Has anyone read "The Prayer of Jabez" by Dr. Bruce H. Wilkinson?

If so, what are you thoughts on this one.

God Bless,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 20, 2002

Answers

-- (_@_._), March 20, 2002.

Kathy,

I have read "The Prayer of Jabez", and I have prayed it, as I have prayed other prayers in the Bible (The Psalms, The Lord's Prayer, The Hail Mary, etc.). I know many Evangelical Christians who swear by it. However, I'm afraid it has become something of a "gimmick". If you have been in any "christian" book stores lately you'll see what I mean. There are whole sections dedicated to Jabez "products", such as Jabez journals, devotional books, Jabez books for teens and kids, cofee mugs, bumper stickers, etc.

I guess the idea is that boldness of prayer gets God's attention more than others. I'm sure The Lord wants us to be bold in our prayers, but I don't think even Jabez himself wanted his simple (but bold) prayer to become a Madison Avenue marketing frenzy! There are others in the Old and New Testament that prayed maybe less "boldly", and God granted them their requests as well. There are people who prayed more "boldly" and their requests were not granted.

I think that the Lord wants us to come to Him with all our desires, whether we pray like Jabez, or like Kathy, or like Marcella.

God bless you.

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), March 21, 2002.

Hi Marcella,

Your right! They went overboard with the marketing. However I did enjoy the book very much. It made me realize how often I pray for other people, and how seldom I pray for myself. And I would like to believe that God has wonderful things in store for me "Ask, and you shall recieve."

I also don't live by that book alone, but I enjoy reading little books of that nature. They spark conversation when left on a coffee table.

Thanks for your input.

God Bless You Marcella,

Do you have any

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 21, 2002.

Kathy

Have you ever heard of the Fatima Prayer? I happen to love it as it is simple and very charitable towards others. It was used in the Rosary prayers all the time for the conversion of Russia from 1918, or whomever you chose to dedicate it to now that Russia is free.

Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.

you will see that this prayer teaches us to be merciful to others and asks for the mercy of GOD to be given to those who are oppressed. In other words we need to think of others, not just of ourselves.

Blessed be the Poor, for they shall see the Kingdom of GOD.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 21, 2002.

I like the prayer given to the children of Fatima too, which is (roughly) "Lord I believe in you, I hope in you, and I love you. Please forgive me for not believing in you, hoping in you, and loving you, and help me to grow in faith , hope and love day by day..."

J.

-- jane (janeulrich80@hotmail.com), March 21, 2002.

Chris

I have always wondered about the recent "Third Secret" of Fatima that was revealed to Sister Lucia which was recently revealed by the Holy Father. I have read some of the writings from Cardinal Radzinger in the past. But this last revelation has me a bit confused as to what it means. Could you possibly shed some clear light on what it means. I really don't want to start another thread just for this subject as i don't have any desire for the fools on the side to tamper with my request. I would appreaciate what little light you can give me.. Bless You, In the name of the Trinitarian GOD.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 21, 2002.

Hi Fred,

Yes I am familiar with the Fatima Prayer, as are my children. Easy and simple for them to remember.

As I stated earlier, leaving little books like the one of Jabez for example around the house, not only brings up spiritual conversation, but it also brings about questions from my young children.

God Bless You,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 21, 2002.

Kathy,

I don't know if you have read it, but "Secrets of the Vine" by Dr. Wilkerson is a nice little book. It's one that my Evangelical friends and I actually don't argue over! I found the info in it even more practical than that of "The Prayer of Jabez".

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), March 21, 2002.

Hi Marcella,

Yes, I have seen "Secret's of the Vine" out there, but I have not purchased it yet, so I haven't had the opportunity to read it.

I haven't done much reading since I found this forum, truth be told. When my kids aren't keeping me busy, I find myself coming here.

I don't know if you have looked into the other threads or not, but it is getting too nasty......It is lacking in christianity. I hope it ends soon. I was enjoying coming here.

Anyway, if you know of any other good books.....

Bless You,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 21, 2002.

Kathy,

Two points. I have read Dr. Wilkinson's "Prayer of Jabez". I found it to be simply a man asking God for help. I did not find the book overly inspiring but I have no problems with people using the prayer in the correct frame of mind (asking God for help in their ministries - not personal help).

As for recommendations for future reading. The two best Christian books I have read lately are Scott Hahn's "Rome Sweet Home" and Patrick Madrid's "Surprised by Truth".

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), March 21, 2002.

Glenn,

I read both of those books, which helped lead me to my conversion. Another great book by Patrick Madrid is "Search and Rescue", which gives very practical advice on bringing our loved ones to, or back to, the Church.

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.

Kathy

I DO recommend Scott Hahn's book highly too. His story is full of good things and believeme I was in tears of JOY when I finished reading it. It is one of the best readings I have ever had in my life.

THANKS BE TO GOD...YAHOOOOOOO

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 22, 2002.

Hi Glenn, Hi Fred,

"Rome Sweet Home", is that the book about the husband and wife, who If I remember correctly, the husband was a pastor of a protestant denomination? I think I have heard of this book somewhere, the title of it rings a bell.

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 22, 2002.

Kathy

Yes it is . it is the story of a Presbyterian minister who grew up hating everything Catholic only to eventually become Catholic a n a darn good one too I may add. He also was in constant battles with the Church and her Ideals. It was the GOSPEL of John that converted him. He also convinced many of his friends who were also pastors to convert. Read it - You will love it. Bless You.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 22, 2002.

Fred, I saw your question about the "Third Secret of Fatima" (i.e., the third part of the [one] secret).
There is an excellent EWTN Internet page about the three parts of the secret, including the actual hand-written texts, the translations, and the official Vatican "Theological Commentary" on the third part. I encourage you to read it, and it can be found here.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

John

Thanks a bunch.. lovely site. BLESSES to YOU

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 25, 2002.

I just read through this about The Prayer of Jabez. It was interesting. I've not yet read the book but look forward to doing so soon.

I agree with Fred that the Fatima Prayer (O My Jesus) is a beautiful prayer. I pray it also.

I would like to point out that we still do need to pray for the conversion of Russia. I would hardly call it "free" at this point, considering the large number of abortions and other problems that take place there.

-- DAVE MONTROSE (IREJECTSOCIETY@yahoo.com), April 09, 2002.

Since Fatima was brought up....I've been meaning to ask about it but I didn't want to enflame. And so, know that is NOT my intention. Just curious~

I've read ALOT about Fatima (loved the prayer, BTW, Jane!!!) and I wonder what you all think about Father Gruner and some of the others (like Kathleen Keating, Father Malachi Martin, etc) that have said that Russia was never consecrated and the third secret was never fully revealed.

Your thoughts?

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), April 09, 2002.

Interesting and uplifting reading on Fatima~

http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/FatimaBook.html

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), April 10, 2002.

Oh and BTW, Dave~that's great about you praying for Russia but I thought I would show you something from the website I just listed.

(SL is Sister Lucia)

CE: "But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?"

SL:"Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people from carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion..."

CE: "That Man? Gorbachev?"

SL: "Yes; and when he visited the Holy Father in Rome, he knelt at his feet and asked pardon for all the crimes he had committed in his life."

One other little thought~

CE: "What is the message you have for this confused world today?"

SL: "He that is not with the Pope is not with God, and he that wants to be with God, has to be with the Pope."

Hm. How bout them apples? :)

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), April 10, 2002.

The sight you listed calls Fr Gruner "the real Fatima priest"--he has been censured by the Vatican. It is true that Sr Lucia said that Russia has begung the conversion, and no longer exports its militant atheism, but we still need to pray for Russia, and especially continue to do the five first Saturdays. Malachi Martin is not a reliable source, in my opinion, and I would not waste my time. I don't know the other person.

-- me too (none@hi.hello.net), April 11, 2002.

