order. How can a church change it's name without chabging it's meanings, trappings ,and everything that (to them), reeks of the old order.

Do not go by who is occupyng the old school buildings, just see if the curriculum has changed. by your own admission it has. They, like youself, do not want to be bothered by those old fogey dead popes.

-- JS (A@A.com), February 01, 2005.


I'm only bothered when you employ them to strike at our Holy Father the Pope. They had other missions in their own day; and none meant to hamstring any of their future successors.

If you believed in the Holy Spirit, I wouldn't have to explain that to you. You'd know how evil it is to strike at the Vicar of Christ.

If you believed in the Holy Spirit, you would love your brethren instead of calumniating them in your blanket calumnies.

If you believed in the Holy Spirit your faith in Jesus' Holy Word would be unshakable, as mine is.

If you believed in Him, you'd realize that Christ's property-- Novus Ordo, meaning new order-- and the HOLY MASS, has keys that He entrusted to Peter, whose primacy you challenge here every day;

But you do not believe. --You work in the DEVIL'S favor to Divide and Rule. That is more and MORE obvious; every day you post your views here.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 01, 2005.


Dear John,

The papal coronation, and coronation oath, only originated in appx. the 8th century: which means the Church had existed without it for 700 years. I should think this is not an essential thing.

But I know your deeper concern is the Tradition, whether it has been passed on. I believe it has; or at least devoutly hope so!

I speak from the heart: What will you do if, upon the death of John Paul II, yet another pope is elected who accepts Vatican II as authoritative? How long can can the Church go on without its Rock Foundation manifest in the person of the Holy Father of Rome? I ask the question with interest and with seriousness, for it seems to me you might have a dilemma: a Church without an earthly head for more than a generation. Are there even any Cardinals remaining from older times? Or are you perhaps expecting the Great Chastisement to intervene upon the death of this pontiff? That seems agonizingly apocalyptic to me, though I do know Christ will come again at some point, and I know also that Our Lady promised "a time of peace" at Fatima.

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), February 01, 2005.


Michael I apreciate your comments so much more than Mr. C. He contributes a lot of heat, but no light.

Our Blessed ord warned us that we would know them by their fruits. What are the fruits of Vatican Two?. It is easily discernable.How much longer can this go on, how many more churches will be sold,how many more scandals must be unearthed? I believe that these are valid questions. Even the pope has covered up the recent scandals, protecting the guilty at the expense of the innocent.

A good pope would clean house of these vultures, but no he promotes them. Look what happened to Cardinal Law. Banned to a monastery? No but instead given a cathedral of his very own.

Michael thes things are public knowledge.

I would venture a guess that you have never been to a traditional Mass said by traditional priests. If one is available I urge you to experience it. It will tell you more in one hour than I could in years.

I am not concerned about who and how the new pope will be made. That is the work of God. I can only do my bit while He gives me the time to do it.

-- JS (A@A.com), February 01, 2005.


John Schismith has no faith in the Holy Spirit. ''We would know them by their fruits. --What are the fruits of Vatican Two?'' Catholic worship. All seven sacraments, the Creed, veneration of all the saints; Mary above all, loyalty to our Pope and bishops, Lenten devotions, Holy Hours and perpetual adoration, Bible classes, RCIA, charitable causes & community service, PRAYER, PRAYER, PRAYER.

Need more?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 01, 2005.


John Schismith has no faith in the Holy Spirit. ''We would know them by their fruits. --What are the fruits of Vatican Two?'' Catholic worship. All seven sacraments, the Creed, veneration of all the saints;

Portrait of Newchurch;

1. Altar out, table in.

2. Tabernacle out, President's chair in.

3.Statues out, banners in.

4.Sacred music out, Rock music in, sometimes protestant hymns.

5. Kneeelers out, sitting in.

I could add five more but what is the use. Old is out, new is in.

Oh yes. Worshippers out, empty seats in.

-- JS (A@A.com), February 01, 2005.


You say--!

