"You see, that was the fatal flaw of the Church before Vatican II, the focus was on knowledge (memorise your catechism), rather than on understanding (truly knowing what the teaching means). "

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005

Answers

Response to Dogmatioc Interpretation

posited on another thread.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.

And the problem of the post-Vatican II Church is that now people don't have to have "knowledge (memorise your catechism)" nor do they need to have "understanding (truly knowing what the teaching means)." After teaching 100s of you Catholic undergrads in three major universities, I can assure you: they lack both knowledge and understanding. If you don't know something, you cannot understand it. Sorry.

-- Insider (nospam@notmail.com), February 17, 2005.

We know enough to spot a dishonest man. YOU. Why call yourself ''insider'' --??? Because you're dishonest and can't tell your name.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.

People choose to post anonymously for various reasons Eugene. In fact, there are many people who post anonymously on this very forum, but why you would jump on this particular person for doing so is beyond me.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 17, 2005.

Maybe I should have stressed ''dishonest,'' Oliver.

I don't believe the writer. I think he serves the anti- Vatican II agenda reporting anecdotal evidence which is pure invention. My reason to think so: I've conversed with many thinking Catholics. We aren't ignorant, as this person would have the forum think. We meet many excellent Catholic thinkers here in this forum.

You're entitled to believe whomever you please. But I felt I should balance this unjust attack.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.

Or else he speaks the truth.

Many Cahtolcis are knwoeldgable, but the alarm in modern society of late is hwo few Christaisn in general are edicated about heir faith, and the Catholci chruch has not escaped this uneasy trend.

Many Cahtolcis I know are unawar of many basic teachigns,a nd have seen rports, even by Official Vatican representatives, tat bemoan the sttae of awareness most Cathocis have of their own faith and practices.

The fault lies in our Modern society, which stresses instant educaiton and ignored the vlaue of learnign and true, detailed reaosning.

Just make enogh to win the onfirmaiton an attend church smei- regulalry and ts all good. Thats the mentality...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 17, 2005.

Eugene

Please grow up, and stop thinking the whole world is out to get you.

-- @@@@@ (@>>@@...), February 17, 2005.

Grow UP?
Nobody's going to ''get'' anybody, ''David excite.''

I'm speaking to adults as an adult. When I say I don't BELIEVE some cockamanie story from ''insider'' who won't even identify himself (from the anti-Vatican II camp-- Then that's all. I don't believe him and I called him dishonest.

You're being sneaky too; coming around with this phony -- @@@@@ (@>>@@...

But you can't hide your writing style. It's a sore thumb, David. UGLY.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.

Here's an article that backs up Insider: I Was Robbed!

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 17, 2005.

I think that article is a crock. For one thing the writer writes on forever; full of sanctimonious reasons why he has to get back on some genuine church; outside? If BC was such a waste of time, where did this genius arrive at all that revealed truth? Did he/she pick it up in the gutter? Or learn from the Salvation Army, just how badly he ''was robbed''--?? ? Get real.

How is the Church supposed to accomodate elitists like that? Like YOU?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.

"And the problem of the post-Vatican II Church is that now people don't have to have "knowledge (memorise your catechism)" nor do they need to have "understanding (truly knowing what the teaching means)." After teaching 100s of you Catholic undergrads in three major universities, I can assure you: they lack both knowledge and understanding. If you don't know something, you cannot understand it. Sorry. "

Insider sounds like a prof I had. Interesting that he/she admits being in 3 major educational institutes and makes the claim he/she makes - if his/her charge is true, then he/she is admitting that he/she is a contributing factor to the problem.

If this person is who I think it may be, then the charge that he is dishonest is a valid charge because I know more about him then he would rather anybody know.

-- Identity hidden for good reason. (plain@honest.com), February 18, 2005.

I think that article is a crock.

That's because you didn't give the article a chance. You read it with a closed mind. As soon as someone starts to criticize the Catholic Church your mind goes into lockdown mode and that person goes on your enemies list.

If you had finished reading the article you would have learned that the author, a cradle Catholic, took her mother's advice to find out more about the Catholic Church before leaving it. She writes, "Thanks to two years of study and the grace of God, I have found treasures that I never dreamed possible in this world, and yet I have come to understand that I have only dipped my little toe into the vast and glorious ocean that is Catholicism."

She not only became more committed to Catholicism, she ended up converting her friend, her friend's husband, and finally her own husband. But no thanks to the insipid instruction she had received in her catechism classes: "I can tell you in three phrases the content of a decade of catechesis: God is good, Jesus loves you, and love your neighbor."

So don't close your mind to everybody who criticizes the Catholic Church. You could be missing out on valuable information or a valuable insight.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 18, 2005.

How is the Church supposed to accomodate elitists like that? Like YOU?

I don't know why you call the author or me an elitist. The author calls for greater obedience to the Pope.

Personally, I think that this Pope is the problem. Thanks to JPII I left the Catholic Church and became an atheist. What has happened to the Catholic Church could never happen if she were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Which leads me to conclude -- with great anguish, I should add -- that there is no Holy Spirit to guide her. But I never stop looking for evidence that I'm wrong.

Nevertheless, the Church has already accomodated me under the Novus Ordo doctrine of "salvation by invincible ignorance."

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 18, 2005.

Dear Bonzo's Cousin,

"[William] Blake told his friend Samuel Palmer that the Catholic Church was the only one that taught the love of God." -- Thomas Merton

-- (I@m.NOT.oliverfischer), February 18, 2005.

Only 2 are required, does this sound like anyone here?

Postive symptoms are those that are 'above and beyond' normal levels of behavior.

*Delusions *Hallucinations *Disorganized thinking *Agitation

Different Types of Schizophrenia: Paranoid schizophrenia: a person feels extremely suspicious, persecuted, grandiose, or experiences a combination of these emotions.

http://mentalhelp.net/poc/center_index.php?id=7

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

-- Be Healed (Get@Help.Now), February 18, 2005.

There are some esoteric, personal opinions here but broght down to it's simplest form as I learned it was in the old catechism.

Why did God make us?

God made us to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

What seems to be the difficulty here is how we go about serving Him.

The world and the churches seem to have 1000 answers but which one is right?

A good start would be what He said before ascending into Heaven.

Love God with your whole mind, soul etc. and the second is to love your neighbor as youself.Do these things and you shall live.

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 18, 2005.

Pete: These words of Our Lord were directed at the nucleus of His new Church, the Church of the apostles.

You suggest ''the difficulty here is how we go about serving Him.'' Who? A Church taught by the holy apostles, or by a myriad free-lance shepherds? Now a faction of our own brethren is thinking of circumventing our faith in the holy Spirit. We serve God by perseverance against temptation. God has allowed these trials so that we prove our faith; this is the threshing of our wheat. Some Catholics are going to lose contact with Peter. But NOT we who persevere to the end.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.

The subject of this Thread is "Dogmatic Interpretation" and the following should be perfectly clear. Who interprets? The Holy See, it is that simple.

"as she is bound above all to defend the truth of faith, so too, if ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD ARISE REGARDING THE FAITH, THEY MUST BE DECIDED BY HER JUDGMENT." (The First Vativan Council, Fourth Session, Dogmatic Constituion PASTOR AETERNUS on the Church of Christ, Chapter IV: The Infallible Magesterium of the Roman Pontiff, 1870 [emphasis added])

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

"Here's an article that backs up Insider: I Was Robbed!

Bonzo's Cousin,

I have found this article to be very accurate of the Church (in general many, not all) of today. These kids in CCD really are not being properly educated in the Church teachings, unless the instructor goes against the gain and does it on his/her own. Which at that point they should expect some headache's from the spineless.

As far as the Holy Spirit, he still operates Inside the Church as well as OUTSIDE the Church, To All who seek him and will listen. Catholic or Not!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 18, 2005.

No, Sir.
We realise God Is free to ''operate'' in any way He desires. There might come occasions in which the Holy Spirit gives grace to men of good will outside Christ's Church. It's only the exception which proves the rule.

Christ promised the Advocate; Spirit of truth, to a select and HOLY militant order; His Church. He was sending them into the world; and with them ONLY, the Holy Spirit.

We are expected to learn EVERYTHING in that one Church only! (John 17, :20) Not in a believing community at large. The apostles' Creed clearly gives us articles of faith to which we must adhere faithfully: --''I believe in the Holy Spirit, . . . the Holy Catholic Church . . . the Communion of Saints.'' That is Christ's law as pronounced by His holy apostles.

You, Michael G., are pronouncing here a teaching of MEN. Self-ordained men, not sent by Jesus Christ at all. The Holy Spirit owes no loyalty to these men. Too bad; I'm sorry.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.

"As far as the Holy Spirit, he still operates Inside the Church as well as OUTSIDE the Church, To All who seek him and will listen. Catholic or Not!"

A: Agreed, with one stipulation. If someone outside the Church is truly listening to the Holy Spirit, that person is being drawn into the Church. The unity of the Body of Christ is the will of God, and therefore the unceasing work of the Holy Spirit. While the Holy Spirit may indeed be active in some ways in the life of a member of a false church, He never inspires a person to remain in such a situation, but always urges a person in the direction of the truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 18, 2005.

"He never inspires a person to remain in such a situation, but always urges a person in the direction of the truth."

But he won't leave them even if they are not drawn back to the Church due to fear of the Catholic Church "the physical human side" (i.e.) invincible ignorance (in relation to what they know or believe of the Church), but yet truely lives to serve God and his fellow man. So we can find the Holy Spirit working extensively in the daily lives of non-Catholics as well.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 18, 2005.

To Father Paul;

Traditionals are looked upon with disdain. Schismatics, heretics. etc.

Just a sall thing, but checking the rules of fasting.

A one hour fast bfore communion. Some foods stay in the stomach for at least 3 hours. That is not much of a fast.

Trads-- 3 hours.

Meat on Fridays. Not allowed during Lent

Trads-- No meat on Fridays 52 weeks a year.

Ember days. What's that?

Our calendar tells us when that is coming.

So why be a Trad when life is easier in the novus ordo.?

To offer sacrifice where it at least hurts a little bit.

You do not train a good army by relaxing the rules.

-- Pete (Chas@Charlie.com), February 18, 2005.

Michael:
Let's parse the words of Paul M, for your further correction.

'' While the Holy Spirit may indeed be active in some ways in the life of a member of a false church, He never inspires that person--

''Period.

Key words, by Paul: False church. Active in some WAYS. But NOT keeping him out of error, by infallible counsel. To say it plainly: no church outside has been indwelt by God's Holy Spirit to save souls.

There's little or no sanctifying GRACE anywhere except in the Church Christ founded. The Catholic Church. And lacking sanctifying grace, there can be no true salvation for our souls. That's why it becomes imperative for all Christians to reunite in the same Catholic Church. --As Paul rightly says it, this is the Will of God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.

The gift of salvation cannot be limited "to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church".

Hence the importance of the Church's indispensable role: **she "is not an end unto herself**, but rather is fervently concerned to be completely of Christ, in Christ and for Christ, as well as completely of men, among men and for men". This role then is not "ecclesiocentric", as is sometimes said: the Church does not exist nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity called to divine sonship in Christ

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 18, 2005.

Pete,

"A one hour fast bfore communion. Some foods stay in the stomach for at least 3 hours. That is not much of a fast. Trads-- 3 hours."

Do you know the purpose of the Eucharistic Fast? From your post it seems obvious that you do not.

"Meat on Fridays. Not allowed during Lent Trads-- No meat on Fridays 52 weeks a year."

False. Canon 1250 - "The days and times of penance for the universal Church are EACH FRIDAY OF THE WHOLE YEAR and the season of Lent." (Emphasis added) Canon 1251 - Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Bishop's Conference, IS TO BE OBSERVED ON ALL FRIDAYS, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstenence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.(Emphasis added) Canon 1252 - The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, ARE TAUGHT THE TRUE MEANING OF PENANCE. (Emphasis added) Canon 1253 - The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety."

This latter allowance calls for actually making a sacrifice for ANOTHER person, so at least two may benefit rather than one.

"Ember days. What's that? Our calendar tells us when that is coming."

I suppose the Eastern Catholics are less Catholic because they don't have them. The Church still has them, not by name so much as by purpose.

"So why be a Trad when life is easier in the novus ordo.? To offer sacrifice where it at least hurts a little bit. You do not train a good army by relaxing the rules."

Who says it's easier being faithful in the Novus Ordo? You guys have everything laid out for you - when to do this, when to do that. In the Novus Ordo we are expected to do more VOLUNTARY PENANCE WHICH REQUIRES MUCH MORE SELF DISCIPLINE THAN DOING AS YOU ARE TOLD.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

"In the Novus Ordo we are expected to do more VOLUNTARY PENANCE WHICH REQUIRES MUCH MORE SELF DISCIPLINE THAN DOING AS YOU ARE TOLD."

Acts which we do that done in the course of obedience are more meritorious than the acts we perform of our own volition.

The all-out most meritorious is simply to accept the suffering which God allows us to undergo against our own will. The next best is to observe the commands of the Church regarding penances, such as fasting. Last comes those things which we voluntarily choose to suffer.

You have it backwards.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.

"In the Novus Ordo we are expected to do more VOLUNTARY PENANCE WHICH REQUIRES MUCH MORE SELF DISCIPLINE THAN DOING AS YOU ARE TOLD."

"Acts which we do that done in the course of obedience are more meritorious than the acts we perform of our own volition. You have it backwards."

No, I don't. Notice, the acts of self discipline ARE REQUIRED and therefore involve obedience, all of them are just not spelled out for you.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

I see the distinction you are making.

However, the principle still holds.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.

Dear Michael G.
I don't get the gist of your latest post.

''--The Church's indispensable role: **she "is not an end unto herself**, but rather is fervently concerned to be completely of Christ, in Christ and for Christ, as well as completely of men, among men and for men".

This role then is not "ecclesiocentric", as is sometimes said: the Church does not exist nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of [ ] humanity, etc''

+

Michael-- Is sanctifying grace absolutely required in the soul as he/she departs this life; for salvation in Christ, Or NOT?

Does any alternate church in this world obtain us sanctifying grace ??? NAME THE CHURCH.

Forget your ''eclessio-centric role'' a minute, and show us how we can receive that grace without the sacraments of the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.

The article, "I was robbed" is excellent. My youngest son was sharing with me last month his sorrow that it took him many trips to many different parishes in Philadelphia before he could find a Catholic Church which, in his words, wasn't "filled with wishy-washy secularism". He's 24 years old.

My daughter is 33 years old and lives in a St. Louis suburb. She recently told me that only since the arrival of Archbishop Burke have their priests suddenly begun to give sermons against artificial contraception. Many people in her parish were actually quite vocal about their disagreement with the Church's position..as if they had heard it for the first time!!! Archbishop Burke is an outspoken defender of Church dogma. He speaks very softly, yet speaks TRUTH.

I see young Catholics yearning for the Church to be as the young woman in the article wishes it to be..and this IS about dogma..those of you who did not take the time to read it, I encourage you to do so. Whoever this young writer is, she has the right answer.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

"Does any alternate church in this world obtain us sanctifying grace ???"

First you need to answer-WHY every Pope who has been presented with "Without the Church--No Grace" has Rejected it. And I believe thet your answer will appear.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 19, 2005.

"My youngest son was sharing with me last month his sorrow that it took him many trips to many different parishes in Philadelphia before he could find a Catholic Church which, in his words, wasn't "filled with wishy-washy secularism". He's 24 years old."