Jackiea, I have been aware of Fr. Gruner since the 1980s. He is a very evil man. No one should pay a moment's notice to him or his publications, and no one should send him any money. K. Keating is likewise totally unreliable, as she basically says that the Vatican is lying about Fatima.

If you want the truth, here are reliable EWTN articles on Fr. Gruner,
Sr. Lucia on the 1984 consecration,
the third part of the Fatima secret, and
the late Malachi Martin.

Please spend time only on the totally reliable sources of information -- EWTN, Fr. Robert J. Fox ("The Fatima Priest"), and, of course, the Vatican.
May the Lord guide you.

-- (@@@.@), April 13, 2002.

Reading back through this old discussion makes me feel sick.

On what basis do you people call Fr. Gruner an "evil man"? He is one of the few voices (unlike most of our bishops, by the way) to speak the truth about the abuses and heresies and unimaginable nonsense in the Church today. I truly find it hard to believe that Sister Lucy actually said the things in the "interview" listed. What is impossible to fathom is that while a Catholic priest is allowed to bless two gay men in a CATHEDRAL CHURCH after baptizing "their" child, while heretics such as Fr. Richard Mc Brien are allowed to attack dogmas with no repercussions, while every form of disobedience to Canon Law etc. are tolerated, while Catholics are allowed to support abortion,etc.... while all this goes on, Sister Lucia is basically silenced. She should be allowed to do a PUBLIC interview on television, to end all speculation on the matter. She should be allowed to speak PUBLICLY. And, to end all speculation regarding the consecration, why does the Pope not simply consecrate Russia BY NAME in union with the Bishops of the world? (Note, by the way, Pope John Paul has NEVER come out publicly and said that the consecration of Russia, as requested by Our Lady, had been accomplished.) The fact the Fr. Gruner petitions Rome for the consecration does NOT, even if you disagree with him, make him an "evil man". Everyone needs to drop their pride and prejudice and reassess and reevaluate their "viewpoints". You all don't know it all. You will all have to face your Savior some day so think about that!

I feel that you supposedly "conservative Catholics" are just as misguided, if not more so, than the "liberal Catholics" you often criticize. You seem to bow down in worship before every inch of ground the Pope walks on, and not only him, but every Vatican official as well.

You all misunderstand the Papacy entirely. You all follow the wrong path. You all make me sick. You all need to get minds of your own.

The Church is in a crisis. You all are not helping it by your arrogant attitudes. You seem to think all of this is a joke. So now, I'm sick and tired of this garbage and will speak the truth plainly. And yes, I am angry about this. It's about time somebody got angry.

The Mass of the Roman Rite should be restored. Pope John Paul II should apologize and do penance for kissing the Koran (among other things!). Priests should stop changing the words of the Mass/ the Bible to fit the feminist "inclusive language" agenda. Frances Kissling and others like her should be excommunicated. If there is no basis in Canon Law to excommunicate them, then Canon Law should be amended! Traditional Catholics should not be attacked. These are just a few examples of what needs to occur! We need a Council of Trent II to reform the Church!

-- DAVE MONTROSE (IREJECTSOCIETY@YAHOO.COM), November 04, 2002.

In the midst of your many mistakes, Dave M., you got one thing right. Fr. Gruner is not an "evil man," but a man who has done much evil.

You stated: "Sister Lucia is basically silenced."
You could not be more wrong! She is a cloistered, contemplative nun in a convent wherein a life of silence is lived. Compared to most such nuns, she has had relatively great privileges to communicate with the world and receive prominent guests. She has told all the truth, and we now have it. Try to get back down to earth, Dave, and not let your (Gruner-inspired) imagination get the best of you.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 05, 2002.

i guess what i'm trying to figure out is, why do many people want to label father gruner as having done much evil? has he ever expressed a spirit of disobedience to the holy father? all i'm saying is, even if you don't agree with him, no one should be able to say he is doing "evil" by petitioning the holy father to consecrate Russia.

does it make sense when we have a cardinal make recent statements that basically, the jews need not convert to be saved, etc. will he be suspended or censured for saying so? (and let us be honest...the bishops we see expressing such intolerable error are those liberals appointed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II...you "conservatives" need to realize that these popes have in many ways advanced the causes of the liberalism you think you oppose.) we have every form of heresy and error penetrating the vatican itself...and yet so many on this discussion board will point to the "prevatican ii" mentality as being the most heinous of crimes...or just someone who calls for the consecration of russia!

the consecration of russia has not been done. i am not a heretic or schismatic for saying so. neither is father gruner.

--DAVE

-- dave montrose (irejectsociety@yahoo.com), November 15, 2002.

Mr. Montrose:
Please don't say you are a good Catholic and denigrate the Church at the same time.

'' . . .you "conservatives" need to realize that these popes have in many ways advanced the causes of the liberalism you think you oppose. we have every form of heresy and error penetrating the vatican itself.

Just because you use a phrase like ''these popes'' makes you a poor Catholic. You may mean well, because you think you're more conservative than the Pope. But you're nobody, he's Our Holy Father. p>Christ was a radical in the eyes of the High Priest; a blasphemer. --Not just a liberal. Our Holy Father isn't a radical, or a liberal; he is the Vicar of Christ on earth. You and I aren't permitted to enter public forums and talk behind his back.

If you know of ''heresy and error penetrating the Vatican, get off your soft bottom, fly to Rome and try to get an audience with John Paul II. Don't gossip behind his back to other Catholics. --You say at the beginning of your bad temper, ''this old discussion makes me feel sick.''

Well, your gossip makes us sick. You haven't a right to be sick. You have no right to accuse the Church at all. Go to confession, admit your injustice, repent and go to Holy communion. That's what good Catholics do when they feel sick.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 15, 2002.

Dear Mr. Chavez:

With all due respect, sir, I do not in any way "denigrate" the Church. I love the Church. If Pope John Paul II were to be in my presence at this moment, I would genuflect as a sign of respect. I love the Holy Father. He is indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth.

However, you say I have no right to feel sick, to speak out against the crisis all around us in the Church. I believe sincerely that you are dead wrong.

In fact, the layman at times has an OBLIGATION to speak the truth, even to the successors of the Apostles, in times of crisis. You will find the basis for this in Canon Law...in Vatican II...in St. Thomas Aquinas' writings.

I am not attempting to "gossip" about the Pope. I realistically will never have a private audience with him! I have an obligation to speak the truth, not to obey men rather than God. Obedience to Church authority must always serve to foster the Faith, not to denigrate it! The fact that the Pope kissed the Koran, for example, needs an explanation! Even more seriously, how can bishops/cardinals/priests/laity spew apostasy/heresy/schism and be allowed to poison the faithful and our children?

You say I should go to Confession and Holy Communion. I would love to, if I could find a Roman Rite Catholic Church, that is, where I don't have to listen to heretical/erroneous preaching, be amongst a group of people who apparently do not share the Catholic Faith, and above all have to witness the radical "reformers" destruction to the sanctuaries and the Liturgy, etc.

Also, Mr. Chavez, you seem to think "THE CHURCH" is comprised solely of Our Holy Father. Remember, the Church is the Body of Christ, not only the Holy Father. Whereas the Holy Father does have supreme authority in the Church, his authority is not limitless. But please, remember, the issue of the consecration of Russia does not even enter into this...never has the Pope made an official declaration that the consecration had been done. Any Catholic, including Father Gruner, is not being "dissident" in any sense of the word by petitioning the consecration requested by Our Lady!

In any event, remember that during times of crisis in the Church (such as what we're in now)...sometimes certain individuals must stand for truth...take St. Athanasius for example... the majority of the Bishops had accepted the Arian heresy, including the Pope himself, at least in practice! Never did Athanasius back down... he continued his work despite being "defrocked", if you will. And later, he was declared a Saint and father of the Church!

==Dave

-- DAVE MONTROSE (IREJECTSOCIETY@YAHOO.COM), November 19, 2002.