1. Altar out, table in. Not at all. Table isn't in at all; we offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass on our altar: ''Pray, brethren that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to Almighty God Our Father,'' (English Orates frates.)

Tabernacle within the House of God, Jesus reserved and adored within the Holy Tabernacle, with His lamp lit at all times. (Sorry to contradict you, Schismith.)

My lovely church, Saint Basil the Great's; many fine statues, our great crucifix with a magnificent white corpus stands in the sanctuary where the FIRST tabernacle, front & center is, above us all; and to either side, long banners;

Our SECOND golden tabernacle is in an adjacent chamber we call Mary's Chapel. Here we make Friday evening Holy Hour and Benedictions; with Jesus before us in His exquisite golden monstrance. We also say Rosaries and the Saint Michael's chaplet there; SUNG.

''Sacred music out, Rock music in, sometimes protestant hymns.'' -- Our hymns are varied; from traditional (Ave Regina, Agnus Dei in Latin,) to negro-influenced hymns, (Give me Jesus, Taste and See the Goodness of the Lord,) to a few well-known protestant standards: Amazing Grace, etc.,) There's MUCH to admire in some protestant hymns; but first you must stop hating them. ----------- ---NO Rock performances. Our chorus is a large and well-trained musical ensemble. You would surely like it.

Kneelers out, --sitting in. (? ? ? ) ---------You're dreaming again. And inventing.

''I could add five more but what is the use--?'' You'd have to lie. And I would expect you to, as you've done above, JS.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 01, 2005.


Hooray for your church. I suppose that you don't travel very much. I talk to novus ordo people and they say "Well if your church does that find another church">

Since when does a catholic have to go church hunting?

You know as well as I do that the traditionals do not have to go church hunting. I have gone to many trad churches and they are all one in the same. No hunting necessary.

-- JS (A@A.com), February 01, 2005.


I am dreaming about kneelers? I hear that you live in caifornia. Vist the Rog Mahal. Look for kneelers or anything other that is catholic.

That is the brand new way to go. Over two hundred million and not a few more bucks for kneelers.

I used to sing that amazing grace song "That saved a wretch like me"

OK if you don't mind heresy.

I asked a N.O. Priest about that and he said "Yes you are saved" So much for the protestant side of N.O.

-- JS (A@A.com), February 01, 2005.


''. . . as well as I do that the traditionals do not have to go church hunting.''

We are also ''traditionals; moreso than those like YOU who excoriate (a fifty cent word) the Pope and our bishops. (Decidedly un-traditional.) Anyway, ''Hooray for your Church.''

I've never shown any disrespect for the Mass of Trent, and why should I? The Tridentine liturgy is divine. The Novus Ordo Liturgy just as divine. --It is yourself here, who is the Devil's Advocate, Schismith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 01, 2005.


''Visit the Rog Mahal. Look for kneelers or anything other that is Catholic.'' --The Holy Eucharist is Catholic. I'm sure it is. You blaspheme one Catholic parish's house of God, calling the Church Rog Mahal? Nice goin' Pharisee!

''That is the brand new way to go. Over two hundred million and not a few more bucks for kneelers.''

Do tell. The cardinal should've saved another million bucks by leaving out pews. Then we should be required to stand; otherwise kneel on the stone floor, as many do in the ancient Catholic cathedrals.

I knelt on a hard stone floor in Spain, at Seville's holy cathedral which is standing since the late 8th century. No place to sit, except for the monarchs, within the sanctuary, behind a long iron grille. A VERY holy site, indeed. (With Holy Mass celebrated today in Castillian!)

Same in the ancient cathedral of Barcelona. and in Santiago Compostela. Some have kneelers; and if they run short, we have to kneel gratefully on the floor. (It's great penance for your sins, Schismoids.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 01, 2005.


You keep your rog mahal and I will keep my tiny trad chapels. We still kneel for Our Lord, but the bishops say that it isn't necessary. Well some day every knee in heaven, on earth, or beneath the earth will kneel, (like it or not).