Lesley--

Many people are truely yearning to be told the truth. Too many Bishops and Priest (sorry Fr. Paul) seem to have become afraid of saying, Here is What the Church Believes, here is what we believe are sins, and WHY we believe this.

Sure some people will get upset, So what! lay the cards on the table and tell them the What's and the Why's and remind them that this IS the Catholic Church, the decision is yours on what YOU choose to do, God doesn't grade on a curve does he? just because society has gone down hill does not mean that you only need a 30% on the Ten Commandments to pass go and get into Heaven.

People KNOW deep, deep down that they ARE missing the Truth. The Problem is too many do not know the full truth because they have become confused by the False Love pushed on them by society.

A Priest who can Grow a Church is a Priest who can Blend Pre and Post V-II and deliver it to the people WILL see the return of those who have wondered away, AND will be able to secure Many Protestants on the way, who also want the truth, not popular Idiot-ology.

Sorry, I can Rant a novel on this issue. But I am very happy your kids also take this serious.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 19, 2005.

Michael G. :

Look at what I asked you:

SANCTIFYING GRACE; Is there any other source for it,

outside of the sacraments instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church? Is the sacrament of Baptism a primary channel of sanctifying grace? Are the sacraments of Reconciliation and of the Holy Eucharist channels of that grace? Don't you believe this? Do you believe no one enters heaven without it?

And then; tell us what other, alternate church gives access to sanctifying grace? Are you truly a Catholic?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Eugene,

As I said when you answer that question you will have you answer.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 19, 2005.

A nice dodge, Michael; but,

No Pope has been presented any such question-- ''"Without the Church--No Grace.''

And, it's not ''actual'' grace, Sir. We know the difference.

Sanctifying Grace; without which no soul can be brought to salvation. This being the saving grace won for men by Christ, dying on the cross. He offers sanctifying grace to anyone who believes in Him faithfully; meaning Catholics. -- Not heretics or free-lance Bible-scholars. CATHOLICS true to their faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Eugene,

Please put on some old jeans and dig in the archives for your answer awaits you.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 19, 2005.

Get the answers or just get a life, Michael. You keep side-stepping, but you won't go far if we don't see your reply. I'll ask you again. You HAVE to be intellectually honest about this. Otherwise, you lose all credibility in this forum-- This isn't a joke. Your credibility is at stake.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Eugene,

YOU have all of the answers, except this one. Stop being lazy and Find the Answer to YOUR Problem.

You may report back AFTER you have found the answer. Until then...

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 19, 2005.

OK-- Michael has found himself unable to treat honestly with the truth about sanctifying grace. Michael attempts a lame little rebuff at this problem of his, as if he'd been given some kind of green light. All his posts are suspect from now on. He can't answer honestly, so he just doesn't answer.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Hi Michael G!

that's an interesting point. i've Googled, unsuccessfully. maybe when you and Eugene have taken this to its conclusion, you might enlighten me.

having said all that, i wonder of the answer to yr question isn't self evident.

we know there is no Salvation outside the Church - that's been somenly defined.

we also know that membership of the Church can be identified by the rubric in "MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI":

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Pius XII clearly considers that he is re-iterating a Divinely Revealed Truth: "The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself." is this, therefore, Infallible?

...and, if you are not a member of the Church, you're a non-member, and therefore "outside" the Church.

we start with baptism. the initial saving grace comes through water baptism: no water baptism baptism, no salvation [Trent].

that would, to be clear, also apply to the kids of a serious protestant fundie: they are Catholics, whether they like it or not [see Trent], and the faith of the Church is their faith; but if they embrace fundyism at the age of reason, they lose their saving grace.

until then, they had that grace thanks to the Catholic Church. after that age, they must remain Catholic to be members of the Church -- or they lose grace.

thereafter, grace is only restored/ fortified by the Sacraments.

the ame applies to those that have a mere desire to be a member of the Church. if you desire to belong, you do not yet belong: you are not a member.

and, as only a member-Catholic could partake of the Sacraments in a way that restore/ fortifies grace, the link between the Church and grace continues.

from MCC:

"Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments....In the Sacrament of Penance a saving medicine is offered for the members of the Church who have fallen into sin, ....

Nor is that all; for in the Holy Eucharist the faithful are nourished and strengthened at the same banquet.... "

therefore, isn't "No Church, No Grace" just a syllogism of the Deposit if Faith? isn't it synonymous with EENS?

my conjecture, i appreciate that. look forward to the links.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 19, 2005.

btw Bonzo, that link was just incredible.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 19, 2005.

PS if anyone can direct me to a copy of "Iam Vos Omnes", i'd be grateful.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 19, 2005.

me again.

2 caveats to my longer post.

A/ MCC says: "For this reason, We deem it fitting to speak to you on this subject through this Encyclical Letter, **developing** and explaining above all, those points which concern the Church Militant."

"developments". you cannot develop the DoF.

B/ MCC says: "As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, ... We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter...and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they ***cannot be sure of their salvation***.[196] For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church."

**cannot be sure**? who can?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 19, 2005.

Hi Ian,

I am having fun letting Eugene reject the words of a Pope , So I will let it go a little longer and allow him to progress on his usual name calling and catagorizing of people.

But for you I'll give you a clue, go back to Emerald's last post on the thread where we talked about Holy Water (after I complimented him on it) and study his reasoning as he worked through and starting drawing towards the conclusion.

This is why the Church has always rejected endorsing "Without the Church--No Grace".

But I am glad to see you finally in your own thread.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 19, 2005.

Dear Ian:
I'm saying a word here, but not inviting you to another series of answers as you often make, lengthened up to a half-dozen posts in quick succession.

You ponder many clear truths above, which we ALL believe. Setting up a verbal battlement against the faithful for no reason, except to dazzle us with your brain-power. Thank you; but can't you keep 'em short? No one here is in disagreement with the church about ''No salvation outside.'' You've set up a straw dog; and go on beating him to bits. Lol!

I'd like to remind Michael G. he's not a Pope yet. He says I reject the words of a Pope; but actually I've only corrected his glaring errors. He sticks to them; but they've been hammered. Now he moans and groans about ''having fun'' with me? His parting shot last post wass, ''This is why the Church has always rejected endorsing Without the Church--No Grace.--'' By the way; when did this ''rejection'' take place? In Michael's dreams?

And; how come Michael rejected the pointed questions I put to him up above? I guess for the same reason baloney rejects the meat-grinder.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

thanks Michael G! on both counts!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 19, 2005.

"The Church's mission is to foster "the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ' (Rv 11: 15), at whose service she is placed. Part of her role consists in recognizing that the inchoate reality of this kingdom can be found also beyond the confines of the Church, for example, in the hearts of the followers of other religious traditions, insofar as they live evangelical values and are open to the action of the Spirit" (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation, n. 35). This applies especially - as the Second Vatican Council told us in the Declaration Nostra aetate - to the monotheistic religions of Judaism and Islam. In this spirit I expressed the following wish in the Bull of Indiction of the Jubilee Year: "May the Jubilee serve to advance mutual dialogue until the day when all of us together - Jews, Christians and Moslems - will exchange the greeting of peace in Jerusalem" (Incarnationis mysterium, n. 2). I thank the Lord for having given me, during my recent pilgrimage to the Holy Places, the joy of this greeting, the promise of relations marked by an ever deeper and more universal peace. Pope John Paul II 2000

Pointing out that His Holiness, John Paul certainly believes that the Holy Spirit is at work "beyond the confines of the Church" in the hearts of non-Christians.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.

Eugene,

I feel inspired to offer my Christian Charity to you on this cold winters day.

Here it is:

Your Answer can be found within the last 500 years of Church records. This should make your research much easier.

Come back only AFTER you have found the answer

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 19, 2005.

Dear Lesley: I have to agree nothing keeps the Holy Spirit confined within his Church. He helps many non- Catholics by faith hope and charity; giving them impetus toward the revealed truth in Christ. I've been arguing for weeks here that even pagans, given the grace of repentence may enter the Church in Baptism of Desire. What is THAT, if not the Holy Spirit's grace?

I only maintain that the Spirit indwells Christ's Church ALONE, not sects of ANY denomination. No other church has been infallibly associated with the Holy Spirit as bringer of the apostle's teaching. If not; WHY? It must be because the Holy Spirit, the Advocate-- wasn't given to them for that purpose. They've all been founded by MEN.

The Holy Spirit might visit individuals and/or Christian causes of non-Catholic communions, but they don't share in all His diverse gifts. They have just Baptism, their sole surviving sacrament.

And, mind you: who's constantly interceding for protestants here; insisting not every one of them will be damned? Just me.

My rationale ? ? ? ? ? The Divine MERCY. God is LOVE! Does Gene suggest God will not have MERCY, or LOVE, for our separated brethren? NO! It's the pretend trads who insist. To them, the Holy Spirit must be a giant dove they keep sealed in a Catholic bottle!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Thank you, michael G.
For such charity.

''Your Answer can be found within the last 500 years of Church records,'

MY answer? Did this sound like I ASKED you for answers?

Sanctifying Grace; without which no soul can be brought to salvation. This being the saving grace won for men by Christ, dying on the cross.

He offers sanctifying grace to anyone who believes in Him faithfully; meaning Catholics. -- Not heretics or free-lance Bible-scholars. CATHOLICS true to their faith.

You don't need 500 years to find out about sanctifying grace, you'd locate it in just one day. The Google skills you appear to love ought to lead you to that subject in a jiffy. (But you're scared to look up any truth that is contrary to your error.)

Meanwhile, your credibility has about as much shelf life as your phony charity. HaHa!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Personally, I'm a little bored with the mind games:

I'd prefer to actually discuss Dogma. Original Sin.. Let's see if I have this one correct.. 1. Everyone is born with this. 2. Baptism removes it. a) Catholic Church teaches that Baptism can be either by water, or by blood or by desire and that a person need NOT be an actual member of the Catholic Church in order to receive Baptism as a sacrament.THIS teaching comes from a "more complete" understanding of the previous understandings.

Do I have this one right?? Please no comments from the so- called "Trads"..(right now)..I'm only looking for clarification of what I'm SUPPOSED to believe according to the current Magesterium of the Church.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.

Why preach the Gospel if "we are all on our way to the common Homeland"? In the case of the Jews, for instance, the Gospel will not be preached. The Vatican's Biblical Commission has declared that the Old Covenant between God and the Jews is still in effect, so that the Jews can be saved without believing in Jesus. Following upon this the American Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs has concluded "that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable." Of course, if we are "all on our way to the common homeland," nobody has to believe in Jesus. Thus the new millennium has barely begun, and the proposed new age of evangelization and the hoped-for "new springtime" for the Church, have already fizzled.

As Mary accompanied her beloved Son on the way to Calvary, so today she accompanies the Church in her present trials. Torn by schisms, lacerated by heresies, and nailed to the cross by apostasy, what is left of the true Church seems about to cry out like Jesus, "It is finished!" But not yet!

Mary wept as the Body of her Son was taken down from the Cross and laid in her arms. But she was filled with indescribable joy on the third day, when Jesus Christ rose gloriously from the dead. The enemies of God and of His Holy Church may seem to have succeeded in their plan to destroy the Church. But when the Arian heresy arose in the fourth century and seemed about to destroy the Church, it was the faith of the people that kept it alive. This same "sensus fidelium" will keep the true faith alive today, until God sees fit to expose these monstrous heresies and raise up the true Church once again to be a light to the nations and the Ark of Salvation. Like Mary, who rejoiced on the third day, a day of indescribable joy .

-- Pete (chas@charles.com), February 19, 2005.

Oh, but you wax poetic, Pete!
Look, everyone of us knows how much Our Lady suffered. Are you here to reveal something new? You're being theatrical about an agenda you push, that's all.

''The "sensus fidelium" will keep the true faith alive today,''-- Oh. Meaning YOU? The faith depends on YOU, or it might die? By all means, Pete-- Hurry out there and preach redemption to Jews!!! Don't waste any time. And never mind the Holy Spirit. Just use your personal charisma and bring about a new springtime for the Church. You can do it, Pete. You need no Holy Spirit, Pete. To you He was a total failure this time around.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

he apostles baptized 3000 Jews on the day of Pentecost. Did they waste their time, when they were already saved through their own religion?

First baptism of water went. In came baptism of desire. Now that went, and there is no need for even that. What will they do next?

Don't worry Eugene, the Vatican now has a greater understanding.

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 19, 2005.

Yes Lesley, I unlike Eugene (who REJECTS the words and guidance of the Magesterium of the Church) am Still a practicing Catholic member in Good Standing.

The Pope has stated the following.

"The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."

"For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.""

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/h f_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio_en.html

So yes Lesley, Despite Eugene REJECTION of the words and guidance of the Magesterium of the Church, the Pope has declared the Truth and we must stay away from the Heretics who speak otherwise such as those who REJECT of the words and guidance of the Magesterium of the Church.

So Yes it is TRUE that Salvation is NOT available ONLY through the Catholic Church as was previously suggested and that the Holy Spirit Works FREELY throughout the world doing the Will of the Father and His Son.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 19, 2005.

Pete,

"[T]he apostles baptized 3000 Jews on the day of Pentecost. Did they waste their time, when they were already saved through their own religion? First baptism of water went. In came baptism of desire. Now that went, and there is no need for even that. What will they do next? Don't worry Eugene, the Vatican now has a greater understanding."

Actually the understanding has been there for years, unless you want to deny the validity of the papacy of Pius IX also:

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX, AUGUST 10, 1863)

Speaking of "invincible ignorance" Pius IX had this to say:

"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control." (Singulari Quadem, 1856)

and

"it must likewise be held certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, WHO COULD PRESUME IN HIMSELF AN ABILITY TO SET THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH IGNORANCE, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as he is (see 1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice." (Singulari Quadam, 1854 [EMPHASIS ADDED])

He especially calls to mind this as regards God's plan of Salvation according to His Divine Mercy on the same subject:

"Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to dare set limits to the divine mercy, which is infinite. Far be it from Us to want to penetrate the secret plans and judgements of God, which are a great abyss (see Ps. 35:7), impenetrable to human thought." (Ibid.)

Here's one you better take to heart:

"Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. ETERNAL SALVATION CANNOT BE OBTAINED BY THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE AUTHORITY AND STATEMENTS OF THE SAME CHURCH AND ARE STUBBORNLY SEPARATED FROM THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AND ALSO FROM THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER, THE ROMAN PONTIFF, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Saviour." The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;" "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;" "He who does not believe will be condemned;" "He who does not believe is already condemned;" "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;" the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (Ibid.)

Lucky for you, we cannot set a limit on invincible ignorance, except to say that you as a 'Catholic' are bound to obedience which would make your ignorance vincible, but then again as your finite mind is unable to comprehend your own error, maybe your ignorance is invincible. There's hope for you and your fellow seds and anti- Vatican II lot yet.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how it was for those members of the Church in the days when most of the church hierarchy were believers in heresy? Were the church members supposed to follow their leaders blindly into heresy?

"Invincible Ignorance" is one thing..encouraging others to remain ignorant of the gospels by deciding not to share it with them is quite another. "Go out and teach all nations"..was the command wasn't it?

To sit with our brothers and sisters and stay mute, while teaching our children that we no longer need to attempt to convert anyone from Judaism to Christianity because the Jews and Christians worship the same God, and we all are waiting for the same Messiah to come amazes me.

The Catholic Church has the "fullness of truth", the sacraments and is the Church founded by Jesus Christ..BUT..those who reject it are really OK with God after all..not to worry.