Nice e-mail address, Dave M ("I reject society"). I see that you sometimes reject the truth too.

You wrote: "... never has the Pope made an official declaration that the consecration had been done."
That is false. You reject the truth. The fact that the consecration has been done was declared both by the Vatican (with papal approval) and by Sister Lucia dos Santos, the living seer of Fatima.

You wrote: "Any Catholic, including Father Gruner, is not being 'dissident' in any sense of the word by petitioning the consecration requested by Our Lady!"
Gruner is not a "dissenter," since this is not a matter of public revelation. He has not rejected a doctrine. However, he is a bad influence, worthy of punishment, because he generates disrespect for the pope and Vatican by lying and disobedience. He must accept discipline and be silent, even if he thinks he is right. (I myself believe that he is probably a "con artist," doing what he does for attention and money -- though this is not certain.)

You wrote: "... take St. Athanasius for example... the majority of the Bishops had accepted the Arian heresy, including the Pope himself, at least in practice!"
This is absolutely false. You reject the truth. No one can respect anything else you have to say, Dave M, when you mess up so badly as this.

You wrote: "Never did Athanasius back down... he continued his work despite being 'defrocked,' if you will."
This is false. You reject the truth. St. Athanasius was not defrocked. He was repeatedly exiled by Arian leaders.

Dave M., please withdraw from posting until you have become educated. "Lurk and learn."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 21, 2002.

Hey Eugene, John... I think both responses given fail to convict based upon principle.

It isn't as simple as whether I agree or disagree with what Dave has to say, but with your reasons for disagreement with him.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 21, 2002.

Emerald:

You see, I never attempted to debunk what Mr. Montrose said. My feeling is just that his words have no power to convince, as they stand. It's one thing defend what you see as truth, and altogether different to hold the Church and her prelates up to scorn. Certain dumb things are being repeatedly bandied about, even by well-meaning Catholics. One of them is ''Satan is inside the Vatican'' ~ No one ever counters this kind of extravagance. It becomes urban legend; and soon multitudes of lazy Catholics are sure it's true.

Sure, let the man speak. His opinion is welcome. But please; have respect for the Pope and our Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 22, 2002.

I want to clarify that I do not reject the truth, at least not deliberately so...it certainly is possible that I could be misinformed on certain topics.

I do want to say though that it is true, to the best of my knowledge, that the majority of bishops did fall into the Arian heresy at one time. John, you say that Athanasius was exiled by Arian leaders...but who were these "Arian leaders"?...they were BISHOPS who had fallen into serious error. As far as my statement that Athanasius was "defrocked" ...while my knowledge of history may be limited, I have read this from several reliable sources. One book I have notes that Pope Liberius "excommunicated" Athanasius...another book notes that Pope Liberius "signed a document of doubtful orthodoxy"...a prayer on the back of a holy card of St. Athanasius that I have mentions how he was stripped of his priestly robes and priestly office, yet remained faithful. Liberius was, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, the first pope NOT to be declared a saint.

After Our Lord declared Peter the ROCK, He said "Get thee behind me Satan." Let us remember also after Pentecost that St. Peter fell into error, and St. Paul withstood him to the face. Later, Peter changed his position, and Peter's words at the first Council (of Jerusalem) seemed to close the issue.

What I'm getting at is, we must be careful not to carry obedience to the Pope and Bishops to the extreme. Obedience must always SERVE the Faith and Tradition, not denigrate it. Even suspensions and excommunications are null and void if without true basis and/or not following the terms of Canon Law, etc.

In regards to Father Gruner...it may well be a possibility that he is a "con artist"...but this has not been proven. All I'm saying is that in light of the current crisis in the Church, and the many intolerable things the Vatican has been silent about, or at least done nothing about in practical reality, it is hard for me to understand how Father Gruner is so attacked and now even "suspended".

John, you say that the Vatican ("with Papal approval") has declared that the consecration of Russia has been done. All I can say is, the issue is still open to debate...recently, a Cardinal who has "papal approval" to be in the high-ranking position he is in made controversial statements regarding the Jews and Catholics' relations with them. A number of people have debated regarding his comments on this very website. His "papally-approved" comments on a very "doctrinal" issue by no means mean he is right or that we should not stand up and say he is wrong (which I believe he is). If this is the case with this "doctrinal" issue, how much moreso should it be the case in the matter of the Fatima apparitions.

My intention is not to hold up any prelates to scorn...my intention is to defend the Faith. I cannot help but think that many of the "prelates" are in the darkness... we cannot bow in humble obedience when it means jeopardizing/diluting/losing the Faith. This is how I feel about Archbishop Lefebrve...let me assure you, though, I mean no disrespect to the Pope or any bishop, for that matter. I love the Church as much as John, Eugene, and all of you do!

-Dave

-- DAVE MONTROSE (irejectsociety@yahoo.com), December 04, 2002.

Your sincerity notwithstanding, Dave:
We're all well-meaning Catholics here. I'm amazed you'd let out these words: ''I should go to Confession and Holy Communion. I would love to, if I could find a Roman Rite Catholic Church, that is, where I don't have to listen to heretical/erroneous preaching, be amongst a group of people who apparently do not share the Catholic Faith, and above all have to witness the radical "reformers" destruction to the sanctuaries and the Liturgy, etc.''

Amazing! --Since, being a worshipper myself in this communion, you say I don't ''share in the Catholic faith.''

''Where I don't have to listen to heretical/erroneous preaching,'' you say. Dave, what is that preaching? I'm a 65 yr-old, brought up in pre-Vatican II Catholicism, and transitioned to the present-day Church; and I've missed this ''heretical'' preaching! From the whole range of conservative to liberal teachers and priests, I have knowledge of just a small fringe which operates in our midst; being held in check at all times by the Magisterium and the Holy Fathers.

Hans Kung was such a bad teacher. He was forbidden to teach as a Catholic by-- a post Vatican II Pope! --So was Archbishop LeFevre. But you-- you claim the liturgy and the sanctuaries are now ''destoyed''--?

No, Sir. In parts altered maybe. But never destroyed. In parts altered for the better!

When was the last time you prepared to receive Holy Communion by your own, total fast from midnight until after you consume the Body of Christ? --Are you sure you DON'T want to be offered the Precious Blood at Holy Mass? (Those are two excellent changes, brought about in our Church in the Vatican II liturgy.) And, tell us where you have seen even ONE sanctuary destroyed?

I know one where a suicide took place. Right by the holy altar. There have supposedly been some behind which sacreligious acts were performed by evil priests.

Very regrettable; atrocious. But certainly NOT sanctioned by Holy Magisterium or the Pope! --These altars and sacristies are purified ritually; and continue for the faithful as holy as before. You maintain we have been destroying them. Where is the proof? The liturgy isn't ''destroyed'' in some few changes and the vernacular.

These are figments of your fanatical imagination, Dave. You've allowed your righteousness and zeal to overcome reason. I want to warn you, this is precisely what the devil wants. To sow confusion among the faithful, and evil thoughts. Discord, and separation of factions. As Christ said to Saint Peter, ''Satan has desired thee; that he might SIFT thee (plural) as wheat. But thou PETER, when thou hast turned again (from denying Christ three times) do thou confirm thy brethren.'' He was talking to a POPE.

That's who I now appeal to, Dave. Not the rank and file. The Church is under the care and protection of Peter.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 04, 2002.

-- !

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 04, 2002.

Jmj

Dave Montrose, I really recommend that you start all over again, this time reading the multi-volume history of the Catholic Church by the founder of Christendom College, Dr. Warren Carroll (who is still working on his series). You are just so terribly mixed up about lots of things.

You wrote: "I do want to say though that it is true, to the best of my knowledge, that the majority of bishops did fall into the Arian heresy at one time."
I have heard that too, so I do not deny it. It does not prove a great deal, though.