Do your priests , (father tom, or Jim, or bob) ever refer to Our Lord, or do they always refer to Him as Jesus, like the prods on EWTN

-- JS (A@A.com), February 01, 2005.


You may judge by the names I call Jesus;

The Holy One of Israel,
The most Glorious and Sacred Heart of Jesus,
Our Divine Saviour,
Our Holy Redeemer,
The Holy Son of God.

We hear these names all the time in our Novus Ordo parishes. And: Jesus Christ. --For saying which, I don't apologize to anybody.

You love to mock us. Go ahead, you're doing a fine job here for the devil, Schizmoid. You'd have had much better chances elsewhere; and God brought you here instead. You need us to show you the way.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 01, 2005.


I did not ask what you call Our Lord, I asked what your priests call Him. Do you also sing saved a wretch like me, or do you shut up when they come to that heretical line?

Your answer will be "We are trying to save you schismo. Always name calling, because you cannot defend what THEY DO.

So you are Holy and kneel for communion, but do they?

I do say a lot of what is wrong, because there is a lot wrong.

You are the exception in your church and not the rule. That is very good.

You kneel and pray after mass for a few minutes to thank God for what you have received. How many follow suit, or do most head for the door while raising the talk level to a football game level.

Not in your church. You people are the epitomy of what the church should be. That's good. You live in an unusual neighborhood. Congratulations.

-- JS (A@A.com), February 01, 2005.


St. Robert Bellarmine said: "When we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the House of God."

Does that look familiar in the novus ordo? Not your church which hopefully still has the high altar, but so many do not.

-- JS (A@A.com), February 01, 2005.


Don't quote Saint Robert Bellarmine to me; he wasn't an enemy of his Pope, as you are. You don't represent the Church; you're a Pharisee.

By suggesting that our Church is nothing except a chair for preaching and a table for making a meal, you blaspheme her. Your own actions are disgraceful; you're just another Pharisee like the ones who hated Our Lord. I resort to calling you those names to REJECT your posts, so filled with hatred for your brethren. You deserve WORSE than scornful names, since you've undertaken the task of defaming our clergy, our bishops and our Pontiff. I denounce you. I'll thank you to keep your sick opinions to yourself. You are pandering for Satan, who hates the Catholic Church.

We know this because of your overt attacks on the Catholic faithful. You have abandoned faith in the Holy Spirit, to aid and abet the devil.

Of course, we can't expect any love from the Devil's Advocate whose sole mission is to accuse Christians of sin. --I call all others to witness, Schismith; that this is what you've done every day since you first came here; accuse and hate our Catholic clergy, the prelature and our Holy Father.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 01, 2005.


I will stop but not because of you. I am sorry for you. You are an empty suit, or maybe head. You have not had one word of objection to what they are doing to the church that you love.

In plain words you are a sucker! Just like a hayseed ready to be taken by the city slicker.

So empty your pockets to pay off the actions of the pedophiles. Fortunately you don't have to put up bail money for the bishops who are covered by the statute of limitations.

You keep calling on he Holy Spirit. Too bad V2 did not call on Him.

Keep lying to yourself when you hear that Our Lord said ALL. Keep kidding yourself when you sing Amazing Grace.

Dump on Lesley and the others who want to protect their kids from such bishops and priests.

Write to the bishop indeed. If you have to let him know what is going on, what the deuce is he doing?

Dont call him on Wednesday. That is golf day.

Ahhh what's the use!

-- JS (A@A.com), February 02, 2005.


Is this what the Holy Spirit says: ''What they are doing to the Church that you love?''---- ? ? ?

No, it's what a schismatic on his own is saying. ''THEY.'' You call the Pope and our bishops THEY.

You're a sheep, Sir. Not a shepherd. Why don't you believe any longer, in the Holy Spirit who counsels and guards His Church? You agitate and conspire against the successors of the holy apostles. Not by authority of the Holy Spirit. That authority is your bishop's. You are in schism!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 02, 2005.