There is a VAST difference between saying that the mercy of Almighty God will PROBABLY be extended to SOME who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ or His Church...and saying that the mercy of Almighty God WILL be extended to ALL..period.

SOMEHOW, in modern times, the idea is being perpetuated that the mercy of God IS extended to ALL, and that it does not matter one bit whether an individual is Christian, Hindu, or whatever..as long as an individual leads a "good life", one can expect when one closes one's eyes for the final time to meet an all-loving and all- forgiving Deity who will be happy to see you.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.

Lesley:
You over-reach! ''SOMEHOW, in modern times, the idea is being perpetuated that the mercy of God IS extended to ALL,''

Actually, that's right. --ALL. Not salvation, without conforming to God's Will, just MERCY.) Everybody's eligible for a helping of God's mercy.

''and that it does not matter one bit whether an individual is Christian, Hindu, or whatever. As long as an individual leads a good life,''

Why ''it doesn't matter one bit,'' Lesley? Is this what you think the Church teaches; it doesn't matter? And, to continue: ''as long as an individual leads a good life,'' -- ? ? ? Have you thought about this detail?

If the individual (soul) has indeed led a good life; and lived in ''invincible ignorance'' of the Holy Gospel-- NEVERTHELESS dies repentent of all sin;

+

-----------So, God damns him eternally to hell, for not having been ''saved''. Or for being just a silly Hindu, he looked funny. What is this saying about God?

Isn't it clearly a case of INJUSTICE? You accuse God of NOT having mercy, NOT loving His creatures, and far from being infinitely Just and Merciful; you see Him for unjust and merciless? --Who IS this God of yours?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Lesley,

""Invincible Ignorance" is one thing..encouraging others to remain ignorant of the gospels by deciding not to share it with them is quite another. "Go out and teach all nations"..was the command wasn't it?

To sit with our brothers and sisters and stay mute, while teaching our children that we no longer need to attempt to convert anyone from Judaism to Christianity because the Jews and Christians worship the same God, and we all are waiting for the same Messiah to come amazes me."

---Here is a quote from St. Francis of Assisi: "Preach the Gospel always and everywhere, if necessary use words." None of us (Catholics in FULL communion with Rome) have ever advocated indifferentism, we do what we can and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.

"I wonder how it was for those members of the Church in the days when most of the church hierarchy were believers in heresy?"

Based upon the Revealed truths at it's time it would not have been heresy. Because this WAS the truth as they knew it. As opposed to Example eugene Rejecting the Truth as is stated by the Church.

heresy___1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma-2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

"The Catholic Church has the "fullness of truth", the sacraments and is the Church founded by Jesus Christ..BUT..those who reject it are really OK with God after all..not to worry."

We should worry about ALL people and pray for them. Just because someone has been baptized in the Church offers NO Guarantees if they have not corrected their hearts and minds and lived according to the True nature of God the Father and as show to us by Jesus Christ His Son.

"To sit with our brothers and sisters and stay mute, while teaching our children that we no longer need to attempt to convert anyone from Judaism to Christianity because the Jews and Christians worship the same God, and we all are waiting for the same Messiah to come amazes me."

It's not quite that easy! we STILL have much work to do as the Pope indicates here.

"In speaking of conversion, the New Testament uses the word metanoia, which means a change of mentality. It is not simply a matter of thinking differently in an intellectual sense, but of revising the reasons behind one's actions in the light of the Gospel. In this regard, Saint Paul speaks of “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). This means that true conversion needs to be prepared and nurtured though the prayerful reading of Sacred Scripture and the practice of the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist. Conversion leads to fraternal communion, because it enables us to understand that Christ is the head of the Church, his Mystical Body; it urges solidarity, because it makes us aware that whatever we do for others, especially for the poorest, we do for Christ himself. Conversion, therefore, fosters a new life, in which there is no separation between faith and works in our daily response to the universal call to holiness. In order to speak of conversion, the gap between faith and life must be bridged. Where this gap exists, Christians are such only in name. To be true disciples of the Lord, believers must bear witness to their faith, and “witnesses testify not only with words, but also with their lives”.(68)*** We must keep in mind the words of Jesus: “Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven”*** (Mt 7:21). Openness to the Father's will supposes a total self-giving, including even the gift of one's life: “The greatest witness is martyrdom”.(69)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/docu ments/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 20, 2005.

Very strange;
Our poor boy is fixated on me. Eugene.

Instead of on the faith. He has his knee- jerk dig at me, then launches into a 600 word essay nobody cares to read; as if this can restore his credibility.

Michael; have some shame. Don't fall into the devil's snare. Let faith be your guide, not the dumb vendetta.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.

Who IS this God of yours?

A God who will not allow unbaptized babies into heaven, that's who, which has been taught by the Church even to this day. So how can you square that teaching with the Novus Ordo novelty that an unbaptized Jew, Hindu, or Moslem can be saved. Are Jews, Hindus, and Moslems immaculately conceived?

Everybody agrees that No Salvation Outside the Church is dogma. The various loopholes, exceptions, and qualifiers that have been put forth from time to time are NOT. If any were, then unbaptized babies would be at the head of the line.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 20, 2005.

In fact, the only way that the statements by Pius IX could fit into Catholic dogma is if the "invincibly ignorant" he is referring to are baptized Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. I'll bet that he would be horrified to see how the Novus Ordo Church is claiming that he is speaking about Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 20, 2005.

Consider the context of the times. This is around 1860. I doubt that you would find ANY Christian of ANY denomination saying that a Jew, Moslem, or Hindu could be saved. That would be like saying that a woman or a black man could become President of the United States. In 1860??? Are you kidding??? Such a thought was inconceivable back then.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 20, 2005.

according to my research, the first Pope to include "invincible ignorance" in a Church document was Pius IX. until then, it was a subject for the theologians, most of whom considered that the burden of original sin was lethal.

well, then - what ever happened to original sin?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 20, 2005.

according to my research, the first Pope to include "invincible ignorance" in a Church document was Pius IX

If the "invincibly ignorant" Pius IX is referring to are baptized Protestants then that would explain why it wasn't mentioned earlier in Church history. By that time the Protestant revolt was 300 years old and many Protestants were born into families that had been Protestant for generations. They knew nothing but lies about the Catholic Church. They were baptized so they no longer had original sin on their souls and they were invincibly ignorant so they were not guilty of being outside the Church (which ALWAYS meant the Catholic Church -- "The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church," Pius XII -- until Vatican II). Actually, their baptism joined them to the Church but their Protestantism caused them to be outside the Church when they reached the age of reason. But they were not guilty of this because of their invincible ignorance.

So the statements by Pius IX have NOTHING to do with the unbaptized, who still have original sin on their souls. They only apply to baptized Christians outside the Catholic Church. Even then, it's not certain that they rise to the level of an infallible teaching.

The same goes for "baptism of desire." It was mentioned a few times in the pre-Vatican II Church. But was it an infallible teaching? One thing is certain: whenever it was mentioned it was always in the context of an EXPLICIT desire to be baptized, such as a catechumen who fully intended to be baptized as soon as the Church finished instructing him in the faith, or a Jew who, living among other Jews who refused to baptize him, plunges himself into a pool of water in an attempt to baptize himself.

What has happened in the post-Vatican II Church is that two traditional Catholic doctrines, baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, which are completely separate and unrelated to each other, have been joined together to form one pernicious Novus Ordo doctrine: baptism of desire of the invincibly ignorant.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 20, 2005.

Bonzo

interesting.

"One thing is certain: whenever it was mentioned it was always in the context of an EXPLICIT desire to be baptized,..."

couldn't agree more.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 20, 2005.

Perhaps I need to rephrase, since it's quite obvious that one of my many faults is that I am not nearly as eloquent as most of you are, and often fail to adequately express my thoughts clearly.

Yes, of course, God's mercy is for "all". I know that. I also am aware of what the Church teaches concerning the mercy of God.

What CONCERNS me is the modern "PERCEPTION" of what the Church teaches.

Having spoken to many young Catholic adults, (certainly not ALL young Catholic adults)..it is clear to me that those with whom I HAVE spoken, seem to think that what the modern Church is teaching is that:

1. ALL members of ALL Christian churches will achieve salvation by virtue of their belief in Christ. It is NOT necessary for them to return to the Catholic Church in any manner.

2. ALL members of the human race WILL achieve salvation, even non_Christians, by virtue of the fact that Christ wishes ALL mankind to be saved, and in His infinite mercy will offer them salvation, "somehow".

3. It is the role of the Catholic Church not to convert the human race back to Catholicism, as was once taught, but to preach this message of "universal salvation" to the world.

4. NOBODY, except those persons who reject Christ TO HIS FACE will suffer eternal damnation.

Now, if those things are to be believed, they totally negate the NEED for the ALL of the Holy sacraments..ALL of them. All anyone would "need" to achieve salvation would be to believe in God and His infinite mercy.

Is it any wonder why so many Catholic churches are empty? If this is what the young people think is being taught, why bother going to Church at all?? "It's all good".

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

Lesley

http://www.romancatholicism.org/apokatastasis/jpii-quotes.htm

you might find that these kids are a lot closer to the Pope than you or i might think.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 20, 2005.

don't get me wrong. the charge is ambiguity, not heresy.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 20, 2005.

One does not hav to be an open heretic to accomplish heresy. Just plant a little doubt and confusion, and let the seed grow from there.

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 20, 2005.

I marvel at Bonzio's capacity to draft a ten-post series in just a few hours; all of them boring. He's trying hard, not convincing whatsoever.

Ian is another happy soul who can bury you under his landfill of tracts; just a few on target.

So they agaree with one another: ''One thing is certain: whenever it was mentioned it was always in the context of an EXPLICIT desire to be baptized,'' --Bonz,

''couldn't agree more.'' --Ian.

You're both dead wrong; that's the trouble. I get a laugh out of: ''One thing is certain,''--------Haha! ''Certain'' because YOU say so? And for THIS our Catholic forum is flooded with your endless river of words ??? At least take a few hours off to sleep, Boys!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.

Here's the Grand Inquisitor:

''One does not have to be an open heretic to accomplish heresy. --Just plant a little doubt and confusion and let the seed grow from there.''
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com),

+

Oh, is that so? Accordingly, then; no one has to really be a heretic; yet YOU can readily point out the heresy he's guilty of ANYWAY?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.

"We do what we can and let the Holy Spirit do the rest"...said Fr. Paul..

My question is, according to the American Bishop's Conference article which I read online last night, we Catholics are not supposed to make any attempt whatsoever to convert people of the Jewish Faith. I honestly thought that Pete was perhaps exaggerating his claim..so I looked it up myself..nope, there it was.

So in that case, we don't "do what we can"..we are to do "nothing". Truly a fascinating read. When one considers the entire history of the Church, indeed the dramatic conversion of St. Paul, yet now it is not necessary that people of the Jewish Faith come to Christ? I admit to being quite staggered after reading and re-reading the position of the American Bishops.

One of my models of faith when I was a little girl was Fr. Marquette. I always tried to imagine how this priest could possibly have had so much faith in Jesus Christ that he would willingly offer to cross the Atlantic to bring the knowledge of Christ to the Indians of Canada, KNOWING that he faced almost certain death as his reward. And, die he did..most horribly.

So many of the Church's missionaries were cruelly martyred while bringing the Church to the people who did not know Christ. One would think that if this TRUTH of "invincible ignorance" were a truth which existed since the beginning of the Church at Pentacost, these early saints of the Church wouldn't have been so anxious to "save" these people from eternal damnation..they certainly would have believed that God would have been merciful to them in their "invincible ignorance".

Yet, for some reason, priests such as Fr. Marquette were tortured to death trying to convert people to Catholicism. And here we are in 2005 with Catholic schools sponsoring "world Peace" events where American Indian indigenous worship is promoted as having "a path to spiritual wisdom".

Is anyone else confused beyond reason with this?????

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

so confused I typed the wrong name..My husband had just asked me if I wanted to go up to Pierre Marquette Park next week-end..DUH..

I MEANT to say, Fr. Isaac Jogues..sigh

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

Why are you confused, Lesley? Conversion is God's gift. Men only spread the holy Gospel for christ; HE converts.

Indian tribes are absolutely the opposites of Jews; the people of the Old Testament. Indians were spirtual, but hardly God-fearing; they cried out for Christian conversion. There was an abundant harvest to be gained for Christ; and the martyrs paid for it faithfully.

But Jews have nothing in common with untutored souls who have never known God. They are God's chosen. Our Divine Saviour is the ANTI- TYPE of all the nation of Israel. His bloodline according to the flesh is entirely Jewish.

Saint Paul, in his epistle to the Romans explains the historical importance of his people. Read Romans, the entire 10th and 11th chapters. It should console you in your confusion. You'll see why God has rendered His chosen people temporarily blind to Christian truth. It was intended for OUR salvation. The Church knows this problem Jews have to cope with. They've heard the Christian Gospel for two millennia! JEWS ALREADY KNOW! They simply aren't ready! But in time, God Himself will bring them to His Son. Keep in mind; no one really accomplishes the conversion of a soul. We spread the Good News. God converts.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.

The subject of native Americans and Catholicism is just way too interesting. Related stuff:

Sublimus Dei

Pope Paul III

May 29, 1537

To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.

The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office "Go ye and teach all nations". He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.

"The subject of native Americans and Catholicism is just way too interesting."

Even more so the fact that the US Government Paid the Catholic Church to educate and convert the Native Americans for years. until the funding request reached $500,000 dollars.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 20, 2005.

Why am I confused? I told you why..and I'll tell you again.

We are to spread the Good News..but NOT to the Jewish people any longer. IF THIS WERE A TRUTH WHICH HAD EXISTED SINCE THE TIME IF THE APOSTLES IT WOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO THEM.. obviously, it wasn't, since they happily went about their business of converting Jews.

In the days of Augustine, he didn't know about it either, since the Church was still trying to convert the Jewish people.

So NOW, we have this new TRUTH suddenly revealed to us..Jewish people do not need to be converted to Christianity.

Indians did not worship God? They thought they did. My point being that with this "invincible ignorance", WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make who or what they worshiped..since NOW we are taught to believe that whatever they did, they did in complete ignorance anyway, ergo, they WILL achieve salvation by some "mysterious" means known only to God.

Logically speaking, if one BELIEVES in "invincible ignorance" there was absolutely no reason at all to think for one second that any single Indian in Fr. Isaac Jogue's time was ever going to hell..not ONE. My POINT being that apparently, Father Jogues was unaware of "invincible ignorance"..since he firmly believed that unless he converted the Indians to Christianity, they WERE damned for all eternity.

Hence my confusion..we have all kinds of Catholics for many centuries going about converting Jews, and now we are to believe that is no longer what God wishes us to do at all.

And, for centuries, we had all kinds of saintly Catholics running hither and yon, believing that unless they converted non-Christians to the Faith, those folks would suffer eternal damnation..and now we are to believe that is no longer what God "meant" at all.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

Lesley,
I would love to be able to comfort you. But it seems your heart is hardened against the clergy of our Church.

God informs His priests and bishops, Lesley. They have complete authority to do or NOT do the works of our Church. I would caution you, hardened as you are in your mind-set; not to question their authority. We FOLLOW Christ's shepherds. Just pray for them and our Church. We're not qualified to analyze what was once taught as opposed to this age. No one gave us more than a very superficial wisdom about God's Will. He moves in mysterious ways. Have faith in the Holy Spirit and --Pray.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.

Eugene..you have a very bad habit of making assumptions about what others think..it may be better to ask them what they actually think than to make wild assumptions.