You wrote: "John, you say that Athanasius was exiled by Arian leaders ... but who were these 'Arian leaders'? ... they were BISHOPS who had fallen into serious error."
I'm afraid not, Dave M. He was exiled four times -- each time by a different emperor (Constantine, Constantius, Julian, and Valens).

You continued: "As far as my statement that Athanasius was 'defrocked' ... while my knowledge of history may be limited, I have read this from several reliable sources."
Why didn't you give the name of even one of those "reliable sources." I have never heard of this defrocking.

You continued: "One book I have notes that Pope Liberius 'excommunicated' Athanasius ..."
Which book? I am not aware of this excommunication. I have only read that Liberius and Athanasius were once exiled at the same time.

You wrote: "After Our Lord declared Peter the ROCK, He said 'Get thee behind me Satan.'"
Haven't you heard that he was thereby not telling St. Peter that he was a devil, but that he was tempting Jesus to avoid suffering, just as the devil did. This was a momentary rebuke. He did not kick St. Peter out of his band of followers, and he did not revoke his primacy.

You continued: "Let us remember also after Pentecost that St. Peter fell into error, and St. Paul withstood him to the face. Later, Peter changed his position, and Peter's words at the first Council (of Jerusalem) seemed to close the issue."
I literally gasped when I read this. I don't know HOW so many people can misunderstand this clear episode in the life of these apostles. St. Peter did NOT "fall into error" in the sense of teaching wrongly, from which he had to "change his position". Galatians makes clear that St. Peter only BEHAVED wrongly, contrary to his own better judgment, in a moment of weakness. He deserved St. Paul's fraternal (behavioral) correction.

You continued: "What I'm getting at is, we must be careful not to carry obedience to the Pope and Bishops to the extreme. Obedience must always SERVE the Faith and Tradition, not denigrate it."
Rest assured that our obedience to the pope (except if he were to tell us to sin) is always required, and it will always serve God well. It is never "extreme" to obey a pope who requires us to do something that is not sinful. You can forget about picking and choosing what you want to obey.

You continued: "Even suspensions and excommunications are null and void if without true basis and/or not following the terms of Canon Law, etc."
That is true, but you and I are not the judge of whether or not such things "are null and void." Only the Church's tribunals or the pope can judge.

You stated: "All I'm saying is that in light of the current crisis in the Church, and the many intolerable things the Vatican has been silent about, or at least done nothing about in practical reality, it is hard for me to understand how Father Gruner is so attacked and now even 'suspended.'"
I believe that you speak without sufficient knowledge.
--- If "the Vatican has been silent about" some things [and what you have in mind, I'm not sure], it would be because silence may have been required by Canon Law (to protect various innocent parties). Don't try to make the Catholic Church into some kind of political entity or democracy, sir.
--- And don't assume that the Church "has done nothing about" some things, just because you don't see overt action. The Church likes to work quietly, behind the scenes.
--- Fr. Gruner has been in trouble since the 1980s, if not earlier.

You wrote: "John, you say that the Vatican ('with Papal approval') has declared that the consecration of Russia has been done. All I can say is, the issue is still open to debate ...".
You just don't get it, do you, Dave M? By stating that the declaration was formal and with papal approval, I was telling you that the issue is NOT still open to debate. Only an obstinate mule of a man would persist. Please don't be a mule, sir.

You continued: "... recently, a Cardinal who has 'papal approval' to be in the high-ranking position he is in made controversial statements regarding the Jews and Catholics' relations with them. A number of people have debated regarding his comments on this very website. His 'papally-approved' comments on a very 'doctrinal' issue by no means mean he is right or that we should not stand up and say he is wrong (which I believe he is). If this is the case with this 'doctrinal' issue, how much moreso should it be the case in the matter of the Fatima apparitions."
You show that you are aware of the forum conversation about this cardinal and his comments. But how could you have read that conversation so carelessly, Dave M? Fairly early in the thread, it was revealed that the cardinal explicitly stated that his comments were informal and unofficial. He was not teaching doctrine, and what he said did not have prior papal approval. So you can just toss out the analogy you were trying to draw to the Fatima issue. All you have to do is trust what I tell you on these various topics, and your mind will at last be at peace.

God bless you.
John My intention is not to hold up any prelates to scorn...my intention is to defend the Faith. I cannot help but think that many of the "prelates" are in the darkness... we cannot bow in humble obedience when it means jeopardizing/diluting/losing the Faith. This is how I feel about Archbishop Lefebrve...let me assure you, though, I mean no disrespect to the Pope or any bishop, for that matter. I love the Church as much as John, Eugene, and all of you do!

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2002.

Oops! That last part, after my sign-off ("My intention ... you do") was copied from your message, and I forgot to delete it before hitting the "Submit" button. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2002.

Dang!

John, I read that last paragraph and thought to myself, John is actually starting to get it! lol

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 08, 2002.

I'm teasing you a bit, John. But in all seriousness, I consider you to actual be more of a *gasp* liberal Catholic. I think that in many ways, some of the poison of modernism has snuck in the back door while many Catholics have been looking to fend it off from the front door.

There is in fact a way to admit of the dirty work of Satan among even the even the members of our own Church, without rejecting the Papacy, without becoming sedevacantist, without falling into schism. We've been adequately warned... warned by Leo XIII, Saint Pius X. Yes, there can in fact be a church poisened by modernism while the Holy Spirit yet stands by her.

What do you think of Alice Von Hildebrand? You should really take the time to read what she says about it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 08, 2002.

That's one of the most hilarious things I've ever read here, Emerald -- the idea that I am a "liberal Catholic." I will allow someone to call me that only if, in the same breath, he calls Pope John Paul II a "liberal Catholic." I say this because, not only do I believe everything that he teaches, but I cannot even think of anything about him that I would criticize.

Emerald, you do not perceive reality accurately. I believe everything that is taught in our new Catechism. People who are referred to as "liberal Catholics" [actually a misuse of a political term] don't believe everything in the Catechism. They are dissenters on some (often many) points. I am neither "liberal" nor "conservative" nor "left" nor "right" in my religion. I am simply "Catholic" -- a believer of the "orthodox" ["rightly taught" in Greek] faith.

You are wrong to state that "there can in fact be a church poisoned by modernism while the Holy Spirit yet stands by her."
The Church cannot be "modernist." Only churchmen within the spotless Bride of Christ can be poisoned. I reject modernism. [I'm surprised that you would make this mistake. It is usually Fundamentalist anti-Catholics whom I have to correct on this distinction.]

I have attended lectures by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand going back to the 1980s. I have also listened to audio tapes of her lectures, and I've seen her perhaps one hundred times on EWTN. In my opinion, she is excellent on almost every topic. She is mistaken on only a few -- e.g., whenever she joins you in supporting something with which I disagree (;-p).

God bless you.
John
PS: Emerald, I just went back to re-read my previous post (to Dave M) and found myself utterly baffled at how anything I said could be interpreted as "liberal" or "modernist." I gave the straight "Catholic party line." Anyone finding something I said to be "liberal" or "modernist" would have to be a dissenter in the Lefebvrist direction.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

"Emerald, you do not perceive reality accurately."

Geez, I hope you're right, John. lol!

God Bless, my friend.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 10, 2002.

btw, I still think it would be better for you to be orthodox.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 10, 2002.

Eugene:

First off, let me say that I truly believe you are a well-meaning individual who loves Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, His Bride.

In many ways, I used to think much along the lines of your thinking...but I have realized things that I can no longer close my eyes to if I love the Church.

Eugene, you just don't seem to get the gravity of the current situation in the Church...you say that heresy/modernism only affects a small fringe of priests, etc. I think you are blind to what is going on, sincerely. While I don't use the phrase "Satan is inside the Vatican"...I don't think Catholics who speak of the current crisis in the Church are "dumb" or "lazy". Pope Paul VI himself spoke about the "auto-demolition" of the Church, and he also made a frightening statement that "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.