"I love Jesus Christ; I answer his call to Holy Mass, the sacraments, veneration of His saints, charitable contributions, denouncing sin.--"

"O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican. I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess." --Luke 18

And you accused him of being a pharisee?

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), February 02, 2005.


I see you've also taken to openly judging this person to be in schismatic. Something you never would let yourself do in the past, but now, openly state and repeat continually as if you had the authority to make such determinations. And publicly, no less.

You have no authority in this matter. You can't make that determination without way overstepping your bounds. You can't judge the internal forum like this. No one gave you that authority. You don't know the state of his soul.

And that's without even calling you on the carpet as understanding what schism really is in the first place. As you if really knew what it meant.

You can't do that without being guilty yourself of stepping out of a layman's shoes and imagining yourself to be in a position of authority. The very self-same accusation that you make against a traditionally-minded Catholic here whose mind and heart greives for the current state of the Church is applicable in truth to you, right here, right now.

Like I always say: the right-wing liberals are always guilty of everything they accuse the trads of.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), February 02, 2005.


I was not going to post here anymore, but I have to thank you Emerald for your fair minded letter.

Taditionals are not welcome here, so be it.

I have never judged the soul of Mr. C. I have offered him a chance to explain the changes in the church. He has never, even once, addessed my concerns.

I have had enough of his uncontrolled rage.

Again, thank you Emerald.

-- JS (A@A.com), February 02, 2005.


"I love Jesus Christ; I answer his call to Holy Mass, the sacraments

When's the last time you went to Confession?

-- jake (j@k.e), February 02, 2005.


Dear Emerald:
You're correct up to a point. No one is supposed to judge; as if God needed my opinion. I called this person a schismatic on firm enough grounds, though.

The Catholic Church is ruled by an hierarchy of fallible priests; and we know there are many who displease Our Lord. We may lament this, but if we presume to say the Church is dying, or that ''they'' are destroying her,

We deny three articles of the Apostles Creed. 1.) The Holy Spirit. --2.) The Holy Catholic Church, and 3.) The Communion of Saints.

Smith is actively denying them and inciting others to do so-- He instigates rejection and rebellion against a holy Council of the Catholic Church convened by the Popes with the Catholic Magisterium and our separated brethren, under the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

Doing so, Smith divides the seamless garment of Christ's Church and the full Communion of her saints. He rends apart this Church founded by Jesus Christ; because of his personal differences with the hierarchy. He indulges in the false pride of schismatics back in the Church's Byzantine era. (Therefore, he is accused of schism. This isn't rocket science; it's very plain.)

Nevertheless; I myself shouldn't react angrily against such falsehood with open scorn DAILY;

But, Schismith AND you, AND Jake-- place a strain on the faith of other good Catholics. You tempt others, and you ridicule our loyalty to the Pope. You deride our Liturgy, our sanctuaries, our PEOPLE.

In which circumstance, I've tried now for weeks to neutralize the noxious influence of this dangerous servant of the DEVIL. Because whether or not you face the fact: Satan is thrilled with your grandiose ideas of ''tradition''.

Notice how in desperation Smith has shown his cards-- unwisely:

''You are an empty suit, or maybe head. You have not had one word of objection to what they are doing to the Church that you love.

''In plain words you are a sucker! Just like a hayseed ready to be taken by the city slicker. --So empty your pockets to pay off the actions of the pedophiles.'' (Our innocent priests not excepted, or even hinted at--) ''Fortunately you don't have to put up bail money for the bishops who are covered by the statute of limitations.'' (Again, the ancient love for money, the thing that MATTERS

+

I think these are words very similar to the words Satan spoke to Jesus Christ; when his efforts to tempt Him proved useless. The evangelist didn't have to record that, but we can be sure the devil screamed bloody murder at Our Lord (Matt, 4:1-11).

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 02, 2005.


You tempt others, and you ridicule our loyalty to the Pope. You deride our Liturgy, our sanctuaries, our PEOPLE.