My heart is certainly not at all "hardened" against anyone..especially not against the clergy of my Church. What I SAID was "I AM CONFUSED"...I repeat, I said "I AM CONFUSED".

When I was younger, I never was CONFUSED because the Church in my lifetime had NEVER had so many changes arise. Is this so hard to understand? Perhaps if MORE Catholics hollered "I'M CONFUSED" instead of "THE CHURCH IS WRONG" and left out the back door, the churches wouldn't be so empty.

Our role as Catholics is NOT to sit mute and dumb in the pew and to be bewildered ..I THOUGHT that this was one of the points of Vatican II..to save us from "bewilderment" (although I never felt bewildered and confused myself, the Church must have felt somebody was.) This IS a Catholic Forum, is it not?? I posted that I, a Catholic was CONFUSED..I gave examples of WHY I am confused,,and what do I get in return? My heart is hardened against the Catholic priests and bishops..shut up and pray like a good girl.

I used to come here a few years ago and left due to the lack of charity I saw here..

I returned, thinking perhaps it had changed..It hasn't.

I will indeed pray.. for those who post here to be more in love with Christ Jesus than the "sound" of their own voices. For those who post here to be mindful of every word that proceeds out of their "mouths"..

I will continue to pray that Catholics here will someday be as kind to one another and exhibit such Christian charity to one another as many of the non-Catholics who post here regularly.

As for me, I shall take myself and my "confusion" elsewhere.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

Lesley-- Don't leave, Just ignore the idiot.

You are correct there is too much confusion, Liberalism in the Church today, Long and short of it is that to much of the Catholic Church has simply become Protestants with sacraments since V-II.

Some Dioceses Bishops who have been replaced by the current Pope are trying to gradually undo some of the crap which has made it's way in. And there is a lot of crap to be dealt with at various levels and some of it continues to be undermined by liberal Priest and lay people. \ Many have run out the back door that is why so many Churches have closed down. There is no reason to be a Catholic, which is Dead Wrong.

People as I stated earlier are NOT being told the truth of what is and what is NOT to be. They are not being lied to, they just are NOT being told.

We are ALL called to preach the words of Christ to who ever will listen, engage in Rational non-condemning conversations with people of other faiths. If they come to understand and accept GREAT, if not hopefully they will come to understand the positive impact the Catholic Church has on the World as a whole. In terms of doing as God and his Son Jesus have commanded and taught.

If people think that leaving the Church is the answer to resolving the problems they are WRONG. It is OUR Responsibility not to just sit stupid like some suggest, but to call a spade a spade to the right people. Expect to win some and expect to lose some but don't sit STUPID like people tend to do.

The Pope is not wrong in some of what he says but it needs to be properly conveyed to the people, which is the failure in my eyes.

I think the best line the Church could follow right now come from the play "Evita" (It's better to win be admitting your sins, then to lose like a hero)

Stay with this thread and ignore the idiot, others here don't judge your words but will try to help you understand what you are unsure of.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 20, 2005.

"by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living"

Not by arm twisting or badgering or intimidating or threatening, etc.

FYI Frs. Isaac Joques, Jean de Brebeuf, et al were not killed because they were trying to convert natives, they were killed because they were friends of the Hurons who often found themselves at the mercy of the Iroquois. They were martyred for their Faith, yes, but not martyred for their direct efforts to convert.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

Lesley;

Please do not let "the mouth that roared" drive you away. You are a sensitive person. Don't give in to that bully.

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 20, 2005.

How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right. --BlackHawk

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.

Thanks guys..I think I'm feeling a tad uncharitable myself..my dog died last night..I have a toothache and I'm still confused.. Best to sleep on it. Peace to everyone.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

Sorry to hear that Lesley. May the Lord supply you with much grace.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 20, 2005.

Just want to thank you all, faithful ones.

I accept your scorn. It's good for me in order that I should never glory in any work of my own. There's no grace in complaining when your brethren don't understand.

The holy apostles left all to follow Jesus Christ, and finally died for Him. I want somehow to be like them; taken very seriously by men of good will. Reviled if necessary by the others whose faith is weaker. If only to set the good example.

In the end words are insufficient. Saint John the Baptist had his head cut off because one woman wanted him silenced. They will do anything to avoid hearing sound advice. I'm lucky you tough Catholics don't kill me, I guess. ----- Ciao, good companions /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

Indians were spiritual, but hardly God-fearing; they cried out for Christian conversion. There was an abundant harvest to be gained for Christ; and the martyrs paid for it faithfully.

It's true to a very large extent. The native Americans were naturals for the acceptance of Catholicism, and were prepared in advance for the arrival of it. In pretty much the same place from where I'm typing right now, when the missionaries landed on these shores, Indians approached them asking for Baptism because they were having dreams about it.

Compare St. Thomas' 4th way of proof for the existence of God by natural reason with Chased-By-Bears:

"When a man does a piece of work which is admired by all we say that it is wonderful; but when we see the changes of day and night, the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky, and the changing seasons upon the earth, with their ripening fruits, anyone must realize that it is the work of someone more powerful than man." --Chased-by- Bears, Santee-Yanktonai Sioux

"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."

Eugene is getting beat on pretty bad, so I figured I'd pass him the peacepipe, so to speak.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 21, 2005.

Ian-- The document in question is "The Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713 "UNIGENITUS""

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm

You will LOVE some of this stuff that was condemned in this one.,

But #29 is "Outside of the Church, no grace is granted."------ CONDEMNED!

In fact by the time he get done condemning everything, he basically condemns what was his own earlier condemnation.

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

"Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort receive NO influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ"----CONDEMNED!

Condemned in 1690 by Pope Alexander VIII .

Let me know what your thoughts are on some of these items.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 21, 2005.

YOUR thoughts??? Ha! Where was it YOU found grace, Michael? You give us the impression it's very hard to obtain. Be glad you weren't born a Jew, then!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

Go to bed Gene before I have the nursing home pull your hard drive.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 21, 2005.

Michael, there is a grace which acts upon those who are outside the Church that motivates them to enter into the Church. It's called prevenient grace.

There are many distinctions in types of grace, so it is important to make the distinctions and apply them appropriately. It is in fact true that there is no sanctifying grace outside the Church.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 21, 2005.

"It is in fact true that there is no sanctifying grace outside the Church."

Michael G

this is, **i think**, my conjecture. if you accept that there is no salvation outside the Church, then there is no "saving" grace outside the Church. this saving grace comes via the Catholic Sacraments. "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,..". even the valid Baptisms done "outside" the Church are done by the Church and belong to the Church.

in fact, even the new orientation, which in effect preaches "Without the Church, No Salvation" rather than EENS, might well come to the same conclusion.

i accept, especially, that this does not apply to the "prevenient" grace described in Trent:

"The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the "prevenient" grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co- operating with that said grace..."

... for the simple reason that prevenient grace - which, if God wants all to be saved, is gifted to all - is only the prelude to initial justification.

having said that, i am delighted to see 101 condemnations in a single letter, of which, i understand about a dozen at most. it's almost as if the Pope said - "i want to see at least 100 condemnations. don't come back until you've got at least 100." and 101 is at least 100.

this one struck me: "18. The seed of the word, which the hand of God nourishes, always brings forth its fruit." what in goodness' name does that mean? it reminds me of the prophets in the Life of Brian. "Consider the lilies....". "He's having a go at the flowers now."

i suspect that you'd need to read the condemned book before reading the condemnations; but the book is condemned so why read it?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

"But Jews have nothing in common with untutored souls who have never known God."

Eugene

this is pretty racey stuff.

here's what that old stick-in-the mud thought about this all:

"For, since the sin of unbelief consists in resisting the faith, this may happen in two ways: either the faith is resisted before it has been accepted, and such is the unbelief of pagans or heathens; or ***the Christian faith is resisted after it has been accepted, and this either in the figure, and such is the unbelief of the Jews***, or in the very manifestation of truth, and such is the unbelief of heretics.

..........

...he who resists the faith after accepting it, sins more grievously against faith, than he who resists it without having accepted it, even as he who fails to fulfil what he has promised, sins more grievously than if he had never promised it. On this way the unbelief of heretics, who confess their belief in the Gospel, and resist that faith by corrupting it, is a more grievous sin than that of the Jews, who have never accepted the Gospel faith. ***Since, however, they accepted the figure of that faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false interpretations, their unbelief is a more grievous sin than that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all***."

St Thomas Aquinas.

here's your next Pope, Eugene: http://www.cjcr.cam.ac.uk/centre/covenant/speaker-kasper.html

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

Never have I referred to a pontiff as any kind of stick, Ian. Pardon me if I'm not amused.

What part of this is hard for you to assimilate into your spiritual treasure chest?

''Jews have nothing in common with untutored souls who have never known God.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

Eugene

St Thomas was not a Pope.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

"What part of this is hard for you to assimilate into your spiritual treasure chest?"

well Eugene, if you wonder why it's racey, some more of your pearls follow:

"You'll see why God has rendered His chosen people temporarily blind to Christian truth. It was intended for OUR salvation. The Church knows this problem Jews have to cope with. They've heard the Christian Gospel for two millennia! JEWS ALREADY KNOW! They simply aren't ready! "

again, go back, read some stuff from the Church.

imho, you're preaching **heresy** right here, right now. private interpretation of Scripture -- now where have i heard that before?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

Just read the epistle to the Romans, then. Saint Paul says exactly what I said.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

Eugene:

"You'll see why God has rendered His chosen people temporarily blind to Christian truth. It was intended for OUR salvation. "

no. that the message was spread to Gentiles was not some deliberate plan of God: as of He said "i'll harden their hearts so i have a reason to bring Gentiles into the fold". the Jews freely rejected God. the consequence of **their** failure was that the gates were opened and us untouchables were allowed into the party.

are you preaching some kind of pre-destination here, Eugene?

"But Jews have nothing in common with untutored souls who have never known God."

surely they do. neither accept Jesus. according to St Paul, salvation is available only in Jesus' name. that's a LOT in common. this is relativism or some other "-ism" other than Catholicism. the Jews knowingly reject Jesus: the Indians never had a chance -- that, more or less, is the gist of St Thomas as he rank- orders their respective wrong-doings.

"They are God's chosen."

they WERE. they are no longer. we are. the Old Covenant is over. we're onto the New Covenant and the unique Ark of Salvation. that is Catholicism 1.01. i gave you St Thomas. you give me Casper.

"Our Divine Saviour is the ANTI- TYPE of all the nation of Israel."

that's too broad -- **all the nation of** Israel: and so what?

"His bloodline according to the flesh is entirely Jewish."

so what? what is Jewish? does being Jewish entail rejecting Christ as the Messiah. if so, then all that old diatribe about St Joseph, the Blessed Virgin and Jesus being Jewish is wrong. this is all semantics, Eugene.

i suggest you start Googling, Eugene.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

Eugene:

technically, we're a Jewish "sect". sense: "a dissenting clique"; "a group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice."

IOW, you are a Jewish-SSPX'er!!!!!!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

Technicality aside, your alarm is a little phony. I'm trying to discern what your particular doubt is about God's Divine Wisdom. Each time He decrees something, you pronounce it heretical.

My own concern isn't to appear infallible in any of these discussions. When I'm wrong, I can admit it. So far you're wrong and I'm right. I'm not the only one here who flatly tells you you're wrong.

If the untutored Indian of the 18th century has anything in common with the nation of Israel, it isn't rejection of Christ. It's ignorance. God will un-blind His chosen people when the fullness of the Gentiles has entered into the inheritance of His Son. That isn't a tenet I'm preaching, without authority (the way YOU do). It's my understanding of the great mystery Paul speaks of in Romans. --I could be in error and yet not heretical, because I don't try to teach any heresies. Just MY discernment.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

it's almost all heresy, Eugene.

i will happily stand by this. do you want to work it through? prove me wrong?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

Lesley, I hope this may help you to understand some of word changes a little easier in the Church.

Redemptoris missio-1990 12 07--- ( Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All (sec 10))

"10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church."

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0219/__P3.HTM -----------------

"All Salvation Comes through Christ" General Audience — May 31, 1995 (basically explains what is meant in RM)

"Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"--"outside the Church there is no salvation"--stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/au d19950531en.html "Certainly, the condition "inculpably ignorant" cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone. For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, "Grace works in an unseen way.... The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery" (GS 22)."----Additional comment from ("All Salvation Comes through Christ") ----------------------

Link for --Constitution Gaudium et Spes

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documen ts/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 21, 2005.

The burden of proof is on the accusers. You must convict me. I'm not afraid to respond truthfully. I do feel kind of sorry for you, though. I really gave you credit for some gravity, Ian. You behave in a juvenile manner about your pointless ideas. Are you running for office? Who's going to crown you King? Hahaha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

Dear Michael, Notice a small detail: ''offers to every man the possibility,'' not sanctifying grace itself.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

Emerald --Thanks for your response. I am aware that there are various forms of grace. But being an opportunist when a vague statement is made it leaves the door open. As you know the Jansonites had been a thorn in the side of 4 Popes (maybe 3 it's been a while) But the statement of "Without the Church--No Grace" had always been rejected by each of the them.

Which with this being done and never any indication of it else where, which they could have at the same time as Outside the Church--No Salvation this would have really locked everything up in favor of the church. As you know the purpose behind Trent was to make clear what Catholics believe, basically to do what needs to be done now. Establish firm guidance and live by it and Teach it.

But to me this confirms my deepest intuitions-regarding the fact that the Church cannot restrain God from doing or accepting what he wants, and when he see's in a person the true natural spirit of what he truely created and expects from all of us, he will call them for his own regardless of the Church he does or does not belong to if any.

So on this basis the persons actions, words and thoughts are truely his sacraments--how many times in our lives have we seen forgiveness come not through the spoken words, but through the actions towards correction "atonement?"

Trust me I understand the these situations maybe rare but I believe the Church has always recognized it, But for obvious reasons it can't be advertised per se because of all of the double minded people who really do need the Church and each of the Sacraments for spiritual correction.

I understand this does not fit a highly structured approach the majority of humans need or need in order to understand, but...

Your thoughts? Ian's as well

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 22, 2005.

When I was away from the Church for some odd 20 years and dabbled in Fundamentalism (among other things)..THIS subject was a source of some rather heated discussions between myself and my Fundamentalist friends. My position was and is that a devout man who spends his entire life with God first in his EVERY thought and deed, who from morning until night examines his conscience to beg God's forgiveness if he has offended Him in any way..when that man dies, there is no way that God will condemn him to eternal suffering ONLY because that man was not a Christian.

I have held that belief in my heart since I was old enough to reason. I struggled with it when I was a young girl being taught the direct opposite by the nuns in Catholic School. "Not possible" I thought to myself..

It was on THIS forum that I discovered that the Catholic Church teaches what I have always known in my own heart to be true.

The concern I have, is contrary to the wide-spread MISguidance of my youth which has MANY, and perhaps the majority of Catholics believing that there is ZERO salvation for anyone outside of the Church proper..there NOW appears to be a definite wide-spread MIS- UNDERSTANDING among YOUNGER Catholics that the exact opposite is true: to wit...anyone at all, regardless of devotion to God, or belief in God, or unrepentant sin..EVERYONE will be "saved" because God is a warm teddy bear type God who just loves us all soooooo much, and it's all good.

The CHurch isn't wrong..the message is not CLEAR..not at ALL.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.

Ian-- So you like the 101? That's what I like about vague condemnations you can use them anywhere.

Actually the book was really only part of the problem at hand, it really had more to do with the Jansenites being a thorn in the side of a few Popes.