You say that the Liturgy hasn't been destroyed by some "few changes"... Eugene, the "reform" of the Liturgy a.k.a the New Mass is not just some few rubrical changes. This is what so many Catholics fail to see. I challenge you, if you have an old Missal of the Traditional Roman Mass, to compare it to the New Missal. The New Mass cannot be accepted by any good Catholic in conscience. The changes were not merely minor; the vast majority of the Roman Mass is gone. Fr. Gelineau, one of the major fabricators of the New Mass, explicitly stated that "the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists, it has been destroyed." Archbishop Bugnini, leader of the Liturgical "Reform", stated also that this New Mass constituted a complete fundamental change, a revolution. More disheartening is the fact that Bugnini was later discovered to be a Freemason and actually was reprimanded by Paul VI for this! Please note how many of the prayers of the "old" (True) Roman Rite Mass, especially many of those which so clearly expressed Catholic beliefs about the priesthood and the Holy Sacrifice, have been deleted. In fact, under Bugnini, the Roman Canon (now "Eucharistic Prayer I") would have been deleted altogether had it not been for the direct intervention of Paul VI.

In any event, the New Mass and the other reforms which followed are a disaster. So many of the things we see in our parishes correspond to the Protestant Reformation...much of the reform of the Missal corresponds to Cramner's "reform" in the Anglican Church centuries ago.

Protestants adopted practices such as Communion in the Hand, the use of a table rather than an altar, elimination of kneeling during Communion, and the use of the vernacular, to demonstrate their revolt against Catholicism and their absolute rejection of what we believe about the priesthood. Luther and Cramner both hated the Mass and the ordained priesthood and rejected it. Why have we Catholics now adopted the very "reforms" which they invented to demonstrate their rejection of Catholicism? Is it any wonder that polls show only 40% of American Catholics believe in the Real Presence, etc.

The Faith is in a major crisis...I must go now, I will try to write more and respond to John as well later on.

God bless all of you,

Dave

-- DAVE MONTROSE (irejectsociety@yahoo.com), December 11, 2002.

Thanks for your kind reply, David Montrose,
Frankly, I expected you to say those very things and nothing new. The idea that we don't ''understand'' your points of view, and those of Ed Richards, et al; is astonishing. Everybody knows what the complaints have been from the very start of post-Vatican II. I'm capable of sympathizing with all of you. Maybe you thought, Hey-- Gene, ''a well-meaning individual who loves Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, His Bride,'' is innocent of all we see happening.

Well, I've long considered all the pros and cons. I have an iron-clad faith, Dave. I left no subject closed or taken for granted, in what makes the Catholic Church holy. I wasn't just interested in a ''satisfactory'' and legitimate Church after the 2nd Vatican Council; I tried to inform myself everywhere I could, what is HOLY, and what isn't holy about the Catholic Church. Because God made her holy.

All along I realised, many well-meaning men are at work in this Council. But sometimes they commit errors. I didn't look for Freemasons. Yet, if one or two were in fact Masons, the Church could smoke them out; and you even admit she did. Then there was the obvious spirit of the times, and the world. It has its influences, and makes us vulnerable to failure.

But by faith I was made to see that nothing can defeat the Will of God. Why is a Church Council even convened, except for God's holy purposes? Was He or not acting in the person of His Vicar and the holy Magisterium, as John XXIII ''opened the windows'' of the Catholic Church? The successors of the Apostles in our day.

Unless we are members of a plain earthly community, God is there. It's an article of faith, our Holy Father is the hand God works with and through. This to me afforded Vatican II supreme authority. Not men, God.

Once this was accepted, the resulting changes had to be taken on trust. For all too many Catholics, however it was hard to trust the Pope. I recall reading and hearing: ''He surrounds himself with worldly, subversive men.''

They wouldn't believe. The basic ingredient, faith, was left out. Instead of helping to correct some of the ''abuses'' the scrupulous ones went around lamenting the good old days. I didn't, because I have faith in God. --When you say, ''I think you are blind to what is going on, sincerely,'' you ignore the great importance I place on holiness. If the Church ceases to be HOLY, my alarm bells will go crazy, Dave. And, I am convinced she is holy, altogether blameless through these post-Vatican II years, for the sins of some handsful of men.

It wasn't any different in the infancy of the Church, Dave. Our Popes dealt with massive persecutions, with heresies, and schism. Nevertheless, our faith remained strong. Prayer, the sacraments, the Creed. Faith, hope, charity and perseverance. What was always the one constant? Peter-- the Pope. Under his direction, the Church grew-- didn't decline-- in holiness. But here we have you and a minor segment of our faithful, saying the Church isn't holy any more. You leave out faith and you substitute dire warnings. PLEASE!

Why has your friend Gene insisted here, just after you explained the dangers all around us, calling him blind-- insisted the Church is HOLY? What have I noticed so holy? Just because I frequent the sacraments? Just because we PRAY during Mass, to our Almighty Father through His divine Son? Just because Gene blindly ''thinks'' God hears the prayers of God's faithful? Is that what he calls HOLY?

You can bet your life on it, Dave. Faith, Hope and Charity are all alive and holy, in the New Rite of Holy Mass.

It hasn't ''changed''. Mass still offers up to God the ''holy and unspotted oblation, from the rising of the sun to the setting;'' (Mal. 1) all over the world. This is the Church of Padre Pio and Mother Theresa, the Church Satan will always hate, because she's HOLY.

It is Satan who spreads doubt and suspicion and unrest. He divides to conquer. Not John Paul II; our Holy Father calls us to communion, in One body. He unites the world to our Holy Church! He's taken a BULLET for the Church, Dave!

Let others fall into despair; I believe in God. His Will is done, and men who haven't any faith should go on without Him. --They fragment into ''lost battalions'' in the desert. You need to open your eyes yourselves, Dave. I've been there, and done that. Listen to experience of the good kind. If you doubt me, I can offer you my personal proof. The wonders He's worked in my life. But that's another long story; for some other day. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 11, 2002.

Eugene:

I have pondered your words; you say you've "been there, done that"... but I think you've made the wrong conclusions. Don't get me wrong... you are on the right path in thinking the Church is HOLY.

I don't dispute that the Church is HOLY. But I also think we need not become Protestants or dilute our Faith to remain holy. I for one absolutely refuse to become a Protestant. I also refuse to adopt those radical changes resulting from Vatican II and especially its aftermath, which are the practices of the Protestants.

Not even the highest authority in the Church can change the Liturgy in this radical way. The law of prayer is the law of belief. And the many prayers of the Roman Mass that have been deleted or altered in the New Mass at least imply a change in belief. Add to this the abuses from the New Missal you have in most parishes, and you have chaos.

You wonder why I said sanctuaries have been destroyed... the fact is, after 1969, the "altar-smashers" had a field day. There are few parishes where the old altars were not thrown out. They desecrated the altars of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...much as did their counterparts in post-Schism England under Cramner, etc. They replaced the altars with tables, much like their Protestant predecessors. They in many, many cases threw out the pulpits, tabernacles, statues, vestments, vessels, of the worship of generations of Catholic ancestors...they threw out our liturgical heritage, then pretend then are in perfect flow with liturgical tradition. They are thieves and have done much evil. How dare they throw out the altar of God, or even when they didn't throw it out, cease to use it?

Don't you realize where we are as Catholics today? I went to a "Catholic" school where in junior high they showed, in religion class, condoms and every form of birth control, etc. in the class. I went to a "Catholic" high school where most of the religion and other teachers were former priests and nuns...and much heresy etc. was taught.

I cannot accept any of this; I cannot accept a Liturgical "Reform" which dilutes the Faith and opens everything up to heresy. I cannot accept a Liturgical "Reform" whose leader was a Freemason, and whose other leader said "the Roman Rite has been destroyed." By the way, I also cannot accept a Pontiff kissing a false book of a false religion (Islam). Could someone please respond to THAT?