Absolute nonsense.

I assume you have specific examples of each to cite? If not, I ask that you cease this ridiculous line of accusation. Oh, and define schism while you're at it.

-- jake (j@k.e), February 02, 2005.


Dear Jake:
By God's grace and no merit of mine, I confessed all my sins two weeks ago. As per usual, my every moment since then is spent vigilantly guarding against even ONE offense against our Lord and Saviour. And every day I implore Him again, ''Be merciful to me a sinner.''

To which, I suppose Emerald will surely respond: ''And YOU! accused him of being a Pharisee?''

If you truly love your brethren as yourself, Jake; with Christian charity-- Don't get in their faces with that question; ''Have you been to confession?'' It isn't your business, and never was.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 02, 2005.


Jake;

''Absolute nonsense.''

''I assume you have specific examples?''

Sure I have. But I refuse to let you cross-examine me today. If you don't believe what I said, take it with a grain of salt. I won't feel bad.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 02, 2005.


It isn't your business, and never was.

...which brings me to my point: I'm as fit to judge your soul as you are to judge Smith's, which is not at all, as you correctly pointed out upthread.

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

Sure I have. But I refuse to let you cross-examine me today.

I didn't think so.

If you don't believe what I said, take it with a grain of salt. I won't feel bad.

I take everything you say with a grain of salt.

-- jake (j@k.e), February 02, 2005.


Pardon the seeming ''last word'' Jake;
I don't ''judge Smith's soul'' but his words in this forum; and the pernicious influence of the words. His soul isn't being judged. The effect he has here is judged--

If my OWN words are to be judged, I hope you have grace and wisdom enough to be a fair judge. I'll allow you every opportunity to change my words, make me retract my words, --just go ahead and shoot down my words. You're welcome to try.

Now you may have the LAST word. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 02, 2005.


If my OWN words are to be judged, I hope you have grace and wisdom enough to be a fair judge.

I won't judge them at all, but I will list a few of them. Judge yourself.

Every day you sink deeper in your schism.

I remind you that instigating the faithful into SCHISM is a grave sin; it MUST be. You're sending souls to hell if they follow after you.

You don't have FAITH. No faith in the Holy Spirit, and no faith in the Catholic Church. I'm telling you the truth, not hate-mongering.

some who feel justified in an assumed state of grace may yet go to the devil. (I keep warning you.)

--I love Jesus Christ; I answer his call to Holy Mass, the sacraments, veneration of His saints, charitable contributions, denouncing sin.--

You are more intent on hatred for all Jews who won't toe the line. Instead of praying for them, as I do

you're leaving Tradition behind for Schism.

If you believed in the Holy Spirit your faith in Jesus' Holy Word would be unshakable, as mine is.

you do not believe. --You work in the DEVIL'S favor to Divide and Rule

John Schismith has no faith in the Holy Spirit

You'd have to lie. And I would expect you to, as you've done above, JS.

It is yourself here, who is the Devil's Advocate, Schismith.

we have to kneel gratefully on the floor. (It's great penance for your sins, Schismoids.)

you're doing a fine job here for the devil, Schizmoid. You'd have had much better chances elsewhere; and God brought you here instead. You need us to show you the way.

You don't represent the Church; you're a Pharisee.

You deserve WORSE than scornful names

You have abandoned faith in the Holy Spirit, to aid and abet the devil.

You are in schism!

-- jake (j@k.e), February 02, 2005.


How can I allow you the ''last word'' if you provoke another reply?

I stand by those statements if you read them in context with each particular post. As I suggested above: Change my words, make me retract my words, --just go ahead and shoot down my words.

When I've made use of ironic language or nick-names for Smith, it was to provoke; just as you like to provoke by your patronizing remarks. I've hardly ever taken it personally. Neither should he, nor you. This is the arena of Catholic ideas. We have to suffer provocations sometimes for our convictions. I do it, and gladly.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 02, 2005.


last word

-- jake (j@k.e), February 02, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