Here is the part I really get a charge out of, read some of the reasons.

"Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned."

Why didn't he just end it saying "Declared and condemned --Because I am the Pope and you have Really pissed me off"

Well maybe that would be "offensive to pious ears or evil sounding".

Hey, do you know if we are still to search and destroy the homes of heretics?

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 22, 2005.

sigh..the above SHOULD read.."in my youth which HAD (not "has").. I hate this disease..

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.

"because God is a warm teddy bear type God who just loves us all soooooo much, and it's all good."

This isn't Vatican II, it may be some people's spin on it, but the devil can spin anything. Don't believe me? Go back and read the account of The Fall in Genesis.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.

"The CHurch isn't wrong..the message is not CLEAR..not at ALL"

To a very large extent you are correct, which goes back to my earlier comments about the need to really start driving home to the people (again) The What's and why's we believe as Catholics what we do. What God expects from us and what we can expect if we don't get out acts together.

What is interesting is that I am seeing alot more of the Catholic mindset and actions appearing in some very large non-denominational churchs, which further confirms to me that people still want to hear what sin, punishment, Salvation are without being watered down to appease the few who have bought into the false love. (it also shows where a lot of the former Catholics have gone)

Nothing personal Fr. Paul because I'm speaking on the Whole of the problem (as I see it) and not on specific individual actions. Which of course we all know that there are Many very dedicated Priest who are not afraid to move off the safe point to deliver the fuller truth. But it seems we have to many who keep going to the socially popular safe point of the day.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 22, 2005.

Michael G.,

I've heard it said by a brother priest (and implied by so many others) that 'We don't want to be unpopular.' Granted, this priest was speaking in reference to making difficult financial decisions (read church closures). I should hope that none of us wants to be popular either. In fact, I've come right out and said it to my flock: "I am not here to please anybody but Almight God. If I feel I must speak out against something, then I will." I've also let it be known that economic duress will not sway me: "I will not prostitute the Faith or the Church."

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.

Fr. Paul,

I think that is great and I hope you understand I was trying not to lump any individual Priest into the whole of the problem.

I understand trying to balance the financial issues which is going to continue for sometime, But from what I have seen and understand people generally respond positively (or with confidence) that they are being told truth and never leaving Church with that underlying feeling that something doesn't sit right.

I understand trying to find the balance between different personalities is not always easy when trying to deliver the truth. Especially when you are dealing in some areas heavily imbedded with their own social values which run counter to the Church or even Religion in general.

If I can ask you a question, which actually may be of great value for everyone to view the otherside of the Pew.

As a Priest, What have you found to being some of your greatest obstacles in running a Parish? And maybe how long you have been a Priest, and in a Parish?

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 22, 2005.

"But to me this confirms my deepest intuitions-regarding the fact that the Church cannot restrain God from doing or accepting what he wants, and when he see's in a person the true natural spirit of what he truely created and expects from all of us, he will call them for his own regardless of the Church he does or does not belong to if any."

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not totally sure, so tell me if I'm way off. Starting with the kind of person you're talking about here, the one with the "true natural spirit", I think it a general sense that's pretty much true, with the exception of course that I'd be nixing the regardless part and what follows.

What I mean to get at about the regardless part, or specifically, the principle behind it, is going to be kind of hard to get at, so maybe analogies would work. Don't kill me if they fall flat on their face and don't work, but I'll give it a shot; you be the judge.

But first, starting with the conclusion first, which works really well as a mutually held premise between me and you. It would be roughly this: that God will act in such a way as to pluck the good- willed person out of any condition and bring them to Himself. This seems completely believable and acceptable and finds no contradiction with anything of the Catholic Faith. In fact, it's so much of the Faith that with a little time the case could probably be really well made. I believe it. I think God does exactly this. In fact, I believe I've observed it several times over with various people.

It's the part about where He puts them after He plucks them out with the intent of calling them His own. Does he set them down in just any place, or does He set them into a very particular place? Could it be anywhere He sets that that'll do, or does it have to be a very specific somewhere?

Now the Church would say He would put them into contact with the reception of the Sacraments, of course. But there's something more wanted here than just stating this, something further that a person naturally wants to know. Just how necessary is the place He sets them down?

There's two ways to approach this. Question: the Church and the Sacraments... do they facilitate this union with God, or are they necessary for this union with God? Or thirdly, perhaps are they only necessary insofar as they are the best facilitators?

It's at this point that a huge and crucial question has to be answered, because the implications are huge. The answer is going to be one of two conclusions, ultimately, and it cannot logically be avoided. One is that there is only one path. The other, is that there are many paths.

Now if it is only true that the means are only facilitators, then they cease to be the principle means whereby God is able to call them for His own, as you put it. There's nothing wrong with the way you put that, btw. They cease to be the principle because if there is another way, or more than one way, or an exception, then there is in fact some other principle whereby God and man achieve reunion.

That opens up a pandora's box. Because if where He puts them down after he plucks them out is only a facilitator, and not the principle, then the next step, obviously, would to be to seek to identify that other principle.

Here's the observation: that activity of identifying what that other principle is, in fact, the very pursuit of every other Protestant denomination, and in fact even every other religion. In short, it is the pursuit of all the activity which takes place outside the Church. They are employed in the seeking of a least common denominator as the ultimate principle for the attainment of union with God.

So it must be answered: what is the means to God? Is there another way? Are there many ways? If many, what is the one principle which is the common thread among the many ways? Because no matter what, it always will culminate in one and single principle.

So then, the important question with which we test to see if we have arrived: just how necessary is the means?

For the analogies. As to the necessity of the place where God sets them down after He plucks them out, in other words, the means:

A parachutist's chute won't open, he's falling. Is he going to necessarily die? Answer: Yes. Practically speaking, that is. He's a dead man. But the truth is also sometimes this: in rare exceptions, some have lived through this. They've broken every bone imaginable, but by expert positioning of their body to change angle of approach and to slow decent, and with a lot of luck, some have managed to survive.

The above might illustrate a 'means of Salvation' as a facilitator only. The facilitator being the parachute. Practical answer: if your chute doesn't open, will you die? Answer: yes. Have there been exceptions? Yes. Is a parachute absolutely necessary to prevent death of those who jump out of airplanes? Technically: ...no. Is the parachute the best means? Totally.

That's one concept of the necessity of means. It's a practical application. It doesn't attain to ultimate principle, though. Notice one still yearns to know the ultimate principle. What it does is to posit an ordinary economy, and yet an extraordinary ecomony. But the truth is, it is ultimately found out to be not absolutely necessary. What does this mean? It means that the real principle hasn't been identified. It leaves one to seek further for the ultimate principle.

Ok, now for the means as being the only way, such that there are no other ways. Looking for a better analogy than this, but it'll have to do for now:

One cannot reach a destination which is dead north by heading south or in fact, any other direction. (curvature of the earth being taken out the equation here). In other words, that's the way; nothing else will do. In principle and by definition. To get to the place north, you take the road north, and the northness of that road is the only means. Southness can never suffice, or even the infinite number of directions which are deviant from dead north. It is absolutely impossible, without exception.

So back to what I think you might have been getting at in approaching the dogmatic declarations of the Church. If you were to take the parachute analogy, the one of the means as facilitator, it might look like this: the Church makes these pronouncements, these dogmatic statements because they know the majority of people will perish without the parachute. They know that you can survive without it, but they don't mention this, but take the sure course: "we hereby declare that you absolutely all must be wearing a parachute when you jump this plane". Problem solved. "Don't ask us too many questions, see you at the airport cafe."

I would posit without a doubt that the truth is expressed properly with the north/south road analogy. The answer has to lie in a full treatment of the necessity of means.

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

Michael

thanks much, especially for the stuff from the Pope.

Just a short answer as this is the crux of the issue and i'd like to read some more.

however, for interest, from Vatican I:

"This true catholic ***faith***, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God. "

this follows the profession of faith by the Pope. it is useful because it is Dogmatic and it sheds light on "membership".

the classic exceptions to EENS give membership in these mysterious ways we keep hearing about to people that don't even know about, or do but don'want to belong to, the Church.

...but in this definition, the Pope demands the Catholic "Faith". "membership", therefore, requires acceptance of the Catholic "Faith", which implies knowledge of that Faith etc.

St Thomas argued that God would send an Angel to those that He considered worth saving, armed with a Bible. is this a variation on the parachute analogy?

i think i see where everyone's coming from, including the Pope. the problem is, as Catholics, were moored in the first century. we can't change stuff or we move away from the faith.

i would be willing to be that there is not a SINGLE Father that would support the Pope's new take on EENS - ie that it means No Salvation for those who KNOW that the Church is Jesus' Church.

...and where has Original Sin gone to? i keep asking this -- like a broken record. it is, however, a fundamental of the Catholic Faith.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.

Lumen Gentium para 14:

"Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

that last sentence is a non-sequitur. is the Church a "necessity" or not?

i guess we're back to the parachute.

"he who knew that a parachute was necessary but did not use one was doomed. he who did not know did not of the existence and usefulness of a parachute did not actually need the parachute."

ERGO: gravity -- analogising Original Sin -- only applies to Catholics?

yikes, Newton was virulently anti-Catholic, but i'm sure religion is not a variable in his law of gravitational attraction.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.

The traditional Catholic dogma is OUTSIDE the Church, No Salvation.

The Novus Ordo teaching is WITHOUT the Church, no Salvation.

Get the difference? When you read JPII he'll say, "The Church is necessary for salvation." He NEVER says, "BELONGING TO the Church is necessary for salvation."

JPII is slick. Very slick.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.

DOES John Paul II say that there IS salvation for people who KNOW the truth of the Catholic Church and still reject it? I don't think he does. He speaks about people who reject the Church, but he doesn't say that they do so with full knowledge of Her Truth.

Give you an example:

My brother, formerly a Catholic.now a Fundamentalist..he and I used to have e-mails zipping back and forth like mad last year, with him pondering his decision to abandon the Church. He has been accepted with open arms into a Fundamentalist-type congregation. He still questions his move though, asking me why I went back to the Catholic Church. After several months of dialogue, he said to me: "Yes, I admit that the Body and Blood of Jesus ARE truly present in the Eucharist, and that the Catholic Church IS the one true Church..BUT..if I ACT upon that belief, I'll have to turn my life upside down and I'm not going to do that."

He is comfortable where he is. It's a social acceptance type of thing with him. If he came back to the Church, he'd have to acknowledge that his relationship with his live-in girlfriend is a sin..he'd have to "do" something about that and he doesn't want to. Like Augustine before his conversion "God give me purity of heart and chastity, but not right now."

And so he knows and willingly rejects the truth in trade for the "self". This is SAD.

Contrast this with a person who is aware that the Catholic Church exists and has heard that it SAYS it has TRUTH and rejects the hearsay, yet in his own church faithfully follows the teachings of his own church and strives to please God in all things.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.

"DOES John Paul II say that there IS salvation for people who KNOW the truth of the Catholic Church and still reject it?"

he seems to say "no" to that one:

"Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, ***could not be saved***."

however, he also thinks that universal salvation is a "real possibility".

so "knowing" = actual knowledge? constructive knowledge? belief? what?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.

...and where has Original Sin gone to? i keep asking this -- like a broken record.

That's because that's the actual heart of the issue; you've nailed it.

The remedy, of course, is simply Jesus and Mary. No one can seperate the two. The new Adam and the new Eve, and the new Eve was conceived without Original Sin and gave birth to the Incarnate remedy for original and actual sin. Which exists on our altars.

It all fits together into a seamless reality.

But if one were to suppress the reality of Original Sin, then it would seem that man could save himself without the assistance of Christ via the perfection of his own natural goodness. Which is absurd.

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

Lesley wrote:

DOES John Paul II say that there IS salvation for people who KNOW the truth of the Catholic Church and still reject it? I don't think he does.

I didn't say that JPII never says, ""Belonging to the Church is necessary for salvation for those who KNOW that belonging to the Church is necessary for salvation," which appears to be the case with your brother. But that's not traditional Catholic teaching, anyway.

What I'm saying is that JPII is being very slick in sounding orthodox when in fact he isn't.

He'll speak of "the necessity of the Church for salvation." That sounds very orthodox until you realize that he is NOT speaking of the necessity of BELONGING TO the Church for salvation, which IS the traditional teaching.

It's not a question of which teaching you like better. It's a question of how the Catholic Church can claim to be infallible when she changes her teachings. The answer: by slightly altering traditional phrases so that the new teachings sound orthodox.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.

For example, "invincible ignorance" and "baptism of desire" were terms in use long before Vatican II and dealt with two completely separate doctrines. They are now employed together to come up with a completely new doctrine, which could be described as "the baptism of desire of the invincibly ignorant."

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.

Emerald:

''. . . if one were to suppress the reality of Original Sin, then it would seem that man could save himself without the assistance of Christ via the perfection of his own natural goodness. Which is absurd.'' And who is saying such an absurd thing? Isn't this another straw dog?

How would the church ''suppress a reality''-- Original Sin is real; and the church teaches us so. Baptism washes it completely away. Now, Emmie-- start over, properly; and ask what kind of baptism is adequate for Original Sin; be it in the infant, in a Jew, in a heathen, or in us? Who is suppressing Baptism, if not YOU? You suppress God Himself, who is Infinite Love and Mercy. ''Sorry, no Baptism for YOU-- Just water babies !'' ---------Haha! (No pun intended.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.

Bonzo--
Tell it as it IS.

This is a lie: ''They are now employed together to come up with a completely new doctrine,'' There's no new doctrine. Get your duckies in a row.

Invincible ignorance is everywhere, BTW. Millions live in invincible ignorance and shall die in it. That alone doesn't save ANY soul.

What conceivably saves SOME souls is the attitude they take to their deaths with them. Mainly repentence for all the sins of their lives. (A tall order?) Also, a belief in the Creator, Who has been offended. An atheist wouldn't qualify.

Very crucial is the LOVE this soul has had in his lifetime, for Creator and his/her neighbor; (Charity) and lastly:

God would have to grant MERCY. Without which is no Baptism of Desire.

Why should God grant mercy? Does the Church explain why God is able to forgive the souls we're talking about? What is the doctrine of Christ, as to the perfection of God?

He is All-Merciful; His mercy endures forever. David said: ''A humble and contrite heart, Thou wilt not spurn.''

We are also taught how JUST God is: infinitely Just. He cannot repay goodness with eternal punishment. Not because of Bonzo's precious ''goodness'' itself; but because of His Infinite Justice. In the New Testament we're taught that God desires that all men be saved. That must mean He extends His love to All. And that's what the Catholic Church teaches. Infinite Justice which does not rule out Infinite mercy. Catholics have ALWAYS been taught this doctrine. The infinite perfection of God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.

Ian, Emerald and Bonzo eloquently speak true tradition. Vatican two was made to be vague for deliberate and purposeful reasons.

For whatever reason they have been bending over backwards for Protestants, Moslems and Jews. If it was to convert them it was an utter failure.

Old timers in Ireland always said "Keep the faith". How surprised they would be today to see how it has been squandered. Thanks again to the three wise men on this forum.

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 22, 2005.

Why is your opinion better than someone else's? Did you SEE the Catholic Church ''bending over backwards for Protestants, Moslems and Jews--? ? ?'' --I never have.

''If it was to convert them it was an utter failure.'' But who told you so? How many conversions a day are you keeping track of? Pete-- You keep audaciously making up things with ludicrous certainty, backed up only with your own cliches.

Say something with some real authority to back it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.

Is Cardinal Ratzinger a good enough authority?