I am a Catholic, a Roman Catholic of the Roman Rite. I am proud of this. I cannot accept anything else. I will not accept the "New Rite" which is not the Roman Rite, though they call it that. I will remain Catholic and for me this is a matter of conscience.

Also, John, regarding the matter of Russia...you say only a mule would think as I do...but I say only a mule would believe Russia has been converted (as Our Lady promised it would be after the consecration)...this is a country where 3/4ths of pregnancies end in abortion. The Russian Orthodox Church also has not converted to the true religion, Catholicism. It is a schismatic Church which, by the way, harbors the most resentment and hatred toward Rome of any schismatic Orthodox Church.

==dave

-- dave montrose (irejectsociety@yahoo.com), December 12, 2002.

Dear Dave: Take a look; your own words:

''Can't accept any of this; I cannot accept a Liturgical "Reform" which dilutes the Faith and opens everything up to heresy. I cannot accept a Liturgical "Reform" whose leader was a Freemason, and whose other leader said "the Roman Rite has been destroyed."

__________

I can; and millions of other Catholics can, ''accept'' all which you describe as abuse. --If we can we must be Protestants and turncoats. We must have lost the faith. You might as well say, Gene-- You are no longer a Catholic!

That's why I juxtapose to your grief my faith. You lack faith, Dave. You don't believe God is active in the world, you have a false notion. The notion that Freemasons run the world, and will be running the Church, instead of God. You lost faith in the Holy Spirit. And; if I'm to be a ''protestant'' now, by your judgment; will that mean a great part of protestantism will re- enter the Catholic Church; since we have stooped to conquer? Maybe God has willed it! O ye of little faith --

Then you say, '' I also cannot accept a Pontiff kissing a false book of a false religion (Islam). Could someone please respond to THAT? --

First, we must realise these things don't revolve around my acceptance-- nor your ''acceptance''. Many of the things we reject are good and holy. Only when we ask-- Does God accept what I seem to see? Well, Dave. For all I know, God was deeply offended by the reverence of our Holy Father, in the house of Islam. He could well be.

He didn't approve of Saint Peter denying Jesus three times before the cock crowed. He didn't approve of Saint Mary Magdalene's past; and shouldn't have forgiven her, I suppose. What was she doing so close to Our Lord at the foot of the cross? A prostitute standing on Calvary, next to the Blessed Virgin Mary?

If John Paul II was remiss, let him confess his sins. That is no cause for you or me to renege on our Catholic Church. He is still the legitimate, only successor to Peter,--Our Pope.

I can imagine how some good Catholics may have reacted to the sinful Borgia Popes. This is in our Holy Church's past, Dave; our tradition. But always, the Church is inviolate and living! The supposed ''kiss'' (I've never seen that) of a Koran by John Paul II is an external sign, an obeisance in the name of brotherhood.

Perhaps not so easy to stomach; while Muslims are going to hell. But, if God's Will be done, it may be the beginning of their salvation. Why must I be the ultimate judge?

If at the same time, John Paul II had renounced his faith in Jesus Christ; or blessed the religion of Muhammad as equal and legitimate to Christianity, if the Pope were a Muslim now-- We could say, Goodby, Catholic Church, that's the end.

No-- the Pope is still a Catholic, he isn't abandoning the faith, or the Catholic Church. Muslims didn't overcome the Church.

You have been having bad dreams, Dave. Wake up, smell the coffee. Have FAITH!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 12, 2002.

Dave, I suppose tha I will get into Eugene's craw again, but what else is new? I totally agree with you, and applaud your courage for saying so.You are so right, in denouncing the phony conversion of Russia. The ceasing of the Leonine prayers after Mass, wahuge mistake. The scrapping of Quo Primum/ What worse thing could happen? Yes, Dave it is difficult to think of the Vatican 2 church, as the Catholic church. If by their fruits you shall know them, is an indication, we have all the proof necessary, to know that something is very wrong. Now let me have it Gene!

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 14, 2002.

Dear Ed:
If you believe the Church is no longer at Peter's See, and all you need is the reassurance Dave Montrose gave you, OK.

I don't much worry how grieved you are. It won't make me think the sky is falling. When a supposedly sane catholic says these things:

''I cannot accept a Liturgical "Reform" whose leader was a Freemason, and whose other leader said "the Roman Rite has been destroyed." --as if they were TRUE, I just feel sorry for the man. He's clearly deluded.

My parish priest comes to his flock ordained in the Catholic faith; anointed for the office of priest, confessor and pastor. His work is to sanctify his faithful flock.

If they aren't faithful, God won't blame the priest; he'll blame the runaway sheep. That's the simple truth. But you guys are living on a different planet; one where faith isn't asked of a Catholic.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 14, 2002.

Jmj

Emerald, I'm troubled to see you for harassing me on this thread and for seeming not to speak honestly on another thread. Let me explain ...

On the 8th (above), you wrote this to me:
"But in all seriousness, I consider you to actual be more of a *gasp* liberal Catholic."
To this, I responded on the 9th (including the bracketed words):
"People who are referred to as 'liberal Catholics' [actually a misuse of a political term] don't believe everything in the Catechism. They are dissenters on some (often many) points. I am neither 'liberal' nor 'conservative' nor 'left' nor 'right' in my religion. I am simply 'Catholic' -- a believer of the 'orthodox' ['rightly taught' in Greek] faith."

Emerald, did those words of mine convert your way of thinking and speaking, or were you less than honest two days later?

You see, on the 11th, on this thread, after Joseph Biltz had spoken strongly against using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" about Catholics, you never admitted that you had called me (and by association, others) a "liberal Catholic," but instead you agreed wholeheartedly that one should speak of "orthodox" Catholics and avoid speaking of "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics.

Oh, one other thing. I don't know if you were having a "nip" or something on the 10th (the day after my reply to you, and the day before your reply to Joseph), but on this thread, you wrote this rather mystifying one-liner to me:
"btw, I still think it would be better for you to be orthodox."
Now look back at my reply of the 9th, when I told you that I was "a believer in the orthodox [i.e., genuinely Catholic] faith."
Your one-liner was a non sequitur.

Well, I hope that things will start being normal from this point onward.

Dave M, you wrote: "I say only a mule would believe Russia has been converted (as Our Lady promised it would be after the consecration)."

Why do you make this comment, out of the blue, to me? I never claimed that "Russia has been converted." You schisi-trads [schismatic traditionalists] can be such unthinking hotheads. Man, oh, man. It is no wonder you are where you are (outside Catholicism), when your thought patterns are so wacky. Is it a lack of mental discipline or a shortage of brain cells that causes your (and Ed's) problem?

Here is the English translation of what Our Lady said: "But in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and the world will enjoy a period of peace."
Notice two key facts:
(1) "Russia ... will be converted", but we are not told when. It could be decades or centuries!
(2) The meanings of "Russia" and "converted" are not made clear. The word "Russia" could mean EVERY person in Russia or perhaps just a majority. The word "converted" could mean "become Catholic" or "become Christian, abandoning atheism" or simply "turn away from sin."
As a result, you and I are not competent to judge whether the conversion has taken place, is going on now, or will occur in the future. The consecration has been done, period. We have this from the Church and Sister Lucia. Anything to the contrary is so much reeking garbage.

Ed, I really think that you and most people would be happier if you and Dave M. were to leave the forum. You guys reject the new rite of the Mass as valid. That makes you "borderline protestant" in my book. I see that you have picked up the schismatic "talking points," with your "Quo primum" [which any subsequent pope had the power to render obsolete] and your snide reference to a non-existent entity, the "Vatican 2 church."

May God forgive the schisi-trads.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2002.

Dear John, and Eugene. Why should we "Trads" not have our voice heard on this forum. Our Constitution guarantees free speech. Do'nt you think, that we are irked, by what we consider Papolotry? Yes , you no more have a direct line to God than we do.The Trads make up no more than two million people, in this whole world. We do not have the "problems" thaat you Novus Ordo's do. When we walk into any one of our churches, the Mass is precisely the same. All present are devout, quiet, and adoring who is in that tabernacle. Sic year olds would not dare cross that center aisle without genuflecting. I unfortunately, for scial reasons, have to attend N.O. Masses, from time to time. Grand Central Station, is a more devout place, I can assure you. Never mind kids genuflecting, even the adults do not! This is not heresay, I see it with my own eyes. Whose fault is this!/ Not us Trads. Our Church is growing, yours is shrinking. Look at the numbers, You can easily verify them on the internet.Young men do not want to devote their lives, to become Presiders. They want to be priests, offering Mass at an altar of sacrifice. Not at a table, for ameal. They can get that at a good restaurant. If you want young girls prancing around that table,and people handing out communion, wnile the presider sits on his duff, on the side, in a high chair, OK thats your privilge. I do not challenge,whether your Mass is valid or not, thatis for God to decide. But it sure can be sacrilegious at times. One never knows what they are going to get when they walk into a given church. Will father be a back slapping extrovert, or a mild mannered priest? Will he greet you with "Good morning folks, nice day outside. Or will he get right down to the Mass? Maybe you become hardened to this after awhile. I and the others could not. To each his own. But for the sake of charityy, stop calling us all kind of names, both you and Gene. If you can't give us some hard facts, please cease and desist.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 14, 2002.

Ed,
It's bad enough entering our midst with your superior attitude, but the disgraceful habit you're getting into of actually lying and making insulting remarks (wnile the presider sits on his duff, on the side, in a high chair,) about holy priests of the Church-- has brought us to a breaking point.

No, ''trads'' can't have their voices heard on this forum. Our Constitution guarantees free speech, but you're simply not welcome. Every time you start into the discussion it just freezes my blood, seeing the impiety you get away with.

Keep in mind, no one has poured scorn on the Tridentine Mass here. In my own posts I've been careful to speak of the Mass with utmost respect and love. But you seem to think the Mass we see (correctly) as genuine and HOLY is a football for you to kick around. If you continue, I'll also demand you get out. You simply aren't welcome.

If you wish to remain, see that you keep your descriptions of the Novus Ordo liturgy formal and pious. I don't care if you hate the people you've spied on during Mass; as if they owed you the time of day. Keep your nose strictly on the CHURCH. Don't say another mean-spirited thing about Catholic priests or bishops either. They are doing God's work in our midst. If you don't think so, we don't CARE. No one's holding a gun to your head; not so you'll remain in the Church, nor to hang around this forum. You have a choice; you can leave.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 15, 2002.

Come on, John, I'm just telling you what I really think; I'm being totally honest.

I still think it would be better for you to be ordothox, John. You owe your allegiance to the Deposit of the Faith, to keep it whole and undefiled. Many Catholics now do not uphold the Catholic Church as the way of salvation *hic!* but as a subset of Christianity representing the best of Christianity. This is heretical and compromises the entire Deposit of the Faith. The next to go, and already *nip* has gone, and is used to cover the first error, is the improper understanding of assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium. Dom- *hic!* -Dominos.

In this sense, I consider you a *hic!* liberal. But hey, I'm not angry about it, but I have to speak the truth as I see it, or I'm just a nophy. uh, phony. *nip* In fact, after a lot of what's been posted on the forum lately, I pretty much nip consider Eugene to be one too. It isn't some kind of painful realization to me or anything, it is just kind of matter-of-fact. But hey, where there is a good *hic!* good will, people find the truth eventually. Let me tell you though, the reign of terror of liberalism and modernism in the Church has dying as we speak. *hic!*

About the use of words, I am pernosally *hic!* repulsed by anything but the simple word Catholic. Attachments to the word are a red flag to me that someone is about to switheroo something on me behind my back, to Hegelize me. I've been doing business for a while, I know when someone's about to do me over. But what I wrote over there, it was pretty clear, I thought, so I drug *hic!* it over here in []'s:

[The use of the words liberal and conservative is simply a divide and conquer strategy. The word "conservative" isn't of itself related to the truth, but it appears to be enough that Catholics who are "orthodox" readily take the bait and use the word when they find themselves being opposed. Never mind as to what is being "conserved", whether it is the truth or "the old ways"... the "old ways" do not necessarily have an intrinsic relation to the truth other than people's nostalgia. Nostalgia is not truth.

This way over time, the words "liberal" and "conservative", since they are not in themselves attached to the truth, can have their meanings morphed and people can be lead away from orthodoxy. The enemy uses this as a means to systematically pry people away from the truth, like a big theological crowbar. Orthodoxy has a meaning more intrinsically related to "the truth", and so it is a bit harder for someone to promote "heterodoxy" by name without being dismissed.

People are under the mistaken impression that matters of the state are separated from matters of the Church, but the aims of the state are supposed to be subject to and in line with the aims of The Faith. The enemy knows this, and attempts to have the same divide and conquer strategies and words used similiarly in both matters of Church and state. So liberal and conservative are used in both church and state similiarly by the enemy.

At any rate, the two polarized terms have absolutely no business being attached to our Faith, as we either keep the Faith whole and undefiled or we don't. Anything else is a tool of the enemy to divide and conquer us. "Say yes if you mean yes, and no if you mean no; anything else is from the evil one" (or thereabouts).]

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2002.

Now John, don't get offended. I'm toying with you bit because you were joking that I was drunk, you know, having a couple nips here and there. It wouldn't have been right not to play up on it; its all in good fun.

But I am serious about the morphing of words such as liberal and conservative. The assault on the word 'orthodoxy' has begun in earnest. Maybe it started a while ago and I hadn't clued into it because I wasn't looking at these things.

I think the liberals confiscated the word "conservative", and now they have been to confiscate the word "orthodox". Those who are, or were, orthodox are being pushed by these confiscators into the designation "Traditionalist", to which group they may or may not belong, since the "new conservatives" and "new orthodox" are now trying to make the word "Traditionalist" look like it is really schismatic or sedevacantist.

I really believe that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2002.

Dear Emerald:
There are more traditional Catholics in our forum than you may think. I'm very traditional; because I put God FIRST. John Gecik is just as traditional.

I find it supercilious of some who come in and declare themselves ''traditional Catholics'', and the Old Rite the ''Traditional Mass''. There's nothing about them truly traditional because they disassociate themselves from our Church in the late 20th century. They make her out to be a ''sham'' Church; and she is the Traditional Catholic Church par excellance. No act of God or man has separated the Catholic Church of John XXIII, Paul VI, JP I and John Paul II from our Sacred Tradition. Tradition in our Church is alive and perseverant today as much ever.

These unfaithful opponents claim knowledge of ''messages'' and private ''warnings'' which declare the Tradition as betrayed. Who made ''seers'' and fanatical pietists Christ's new Holy Spirit? They presume upon ignorant people with their growing numbers; in ''statistics'' and trends; precisely as protestants do.

Christ speaks to His Church by the Holy Spirit in the Church, not by fanatical alarmists. More than once I've referred back to the fanatical monk Savonarola. This was a man who incited the faithful to religious frenzy and barbarism during the early Renaissance. His aim was to ''restore '' the holiness of the faith. In fact, he was mad, and eventually was burned at the stake. No one is suggesting persecution of dissenters in our day. But we need true faith in the Church now more than ever before. We do not follow new Savonarolas. No movement which incites to division of our faithful into factions is serving the Holy Spirit. He is a Spirit of Communion, not disunity. Only a faithful Catholic can be traditional. Not the dividers.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 15, 2002.

Case in point.

-- Emerald (Emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2002.

I agree with you, Eugene. We are "traditional."

But Emerald has his terminology mixed up, and his behavior leaves much to be desired too. I have read enough Catholic materials in the past 18 years to know that ordinary, traditional, obedient, loyal-to-the-pope Catholics like us are called "orthodox" to distinguish them from the "heterodox" (a.k.a., dissenters). Emerald, you are mistaken in thinking that dissenters are misappropriating the term "orthodox" for themselves.