Following this program of newness, Paul VI presided, first of all, over what Msgr. Klaus Gamber has rightly described in his Reform of the Roman Liturgy as "the real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years".(59) It must be noted here that the French preface to Gamber's book was written by none other than Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, who called Gamber "a true prophet" with "the courage of a true witness ..." In his recent memoirs Cardinal Ratzinger agrees that the imposition of the new Mass was a "break in the history of the liturgy, the consequences of which could only be tragic ... [S] uch a development had never been seen in the history of the liturgy ..."(60)

-- Pete (Chas@Charles.com), February 22, 2005.

So you believe this is more than a private opinion? Why would our Church operate without the Holy Spirit and instead go by one recommendation-- (leaving the Latin Rite our only one) --of Gambler and Ratzinger.--?

And; for your information; a phrase here is TOTALLY wrong; a glaring error.

''The imposition of the new Mass.'' - -Catholics celebrate NO NEW MASS. We have the exact same sacrifice of Our Lord that we always had, from the days of the apostles. They called it ''breaking of the bread'' and Latin had it as ''Missa'' and today the same celebration is Holy Mass in the vernacular. Nothing has been changed but the celebrant's language. In fact--

If your priest says, ''The Lord be with you,'' and you wish to reply, ''Et cum spiritu tuo,'' God would understand each of you! Haha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.

If the Church was so strong pre-Vatican II, and everyone learned the faith and lived the morals....

How in the world can you explain the implosion in both terms of IGNORANCE of the doctrine of the faith and LACK OF PRACTICE of Catholic morals, especially sexual morals in the few short years following Vatican II?

Moreover, if all the bishops and priests pre-Vatican II were holy and well trained men, celebrating the Tridentine Mass on all the altars in impeccable Latin... where did they go?

Normal, healthy, holy men don't suddenly demand to leave the priesthood and get married because society suddenly makes it possible or because some guy who calls himself a "theologian" says its OK.

No, there were ALOT of dry-rot going on before the Council throughout Europe and the West in general that was exposed for what it was by the council.

I doubt that the Popes knew the extent of the rot - they, like everyone else, thought that things were going on pretty well, and thought they could really move things to the next level by proposing bold calls to holiness and action on the part of the laity...

But they miscalculated: few American and European bishops knew theology and philosophy (which is why they needed so-called experts!).

The rot in big religious communities (SJs and others) was further along that they supposed - the Jesuits led the charge in many things including liberation theology, the revolt around Humane Vitae, etc. instead of backing up the Pope as they had done before.

The nuns were dependent on the SJs for much of their spiritual direction...so went down the pipes along with the SJs and other religious groups who imploded after the council when re-writing their constitutions according to every hip theory rather than the Pope's own interpretation of the council.

Finally we get to the local level...if all those priests and nuns and locals were just awesome Catholics - intellectual giants and moral paragons pre-Vatican II, how can you explain the deafening silence most showed during the Sexual revolution?

Did they pray? Did they really know what the Mass was before? Was it all show and tell or something real?

I'm sorry, but real people don't implode as fast as Americans and Europeans imploded after Vatican II... so it wasn't the council that can be blamed for the implosion...

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.

What does novus ordo mean?

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 22, 2005.

New Order

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 22, 2005.

Exactly!

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 22, 2005.

Joe,

You missed one, I hate to bring it up really, but if pre-Vatican II was so great why so many sexual predators among the clergy of that era?

Pete,

New Order refers to the New Order of the Mass. The official Church Calendar used to set out the daily celebrations of the liturgies is called...........guess what? The ORDO

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 23, 2005.

"I hate to bring it up really, but if pre-Vatican II was so great why so many sexual predators among the clergy of that era? "

How unBecoming of you Paul to take a pot shot at the clergy in pre- Vatican II.

Grow up!!!!!! And get your post Vatican ll "but" to Confession.

-- - (David@excite.com), February 23, 2005.

Excitable David, that's Fr. Paul, and it is not a pot shot. It's a statement of fact; many of the abuses were during that era and by priests of that era, and those abuses have just been coming to light in the past couple of decades.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 23, 2005.

"Don't kill me if they fall flat on their face and don't work, but I'll give it a shot; you be the judge." Emerald and Ian,

Thanks for your responses. Emerald, I really only launch when I am launched upon, except when I get tired of listening to yapping chihuahua's.

I don't have time tonight for a full response which rightfully needs to include "Original Sin" as Ian pointed out. But let me leave you guys with a few points to ponder in the mean time. Even in Church history O.S. has been a difficult point of definition.

But MAYBE true original sin is "our individual" rebellion against God, and Adam and Eve became the doorway to meeting out our punishment (purification) with having to see, deal with and overcome evil in order to truely understand the goodness of God and His designs. Not our own egos. In order to recognise our faults, failures, to respect our parents, be a contributing member of society.....

"In order to walk softly on this issue here" remember some of MAIN reasons Origen was bounced out of the Church and then later condemned? Let's say that was the original path out which many still try to follow today, But due to the on-going failures of people to achieve the goal, Jesus steps in to suffer for us and to become our redeemer. Now the time is approaching the bedtime game is getting old (daddy i'm thirsty, daddy i have to go to the bathroom, daddy..., daddy...) and it is coming to an end, The end is through acceptance of Jesus Christ and following in his footsteps or the end may really be THE End!.

But now say here's Mother Teresa, and say she does not follow any religion but ONLY does what she had done for many years. Her actions show her True Spirit by doing what God has commanded through the Prophets, what Jesus has commanded, taught and lived by without any thought for herself. After a lifetime of such service do you think God would turn away and say you did not read the fine print?, or do you think he may really look and consider her punishment having been met (assuming she overcame her original failure). Maybe tap Jesus on the Shoulder point and say to him "HER"

This should give you some things to work through for now, I'll get back to your fuller responses tomorrow for sure.

Thank You!

"The whole Christian religion, says St. Augustine, may be summed up in the intervention of two men, the one to ruin us, the other to save us (De pecc. orig., xxiv)."

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 23, 2005.

David,

What Fr. Paul states is a FACT. It IS a social illness in EVERY aspect of life, every denomination.

In fact look up "The Didache on Early Christian Writings" One of the very first items listed on this deals with it.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 23, 2005.

"Yes, I admit that the Body and Blood of Jesus ARE truly present in the Eucharist, and that the Catholic Church IS the one true Church..BUT..if I ACT upon that belief, I'll have to turn my life upside down and I'm not going to do that."

Lesley,

Tell your brother I would like to spend time with many women, HOWEVER for the several hours of pleasure (i'm good! lol) I will not turn my FUTURE life upside down due to adultry.

So now in the words of Meatloafs song "Love by the dashboard lights" (So now I'm praying for the end of time...) it's better if you know the notes to it. (only kidding I have a Great Wife-- I just can't figure out why she puts up with me sometimes)

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 23, 2005.

thanks Michael G.

appreciate the humour too. all of it.

let's find out more about Original Sin.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.

Michael G.,

"As a Priest, What have you found to being some of your greatest obstacles in running a Parish?"

---Some people in the parish, in fact many; everybody wants everything in there parish but they don't want to do any work for it or to pay for it. The biggest problem regards the children, many parents do not take their responsibilities seriously if at all.

"And maybe how long you have been a Priest, and in a Parish?"

---Not yet two years, but don't let that fool you. Of all the ordinations since 1999 (eight), I was the first to be named 'Pastor' (actually another who was Ordained 2 years ahead of me was appointed Pastor of a parish at the same time), and that less than three months after my Ordination. At my temporary assignment a priest of over 50 years told me that he would work with me if I were to 'take over' that parish (a larger and very wealthy parish considered one of the gems; it would have been 'political' suicide for the bishop to have made me that offer [the parish has instead been left with yet another Priest Administrator and no Pastor]).

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.

careful Fr Paul

you've given away yr identity. perhaps the moderator might delete it now that we've seen it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.

Father Paul,

First I want to say Godspeed in your work. There is always a "but" coming after a compliment and here it is.

Eight odinations since 1999 in a large diocese, (I presume). That is a bit over one a year. Does it replace the deaths and retirements? I believe by what you have said ,that there is a critical shortage of priests.

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 24, 2005.

What about the ''but''--??? You forgot?

Does Father Paul call men to the holy priesthood, or is it God? Why don't you and the know-it-alls go light a fire under God? Don't pester Father Paul.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.

What are you going to do when a married deacon is given permission to celebrate Mass?

Well of coure the pope can allow that. Right?

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 24, 2005.

No-- Popes and all bishops entrust the offering of Mass only to ordained priests. But the Pope might one day lift the celibacy requirement completely. He has that authority.

I frankly don't think that's going to happen.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.

"a large diocese, (I presume)"

No, a small one.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.

Ian and Emerald,

Sorry for no response yesterday as planned. It would appear that if someone places a curse on my dog and since I don't have a dog it must land on me.. Oh well $10.00 in cold/flu meds. is better then a Vet bill anyway. lol!

I didn't want you to think I was dodging the bullet.

Hopefully by tomorrow night I can get back to it.

Thanks

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 24, 2005.

"Some people in the parish, in fact many; everybody wants everything in there parish but they don't want to do any work for it or to pay for it."

Fr. Paul,

Welcome to parenthood !! Now you know why they really call you Father.

"The biggest problem regards the children, many parents do not take their responsibilities seriously if at all."

This is a major problem in society. And it really makes it harder for the parents who DO take their roles seriously. And it makes little difference if your kids are in Public or Private schools because it goes back to the parents in most cases. But it also creates bigger obstacles for the rest of us. And it can make it harder on are kids as well.

Sorry I have to cut this short for now, but we'll talk more on this later.

Thanks

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 24, 2005.

Michael G

"Hopefully by tomorrow night I can get back to it. "

thanks. away until Wednesday next. have bookmarked the various threads. look forward to reading all that happens in coming days.

i would have thought that the omniscient one would know that you had a dog before placing the curse. perhaps, you are invincibly ignorant of that large Irish Wolfhound that hangs out in yr kitchen.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 25, 2005.

His dog is called Anti-Christ.

Michael shouldn't have quarrels with me. Besides his invisible dog, he keeps many imaginary insults, over which he burns with not-so-invisible hatred.

The world is full of Michaels, more afraid of losing face than eager to see the truth. If they're corrected they take offense. If someone else shows just a slight grasp, better than theirs, on the truth, on our faith, or on reality . . . it's unforgiveable.

It awakens envy. It sours their personalities. They aren't used to being stopped, or disturbed or corrected. Only power is important to our Michaels.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.

AS it came to be that the Mighty Lion searched the jungle by day and by night, searching out all undesirable creatures that may have come to converse with the other creatures of the jungle.

But the Mighty Lion could not have this!

So he would attack the undesirable creatures in one part of the Jungle saying that the Jungle Master does Not give Sanctifying Grace to the Ignorant! And in another part of the jungle he attacks other undesirable creatures saying that the Jungle Master Gives Sanctifying Grace to the Ignorant!

But as it would be creatures from the other jungles, which came in search of the many good things they heard about the jungle which the mighty lion lives in, they would stop at the boarder and observe to see if it was true. But all they saw was the Mighty Lion on the prowl and always attacking, attacking one creature for saying this, attacking the other creature for saying that. And what they observed was a very confused lion attacking simply to attack. So these creatures decided just to return to their original jungle believing what they heard was a lie.

But this Mighty Lion puffed his chest and let out a Mighty, Mighty Roar to let All of the creatures know it was His jungle and He alone has full knowledge of the truth (as he determines it).. But SUDDENLY there is a Knock and the ringing of a bell and the Mighty Lion awakens out of his slumber to return to his life as a yapping Chihuahua cowering under the furniture.

The moral of the story is: That the Mighty Lion does not live on words alone, despite the fact that a yapping Chihuahua will come to eat many of his if he doesn't read between the lines.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 27, 2005.

Wow; a nice fable!

I don't believe God is a Jungle Master, of course. It's for certain Michael G. isn't any kind of master, that we can see.

He gives a distorted slant to the things his mighty lion says. That he ever said ''the Jungle Master does not give Sanctifying Grace to the Ignorant, and then later said to somebody else, ''Jungle Master Gives Sanctifying Grace to the Ignorant!''

I have said nothing so contradictory. In fact-- nothing about BEING ignorant obtains a soul sanctifying grace. That's what mighty Lion said. But michael wasn't paying attention.

It is God who gives His grace FREELY-- to a sinner who repents with perfect contrition, and LOVES his Creator; enough to live an upright life as best he can. If these conditions aren't present at the moment of his/her death- - God has NO forgiveness and NO GRACE to grant any ignorant --or any Catholic soul. And that--

--is all the Mighty Lion ever stated here. To Michael and to some other bad animals in the jungle. Why Michael disagrees, who knows? Not all Chihuahuas agree, I realise. He is a smart puppy; but hardly the smartest Chihuahua ever to break out barking. Oh, well. Let's feed Michael his ''Skippy''. Get it right now, before he beats up on Mighty Lion over a can of ''Skippy'' --Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.

"I have said nothing so contradictory."

Eugene,

I am concerned for you!

Have you by chance identified some personal traits of yours with this fable?

Do you have a Guilty Conscience?

Maybe a Freudian slip on your part?

Remember to wait 20 minutes after taking your medicines before posting.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 27, 2005.

If Michael feels better goofing off for the forum audience; I'll help. (I don't like to see animals suffer.) A little joke on me is good fun as long as he understood my last post.

He eases his pain here, and that's understandable. I know Michael can post something useful again if we pray for him; just give him a chance. I honestly want to encourage him. Keep coming back, Michael. I won't make fun of you anymore. I hope you'll be a truly faithful Catholic. Come back every day and post Catholic faith again. Please, My Lad! Learn from every mistake and God will bless you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.

David@Excite, you got upset when Fr. D said, I hate to bring it up really, but if pre-Vatican II was so great why so many sexual predators among the clergy of that era?

Maybe you mistook Father for Paul M, and you said, How unBecoming of you Paul to take a pot shot at the clergy in pre- Vatican II. Grow up!!!!!! And get your post Vatican ll "but" to Confession.

Then Fr. D said, Excitable David, that's Fr. Paul, and it is not a pot shot. It's a statement of fact; many of the abuses were during that era and by priests of that era, and those abuses have just been coming to light in the past couple of decades.

Actually David@Excite, you were right to call it a "pot shot," as Father's comments are unjust and inaccurate. The truth is that "pre- Vatican II" WAS "great." (So is post-Vatican II, but that's another subject.)

I think that you realize, David (though Fr. D apparently does not), that the average priest ordained prior to Vatican II was more obedient, more virtuous, and less likely to be involved in pedophilia and ephebofilia (sodomy with adolescents) than the average priest ordained after Vatican II.

It was very wrong for Father to speak of "so many sexual predators among the clergy of that" pre-Vatican-II "era." Actually there were very few predators prior to Vatican II, taken as a proportion of all ordained priests. That's why the phrase "so many sexual predators" is erroneous. (I won't accuse Father of lying, but only of being ignorant of the facts or guilty of using sloppy language.)

David, in replying to your scathing comment, Fr. D said, many of the abuses were during that pre-Vatican-II era and by priests of that era.

That statement was very misleading. What good does it do to say that "many of the abuses" occurred at some point, since "many" is a relative term. Even 1/4 of the abuses can be called "many," but if (as I suspect) far fewer than 1/4 occurred between 1930 and 1965 (pre- Vatican-II), then far more than 3/4 occurred between 1965 and 2000.

It is true that some of the priests that perpetrated abuse between 1965 and 2000 were ordained before Vatican II, but that should not result in Fr. D's criticism of the pre-Vatican-II period. Instead, it has been revealed that some pre-Vatican-II priests went bad AFTER the Council. Why? Partly because of the general societal breakdown of morality (the "sexual revolution") AFTER the Council. Partly because of widespread pro-homosexual propaganda that influenced pre-Vatican-II priests (propaganda that arose from a false "spirit of Vatican II").

Note: I am not saying anything negative about the Council itself. I thank God for the Council! Rather, I am saying that neither the pre- Vatican-II period nor its priests deserve anywhere near as much criticism as Fr. D wants to give them. I was an eyewitness to both eras, and I know what I am talking about.

-- (x-ray@vision.com), February 28, 2005.

"Actually there were very few predators prior to Vatican II"

A: It is a well-documented fact that there were far fewer REPORTS of child molestation in society at large prior to the 1970's. It is also a well documented fact that the lack of reporting was not indicative of a lower rate of commission of such crimes. Since this is true for society at large, I see no reason to expect that the situation would be any different in any subset of society, including the Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 28, 2005.

It is also a well documented fact that the lack of reporting was not indicative of a lower rate of commission of such crimes.

This is a bizarre comment, ready for "File 13." If there really was a "lack of reporting" by victims (which itself cannot be "a well documented fact"!) that is "not indicative" of ANYTHING specific, neither a "lower rate" nor an "equal rate" nor a "higher rate."

Making Paul M's post even more worthy of being purged is his selective, out-of-context quoting from my previous message. I didn't merely say, "Actually there were very few predators prior to Vatican II". I said, "Actually there were very few predators prior to Vatican II, taken as a proportion of all ordained priests." The full sentence has a very different meaning from the partial one. But if someone is bound and determined to trash the pre-Vatican-II period, he apparently has selective vision while reading. Maybe David@Excite was right, after all, in saying "Paul" instead of "Father Paul."

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 01, 2005.

"Actually there were very few predators prior to Vatican II, taken as a proportion of all ordained priests."

A: I was trying to cut you a little slack, but since you insist on forcing the literal meaning of your statement ... There is no evidence to support the idea that child molestation was any less common prior to the time of Vatican II, either in the Church or in society at large. There is ample published evidence to indicate that the problem was just as rampant in society at that time as it is now. Human nature was still human nature, and sin was still sin. Therefore there is no reason to imagine that the problem was any less common in the Church then than it is now, "TAKEN AS A PROPORTION OF ALL ORDAINED PRIESTS". So, if the PROPORTION of ordained priests who suffered from this disorder was comparable to what it is today, and there is no reason to think otherwise, it goes without saying that there must have been many MORE child molestors in the priesthood then than there are now, simply because there were many more priests. Neither human nature nor sin are the results of any Church Council. Adultery, homosexuality, child molestation, and any other sin you can name have been around as long as human beings have been. They were commonplace prior to Vatican II. They were commonplace prior to Trent. They were commonplace prior to the birth of Christ, and prior to the birth of Abraham. Today society's view of such matters is different, so what was done in secret is now done openly (in the case of homosexuality), or reported to the authorities (in the case of child abuse). That's the only difference.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 01, 2005.

xrayvision. Could have fooled ME.

How can you claim anyone here is ''bound and determined to trash the pre-Vatican- II period'', -- ? ? ?

Name ONE Catholic here who ever ''trashes'' our CHURCH prior to Vatican II. ONE ''bound and determined'' anti-Tridentine Liturgy post?

The refernce above was to so many perpetrators who were denounced in recent years,

Who in fact had been active perverts in the pre-Vatican II ERA-- Some of the accused ones were in their 80's!!! And even Cardinal Bernard Law was ordained way prior to the ecunemical movement. Father was only referring to bad apples. Not to the Tridentine Rite; or previous Holy Masses, or that Era. I COME FROM THAT ERA! --I didn't see a slur.

If there's anything I detest it's dishonest people who pretend to be ''traditional Catholics''. Just stick to the truth, Xray Pharisee!

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

Good heavens! It's getting deeper around here.

There is no evidence to support the idea that child molestation was any less common prior to the time of Vatican II, either in the Church or in society at large.
Not only is the above incorrect (and the propaganda of "revisionist historians" who try to justify perversions), but it concentrates on pedophilia, rather than the real problem, homosexual ephebophilia.

What I said before is the real truth, as the pope and nearly any bishop will tell us: the average priest ordained prior to Vatican II was more obedient, more virtuous, and less likely to be involved in pedophilia and ephebofilia (sodomy with adolescents) than the average priest ordained after Vatican II.

There is ample published evidence to indicate that the problem was just as rampant in society at that time as it is now.

Any such "evidence" is surely as unreliable as anything we got from Kinsey. More importantly, the quoted words are irrelevant, because I said nothing about "society." I spoke of pre-Vatican-II PRIESTS, among whom "the problem was" NOT "just as rampant."

there is no reason to imagine that the problem was any less common in the Church then than it is now, "TAKEN AS A PROPORTION OF ALL ORDAINED PRIESTS".

There is PLENTY of reason to think so, and I even explained why (the "sexual revolution," etc.). It is disheartening to write something important and then watch people ignore it. How can one persevere in trying to inform others when the others don't give a damn what one writes? Lord, help me to be patient!

it goes without saying that there must have been many MORE child molestors in the priesthood then than there are now, simply because there were many more priests

Irrelevant. To avoid mixing apples and oranges, we have to discuss this in terms of rates of offenses per year, not in terms of collective crimes over many, many decades. There were NOT "many more priests" per year (1930-1965 versus 1965-2000), but there WERE "many more" offenses per year in 1965-2000.

How can you claim anyone here is 'bound and determined to trash the pre-Vatican- II period' -- ?"

How can I do it, sir? By having observed at least three occasions, by the same person, of unjust bashing of certain aspects of the Church during the pre-Vatican-II period. If you did not witness any of his previous offenses, then you understandably do not criticize the person. But you cannot take away from me my right to criticize him, since I DID witness previous offenses.

If there's anything I detest it's dishonest people who pretend to be ''traditional Catholics''. Just stick to the truth, Xray Pharisee!

Are you unable to read, sir, or are you just a hopeless hothead? How dare you call me a Pharisee and one who pretends to be a "traditional Catholic?" READ MY PRIOR MESSAGE AGAIN! READ EVERY WORD! Nowhere did I claim that there were NO perpetrators prior to the Council. Nowhere did I claim that ALL the priests were pristinely pure prior to the Council. Nowhere did I push the "Tridentine Liturgy" (mentioned out of the blue by you), which I never attend. Nowhere did I criticize the Council, but rather I said that the post-Vatican- II era is "great" and that the Council was a gift from God!

If there's anything I detest it's dishonest people who pretend to be ''traditional Catholics''. If there's anything that I detest, it's dolts (even "honest" ones) who read carelessly, get irrationally inflamed because of their misreading, and then post unjustifiable comments that I have to waste time refuting. I am one of the foremost critics of so-called "trads," contrary to what you wrongly concluded. My defending the good things about pre-Vatican-II times IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE with my fighting against the errors of so- called "trads." Try to think more and post less, please. It's not true that every thread needs to have your fingerprints on it.

X-Ray.

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 02, 2005.

I'll repeat the lower part of my last message, this time with proper font.

How can you claim anyone here is 'bound and determined to trash the pre-Vatican- II period' -- ?"

How can I do it, sir? By having observed at least three occasions, by the same person, of unjust bashing of certain aspects of the Church during the pre-Vatican-II period. If you did not witness any of his previous offenses, then you understandably do not criticize the person. But you cannot take away from me my right to criticize him, since I DID witness previous offenses.

If there's anything I detest it's dishonest people who pretend to be ''traditional Catholics''. Just stick to the truth, Xray Pharisee!

Are you unable to read, sir, or are you just a hopeless hothead? How dare you call me a Pharisee and one who pretends to be a "traditional Catholic?" READ MY PRIOR MESSAGE AGAIN! READ EVERY WORD! Nowhere did I claim that there were NO perpetrators prior to the Council. Nowhere did I claim that ALL the priests were pristinely pure prior to the Council. Nowhere did I push the "Tridentine Liturgy" (mentioned out of the blue by you), which I never attend. Nowhere did I criticize the Council, but rather I said that the post-Vatican- II era is "great" and that the Council was a gift from God!

If there's anything I detest it's dishonest people who pretend to be ''traditional Catholics''.

If there's anything that I detest, it's dolts (even "honest" ones) who read carelessly, get irrationally inflamed because of their misreading, and then post unjustifiable comments that I have to waste time refuting. I am one of the foremost critics of so-called "trads," contrary to what you wrongly concluded. My defending the good things about pre-Vatican-II times IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE with my fighting against the errors of so- called "trads." Try to think more and post less, please. It's not true that every thread needs to have your fingerprints on it.

X-Ray.

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 02, 2005.

How can you claim anyone here is ''bound and determined to trash the pre-Vatican- II period'', -- ? ? ? -->>> That makes me a dolt.

YOUR words, XRayvision,MY EYE: ''there were very few predators prior to Vatican II, taken as a proportion of all ordained priests." The full sentence has a very different meaning from the partial one. But if someone is bound and determined to trash the pre- Vatican-II period, he apparently has selective vision while reading. Now--

Who said Paul or our Catholic forum is bound and determined to trash the pre-Vatican-II period-- ???

You. I never said you trashed Vatican II & afterwards. I only said (hastily, I realise) If there's anything I detest it's dishonest people who pretend to be ''traditional Catholics''. If that shoe doesn't fit you, pass it on to a dishonest tradionist and stop your steam- roller. I STILL hate dishonest people who pretend to be traditional Catholics. None of your convoluted lessons online are about to change that.

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

"If there's anything I detest it's dishonest people who pretend to be ''traditional Catholics''. Just stick to the truth, Xray Pharisee!"

Gene, this guy ain't a traditional Catholic. Put the gun down.

I think it's JFG.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 02, 2005.

"I STILL hate dishonest people who pretend to be traditional Catholics."

Come on, Gene, we're supposed to love them.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 02, 2005.

Figga of speech, etc.,

John wasn't afraid to call me a dolt. But I'll never hate him. I am privileged to have known the guy. His personality is too Lordly for some, but nobody doubts his understanding of everything sacred. Come back, JFG, all is forgiven. Lol!

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

Unlike many of the so called Traditionalists, those of us who are faithful to the Magisterium since Vatican II are not into "trashing" any period of the Church. Claims that Vatican II caused all the problems of todays society and Church is the same as saying that after Joe went to the store it blew up, therefore Joe is the cause of the store's blowing up. It's called a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 02, 2005.

"post hoc, ergo proctor hoc"... Kind of like what Gene just did to JFG, accidentally calling him a traditionalist because he took issue with you? lol!

Did you just learn that one?

Try this one instead: Propter quid vs. quia.

Makes more sense.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 02, 2005.

"Did you just learn that one?"

How insulting!!! But again, it shows your ignorance of the Church. All in formation for Orders must study at least 2 years of philosophy, and one cannot study philosophy properly without at least one good course in logic.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 02, 2005.

The reason I said that is because it's one of the standard complaints out there against traditional Catholics, that they're using post hoc >>> ergo proctor hoc reasoning. But it's hardly true.

"Unlike many of the so called Traditionalists... [who believe that] ...Vatican II caused all the problems of todays society and Church..."

I don't believe that Vatican II has caused all the problems of society and the Church. Neither do any of the traditional Catholics I know. I'd say it's a mere butchering of the what traditional Catholics truly believe and opine.

Don't get insulted, just have the discussion. I didn't get insulted when you misrepresent traditional Catholics think, so I'd ask the same of you here.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 02, 2005.

Once again it's useful for PRECISION'S sake to say: Traditional Catholics are assisting at our Novus Ordo Mass, and in direct descent from the ancient Catholic Church with no hiatus or dissent.

It's mainly you-- claiming the traditional mantel, who have been dividing faithful Catholic from faithful Catholic. For whatever pretext.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

I'd just point at you and say the same thing.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 03, 2005.

"Traditional Catholics are assisting at our Novus Ordo Mass, and in direct descent from the ancient Catholic Church with no hiatus or dissent."

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 03, 2005.

Could you be more tendentious, please? Where is the accusation? That group playing Sanhedrin online needs you, Emmie. Man, are you the tenor they'll pay big bucks for! Bust out in song!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

Hey, I don't have to put up with kind of garbage you see depicted there.

You might.

And whether anyone likes it or not, or no matter how much a personal sinner I may be:

I'm in Communion with the Pope. Deal with it.

You say you are, too. We think differently, even, believe differently. Perhaps, pray differently.

Why is that.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 03, 2005.

Emerald,

"I'm in Communion with the Pope."

Really now? Do you give the assent of Faith to his teachings? Don't give me any of that infallibility stuff because you still must give that assent regardless.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.

Knowing how much you and Ian like to twist other people's posts around I better qualify my post above:

The pope does not have to declare something to be an infallible teaching before we are required to give the assent (obedience) of Faith.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.

"Really now?"

Totally.

"Do you give the assent of Faith to his teachings?"

Which ones?

"Don't give me any of that infallibility stuff because you still must give that assent regardless."

Understood. Which ones though?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 07, 2005.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994/99), the Second Vatican Council (big part of his teachings), etc.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.

As the rest of us have witnessed about 576 times in the last four years, Father, Emerald will not have the the intestinal fortitude to give a straight answer to the question you are now asking him. The devil always provides him with some double-talk, so that he will not have to admit what we all know to be true:

Emerald rejects some of what is taught in the documents of Vatican II.

Emerald rejects some of what is taught in the Catechism (whether 1992 or 1997 edition).

Emerald rejects some of what Pope John Paul II teaches via his ordinary magisterium.

It's as simple as that, though he hasn't the guts to admit it openly. He knows that, if he says what is really in his heart, he will have admitted to being a heretic. So he keeps his lips zipped, except to sprinkle harmful innuendo, day in and day out. He was at least once banned from the forum, with good reason.

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 08, 2005.

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994/99), the Second Vatican Council (big part of his teachings), etc."

What seems to be the problem with getting specific?

"As the rest of us have witnessed about 576 times in the last four years, Father, Emerald will not have the the intestinal fortitude to give a straight answer to the question you are now asking him."

I accept each and everything the Catholic Church teaches.

"The devil always provides him with some double-talk, so that he will not have to admit what we all know to be true: Emerald rejects some of what is taught in the documents of Vatican II."

Now let's observe your inability to give a straight answer. Here: give me just one teachings of Vatican II. Just one.

"Emerald rejects some of what is taught in the Catechism (whether 1992 or 1997 edition)."

Such as?

"Emerald rejects some of what Pope John Paul II teaches via his ordinary magisterium."

Such as?

"It's as simple as that, though he hasn't the guts to admit it openly. He knows that, if he says what is really in his heart, he will have admitted to being a heretic."

A heretic concerning what? What heresy do I hold?

After all these years, you still can't even say what the teachings are. You can't even name one. You want desperately to be able to say I reject some truth of the Catholic Faith, and you are completely unable to even name what it is.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 08, 2005.

Just curious, Emerald--
Father Paul asked you RE: The Pope;

"Do you give the assent of Faith to his teachings?" --and you replied, -----''Which ones?''

OK, which ones do you like and which ones don't you like?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

I accept each and everything the Catholic Church teaches.

That, my scaly foe, is "stercus tauri." Father has just witnessed, in your post that quoted mine, how you have gutlessly ducked everything, now for a 577th time. Naturally, you will now make it 578, because you have an empty bag.

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 08, 2005.

Example of the "emeraldine empty-bag syndrome:"

Now let's observe your inability to give a straight answer. Here: give me just one teachings of Vatican II. Just one

Countless times, "straight answers" have been given to this filthy snake, leaving him speechless. For example, when the above demand was previously made, the reply was words to this effect: "Every declarative statement in 'Lumen Gentium' is a teaching of the Catholic Church, stated by the Fathers of Vatican II."

The quasi-man Esmeralda then had ZERO reply to the above statement in the past. Why? Because he REJECTS some of the declarative statements in "Lumen Gentium," even though they are Catholic Church teachings.

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 08, 2005.

I should have mentioned, for the sake of young folks unfamiliar with the title, "Lumen Gentium" ("Light of the Nations"), it is Vatican II's "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church."

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 08, 2005.

Gene: "OK, which ones do you like and which ones don't you like?"

You haven't even told me what they are, and you ask, which ones do I like or don't like?

So desperate to levy accusations for which you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. You want to pretend as if I reject some part of the Catholic Faith.

Yet you can't even state what it is that I reject.

I reject nothing of the Catholic Faith.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 08, 2005.

"Countless times, "straight answers" have been given to this filthy snake, leaving him speechless."

I find your manner of response to be at adds with Unitatis Redintegratio, the Decree onf Ecumenism, Second Vatican Council:

"Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility."

I simply don't understand this dissent.

"For example, when the above demand was previously made, the reply was words to this effect: "Every declarative statement in 'Lumen Gentium' is a teaching of the Catholic Church, stated by the Fathers of Vatican II."

Please name them.

"The quasi-man Esmeralda then had ZERO reply to the above statement in the past. Why? Because he REJECTS some of the declarative statements in "Lumen Gentium," even though they are Catholic Church teachings."

Which ones? Why can't you just state which ones?

How hard can this possibly be?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 08, 2005.

Italics off.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 08, 2005.

Now--
Far be it from me to sink to such vile hate speech as we see here from Xrayintodarkness; yet he's correct about your faith. And you have flipped off Fr Paul asking about the Pope.

"Do you give the assent of Faith to his teachings?"

''Which ones?'' --You ask. I can infer some parts can't be assented to? I take it you know some you can dissent from? Please; don't expect me to name them.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

"Far be it from me to sink to such vile hate speech as we see here from Xrayintodarkness..."

Yes, that's correct. It is vile, a bad example, and could very well be a real turn-off for anybody on the outside of the Faith looking in at Catholicism in general. And that's no good.

"...yet he's correct about your faith."

No he wasn't. It is, in fact, completely groundless. If he were to press the case, and I would invite him to discuss his reasonings, he would not win that round. I make that claim with the full knowledge that the Faith is no place for scoring or winning or contest. I'm merely making the claim that the truth will prevail in the face of falsity and adversity.

And you have flipped off Fr Paul asking about the Pope. "Do you give the assent of Faith to his teachings?"

And so I asked him which teachings he was referring to.

''Which ones?'' --You ask.

Right. Just like that. If you can't name them, then there's a serious problem.

"I can infer some parts can't be assented to?"

No, you may not. Not if he, or you, constantly refer to teachings which you cannot name.

"I take it you know some you can dissent from?"

Not that I can think of.

"Please; don't expect me to name them."

Oh, I most certainly demand that you name them. Because if you or any else is going to claim that someone rejects the Catholic Faith, or is a heretic, a person better doggone know what they're talking about, and be able to clearly state what that heresy is. Or answer to God Almighty for it. If they can't, well hey, maybe they don't have a case. Maybe they're just sinning, and that's all. Maybe they're just heaping hot coals on their own head.

As for me, I don't mind the false accusations. The more they are made, and the more spiteful they are, the more clarity is brought to the issue on the table. It's just the soul itself who is making the hateful claims that's the real worry.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 08, 2005.

What is this nonsense about "vile hate speech?" Two people who normally pretend to be conservative now sound like liberal sissies protesting strong talk from a conservative. "Oh, he's so mean- spirited, isn't he, dear? He needs to be more genteel." Rubbish (and hypocritical coming from people who have posted much nastier stuff themselves)!

GREEN SNAKE (Emerald), earlier: Now let's observe your inability to give a straight answer. Here: give me just one teaching of Vatican II. Just one

ME, replying last time, to expose his serpentine deception: when the above demand was previously made [i.e., in years past], the reply was words to this effect: "Every declarative statement in 'Lumen Gentium' is a teaching of the Catholic Church, stated by the Fathers of Vatican II." In years past, that left the snake confounded, and it continues to do so, just as I predicted:

GREEN SNAKE (Emerald), in reply: Please name them. [Translation: "hum-in-a-hum-in-a-hum-in-a ..."] Apparently, besides being diabolical in every way, the Snake is a mental midget. I just got through saying, "Every declarative statement in 'Lumen Gentium' is a teaching of the Catholic Church." That is a very obvious way to "NAME THEM." Since Green-Snake seems to have failed grade school English (when he was taught what "declarative" means), I'll explain that it is every sentence in "Lumen Gentium" that is not a question. The point is that Green-Snake must assent to EVERY declarative sentence in LG.

Thus, there is no need whatsoever for me to have to reprint all those thousands of declarative sentences (teachings), one at a time or all together. Instead, Green-Snake can re-read LG (if he needs to refresh his memory) and can then decide whether or not to humbly assent to every declarative sentence it contains. If he refuses to assent to every declarative sentence in LG, he is either a dissenter or a heretic. Of course, we already know that he knows everything that LG says, and he doesn't really have to re-read it. If he were a man, instead of a snake, he would simply reel off each LG teaching that he rejects. Even the worst-behaved protestants at least have the courage to do that. But not a human Green-Snake. No, sir! That Wormwood has has learned well from his Screwtape.

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 08, 2005.

Very dramatic, X;
Emerald is his alias, no doubt. Had he chosen Stercus or Green Snake, it would be fine with me or any true Christian. He didn't. You chose Xrayetc.,- - an alias. Why not change it to any vile name I can imagine, just for drama's sake? I have nothing against dramatic effects. But not VILE verbal abuse. You LIE by saying I've posted nastier stuff. Certainly I've posted dramatic B S; --Emerald would realise that.

You're detestable, is the end result. I've contested these errant Catholics, every one; but not to the extent of actually sinning against anyone. Which YOU can't truthfully say. It's all recorded here, and shows your colors well. Just another divider; an enemy of Christ's Church. Who could possibly read your venom today and lend you credibility? YOU? A Catholic? I hope so, Savonarola. Go ask forgiveness, then. Do penance while there's time.

You, Emerald are not off the hook. The sophism you bring here lends itself to this unholy trouble; it's your fault. No one's taken in by your St Sebastian act. Get a life and be honest with your Catholic brethren. A Catholic martyr you ain't.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

"You, Emerald are not off the hook."

I didn't figure I was, if that helps any.

Lumen Gentium contains no declarative statements.

Here's an example of a declarative statement:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart."

Clear. Precise.

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

Here's an example of a declarative statement: "We declare, pronounce, and define that ..."

Incorrect. That is not a "declarative statement," but a "dogmatic definition."

The following, from "Lumen gentium," is just one of the hundreds (or thousands) of declarative statements/sentences that simply teach a part of the Catholic faith. To ALL of the hundreds (or thousands) of declarative sentences in LG, a Catholic is required to give assent:

Priests, although they do not possess the highest degree of the priesthood, and although they are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power, nevertheless they are united with the bishops in sacerdotal dignity.

At this point, what is required is that Emerald go back and read all of LG, listing for us all the "declarative sentences" therein that he refuses to believe.

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 09, 2005.

That's x-rayvision's problem. You can surely handle him, can't you? We all abide by the infallible Church's teachings. Maybe you do too. Looks like you want to weasel out of agreeing with parts of Vatican II, while yet remaining nominally faithful. That's fine, but you're not fooling anybody.

Keep in mind that though some have vilified you for your views, others demanded you leave and never come back, etc., I only deride you and warn you if you over-step. I don't curse Catholics. I haven't repudiated Tradition, nor the Tridentine liturgy. Some things you say I agree with very warmly.

I just want to see you love all your brethren, as Jesus commanded us all. How are you doing it? Not fun to watch. You just want to GRAB all the chips on the table. Never leaving even ONE chip for your Pals. Not even for a priest! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

"Incorrect. That is not a "declarative statement," but a "dogmatic definition."

Please cite the documents of the Church which makes this distinction you make.

"The following, from "Lumen gentium," is just one of the hundreds (or thousands) of declarative statements/sentences that simply teach a part of the Catholic faith. To ALL of the hundreds (or thousands) of declarative sentences in LG, a Catholic is required to give assent:

Priests, although they do not possess the highest degree of the priesthood, and although they are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power, nevertheless they are united with the bishops in sacerdotal dignity.

Of course I give my assent to that. That particular sentence is mere restatement of what Catholics have always known and believed. I told you a long time ago, that anything in the documents of Vatican II which are restatements of Catholic doctrine require assent. Just like they did before Vatican II.

"At this point, what is required is that Emerald go back and read all of LG, listing for us all the "declarative sentences" therein that he refuses to believe."

No. Feed me some more. Let's see just how bogus your claim is that I deny any one point of the Catholic Faith.

Beware, though. As you move along though, watch carefully that you don't add something to the Deposit of the Faith. I'll catch it.

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

Of course I give my assent to that. That particular sentence is mere restatement of what Catholics have always known and believed.

Good grief! Are you so dense as to think that I provided that declarative sentence as an example of something that we suspected you did not believe? Good grief! How could you not realize that I was simply quoting that sentence as nothing but an example of a "declarative sentence," the kind of which there are hundreds (or thousands) in LG?

I was not asking you if you gave your assent to that sentence. I was merely helping you to understand the kind of statement/sentence to which I was referring, in earlier messages, when I said that we must give our assent to all of them. I was showing an example of the kind of sentence to which we must assent, even though it does not contain formal words of dogmatic definition (like those you provided -- "declare, pronounce, and define"). And when I say "the kind of sentence," I am not referring to content, but to structure -- a "declarative" sentence, as opposed to an "interrogative" or an "imperative" sentence. It does not matter what the content is. Each declarative sentence in LG requires our assent.

I told you a long time ago, that anything in the documents of Vatican II which are restatements of Catholic doctrine require assent. Just like they did before Vatican II. [emphasis added]

And WE repeatedly told YOU two things "a long time ago":
(1) that EVERYthing in Lumen Gentium IS a "restatement of Catholic doctrine" and "require[s] assent," and
(2) that EVERYthing that is TAUGHT "in the documents of Vatican II" -- even anything that you do not perceive as a "restatement of Catholic doctrine" -- "require[s] assent."

"At this point, what is required is that Emerald go back and read all of LG, listing for us all the 'declarative sentences' therein that he refuses to believe." No. Feed me some more. Let's see just how bogus your claim is that I deny any one point of the Catholic Faith. Beware, though. As you move along though, watch carefully that you don't add something to the Deposit of the Faith. I'll catch it.

Yes. We are well aware of the fact that here is where your heretical "bent" is openly revealed. We don't have to "feed you" anything. If I were to spend a few weeks or months "feeding" you every single declarative sentence in LG and telling you that you must assent to it, we would eventually reach some sentences to which you would state, "That is not part of" or "That is not in agreement with the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, I don't have to assent to it." That would be one effective, but stupidly inefficient, way to expose the specific points of your dissent and heresy.

Directly contrary to your erroneous claim, if I were to quote the entire text of LG to you, I would never once quote a sentence that "adds something to the deposit of the faith." And that is the whole point of our unmasking of you as the heretic you are. What you call the "deposit of the faith" is stunted. You have a limited, less- than-Catholic, creed. Like your fellow protestants, you do not believe all that a Catholic must believe.

We don't need to show everyone that you are a protestant by the slow process of posting the entire text of LG and waiting for you to say, "I don't have to assent to that ... and that ... and that." Instead, if you had any integrity to replace your diabolical deviousness, you would save everyone a lot of time and trouble, showing the depths of your protestantism by simply quoting outright those LG sentences to which you would refuse to assent IF we were to post the entire text, one sentence at a time, demanding your assent to each sentence.

We have repeatedly seen, for years, that you don't have the guts to quote outright those LG sentences, because you want to fake out as many people, for as long as possible, into thinking that you are not a heretic. We expect yet another round of stonewalling from you, o Gutless Wonder. It would be good for you to prove us wrong by quoting those LG sentences to which you do not give your assent -- and then really show that you are a MAN by trying to prove that you don't need to assent to them. That's what a REAL man would do, but a gutless wimp wouldn't do it. Even card-carrying protestants have the guts to do it, but (thus far) not Wimp-erald.

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 10, 2005.

So... what was the Catholic doctrine which I supposedly don't accept?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

Parts of Conciliar teachings you perceive as mere ''modernism''. You've droned on about all that for two years here, be man enough to own up.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

"Parts of Conciliar teachings you perceive as mere ''modernism''. You've droned on about all that for two years here, be man enough to own up."

Why can't you name them?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

If that's necessary, I can.

But the subject is really boring. We know already you started here as a dissident and scoffer of the Church after Vatican II. It's no secret.

You've pestered for months lauding and bragging about your ''trad'' puritanism as compared to ''Neos'', mod-caths and other assorted derisions of our vernacular Masses and faithful. The proof is in that pudding, Emmie.

Just yesterday, you were asked simply: ''Do you assent in faith to the teachings of Vatican II? There were only two practical answers. ''NO-- or, Yes; I assent.'' But the Wise-Guy asks in return, ''Which ones?'' This says to me, SOME I could not assent to. --And you continue to talk about which ones? Just say, I assent to all these teachings, and end this farce.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

"If that's necessary, I can."

It's necessary.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

We have repeatedly seen, for years, that you don't have the guts to quote outright those LG sentences, because you want to fake out as many people, for as long as possible, into thinking that you are not a heretic. We expect yet another round of stonewalling from you, o Gutless Wonder.

Q.E.D.

The gutless wimp, the Michael Jackson of the forum, whimpers along for a while longer, turning his soul a deeper shade of black.

-- (x-ray@vision.com), March 11, 2005.

X: --Why don't you control your hatred and vituperation on the forum? Everybody here disapproves of Emerald. But we can keep the malice directed at his misconduct, and not at the person. He isn't the most pleasant simpleton around here, but you've become a nasty one.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

I'm confused. This thread is so long... Emerald, do you or do you not accept Vatican II as an authentic Council?

I.e. that "the documents of Vatican II" are authentic magisterium of the Church as officially proclaimed and explained by the Popes?

Or do you believe that they are heretical because you can't understand them?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2005.

Everybody here disapproves of Emerald.

Speak for yourself Eugene.

-- how some love (tospeakasifthey@knowall.com), March 11, 2005.

I guess; since Emerald speaks for HIM-self.

He makes it sound as if he spoke for the Catholic Church. You may thinks so, BUT???

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

Could I borrow Ian, Eugene and emerald for one post. Someone said this: "I will be what I will be." Exodus 3:14 "I will be" spells out YHWH in Hebrew.

Ancient Hebrew had no I am, you are, he is, she is,....for teh present, only the future

Eheye (see the e at the beginning) I will be This is what God said in Exodus 3:14 Eheyeh asher eheyeh (I will be what I will be)"

The catechism says 'I am' could someone point me in the direction of the correct translation.Thanks

-- abc (abc@d.e), March 11, 2005.