You also boggled my mind by still not owning up to the fact that, several days ago, you said that I may be a "liberal Catholic," and yet that, two days later, you rejected the use (by anyone) of that term. What is particularly amazing is that you just now renewed the use of that label (liberal Catholic) on me AND sought to apply it to Gene too -- BUT then quoted your long comments against the use of the term! It's as though you are exhibiting a split personality to us or speaking with forked tongue. Why are you doing this?

And, man, you are sensitive, aren't you?! Here is what I said, as a tiny little joke: "I don't know if you were having a 'nip' or something on the 10th, but ..."
Now, let's see what your thin skin led you to say and do after having read my little joke: "I'm toying with you a bit because you were joking that I was drunk, you know, having a couple nips here and there."
But notice that I actually wrote, "I don't know if you were having a 'nip'". That is a far cry from "joking that [you were] drunk." And my words, "having a 'nip,'" got exagerrated by you into "having a couple nips here and there. Then, while I did not insert a single "hiccup" into my text, you inserted seven "hics" into yours, making it very difficult to read! Please be more accurate and thicker-skinned from now on.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.

If I were ever a monarch, my first act would be to approach the Supreme Pontiff, lay my crown upon his lap, kneel and swear my allegiance to his authority and counsel.

That being said, I stick by my statements that the terms of orthodoxy have been transmuted. When you say "ordinary, traditional, obedient, loyal-to-the-pope Catholics like us", meaning you and Eugene, I am positing that somewhere along the line, probably not by your own fault, you have been pried away in some respects from the orthodoxy of 2,000 years of Catholic doctrine.

To be specific, I refer to (but not limited to) to loss of the status of the Catholic Church as being the sole means of salvation, and consequently, a deviant notion of ecumenism, and to cement these into place, a somewhat deviant notion of assent to the supreme and ordinary magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Modernism and Americanism have caused this. It isn't the end of the world, though.

The forked-tongue thing... I can sort of see that. That's probably the result of a combination of trying to be nice and fearing that I might actually have to spend the time to lay the whole thing out. That's a lot of work. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 16, 2002.

Not to trivialize this fine thread, but on

If I were ever a monarch, my first act would be

Mine would be to appropriate for myself some land for "royal palaces", and lower the tax rate around them to bring in a town. I think ~1/4 or Maui would do, including the summit, as well as a fair chunk of old growth forest land in the Northwest and a Big ol' building in downtown New York. Hate to say it, but it's true! Oh yeah, my second act would be to set my salary.

The forked-tongue thing...

===================:D---< <'QQ>--__

(That's supposed to be a snake after a mouse)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 16, 2002.

Dear Emerald:
Here's what I read: ''To be specific, I refer to (but not limited to) to loss of the status of the Catholic Church as being the sole means of salvation, --or, a deviant notion of ecumenism, and to cement these into place, a somewhat deviant notion of assent to the supreme and ordinary magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. You add as a footnote, ''Modernism and Americanism have caused this.'' (--Can't figure out why.) Anyway, you haven't BEEN specific. Where are the ''lack of status'' deviant notion, etc., to be ''specific''--?

This isn't concrete, it's stuff and nonsense.

Either the Mass is holy or it's not holy.

I'm appalled a hypocrite can enter the forum, and rather than say honestly, ''I favor the old- style; my devotion grows stronger as I drift away on angel's wings,'' or something--

He addresses us this way: ''You guys don't see the destruction our present pontiff is bringing on the Church.'' And, I hate those disgusting folks I keep seeing at Mass; and their disgusting, heretical priests. And-- the seers of La Salette were right; Satan has taken over the Vatican.''

Who pours it on about slimy priests he has known, about men who say Mass and don't believe in the true Presence;

As if it were all a proven fact!

Have I been ''specific''--? I'm not dreaming, Emerald. This is the lot who claims to know what a Church ought to be! What Popes and bishops ought to be.

I understand them perfectly. They made themselves very clear.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

lol, Frank, well what the hell, I would. Part of all these problems in the Church stems from the fact that the aims of state are wholly divorced from the aims of the Church. Pardon my goofy way of saying it. The Reformation, the rise of the republics... the Church had a lot to say on these things at the time; anyone can look for themselves, and what they find will vindicate the position. For those who always back their claims based upon the allegiance to the Holy Father, why would they not also consider what the Holy Fathers of old had to say about the rise of the republics and the fall of the great monarchies? When did the trouble start?

Gino says: "This isn't concrete, it's stuff and nonsense."

That doesn't work for me; because I alude to something and don't lay it out, it necessarily follows that it is all nonsense? That's cool; I can hang with that until tommorrow.

"This is the lot who claims to know what a Church ought to be! What Popes and bishops ought to be."

No way; this characterization, no. I wouldn't let you take one, or two or three people's unique take on the situation as a representation of the whole.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 16, 2002.

Look, Gene, John...

I think I see a couple things going on here; you both tell me if I'm wrong.

You both have an aversion to anything akin to "the smoke of Satan" syndrome; the notion that corruption can reach to the highest levels of the Church and deceive hordes of people. You seem to hold it to be de facto untenable. Forget LaSalette; it isn't needed. Fact is, a great case can be made for it. Did you read the encyclical on Freemasonry and Naturalism? Pascendi (on Modernism)? How about the Syllabus of Errors, or the Oath Against Modernism. Mortalium Animos (On fostering True Religious Unity)?

What about the Saints, and the visions of Saints? What kills me is that you both want to hold a nuetral position of something as tenuous as Medjugorie, but John wants to dismiss anything I post having to do with the visions of Saints in regard to problems penetrating into the very heart of the hierarchy. That's inconsistant.

The reason, I believe, is that to discuss such things seems a threat to allegiance to the Papacy, especially the current occupant. The implication is that anyone who entertains such thoughts is in direct conflict with the authority of Holy Mother Church.

This is completely knee-jerk. Do the homework; its all there... to the point of the undeniable, practically. The next accusation is usually the negative Nellie "the sky is falling" accusation, or the convenient accusation of 'conspiracy theorist'. In some of the documents listed above, that is exactly what it is referred to as... conspiracy. Go read them, for heaven's sake. Again, hallmarks of those who have done no looking into, no research, no consideration.

What does this all have to do with the need to take up a sedevacantist or schismatic position, which is usually among the first allegations levied? It doesn't. I don't hold any such position. There's a fear there about these dark subjects, I think, that can be removed by a lot of study and consideration of these things in the light of Faith. I think for most it is simply easier to deny their existence.

The current occupant of the Chair of Peter, JPII... to be honest, I'm not sure what to think about him, besides the fact that he is my Pontiff. Do I have to pre-canonize him in order to be Catholic? I am obligated to be subject to him, to uphold his rightful position as Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. Sedevacantism, schism is out of the question, not even a temptation. Sure, much of what he does, or I guess I should say, more of what he doesn't do, is quite puzzling to me. But I am not requiring myself to know and understand everything? No. Am I required to papal-high-five everyone to prove a certain brand of loyalty? No. I am simply required to hold to the dogma of the Faith, and remain obedeint, subject, to the Roman Pontiff.

Among the group known loosely as "Traditionalist", no doubt you will find people of a certain hatred, a certain arrogance and superficiality, of preoccupation with doom, of intent to harm rather than help the cause of the Church. You know these people because they will refer to Pope John XXIII as "Roncalli". These people are not the kinds you have found so far on this thread. Dismiss these people if you like; I would. In fact, I recomend it. No; I would require it of anyone I discussed these matters with.

There is an excellent, plausible case that we live in times in which our doctrine, our identity, has been compromised at very high levels. This includes priests and bishops and cardinals, and yes, the disobedience of the laity for decades and centuries is part of the whole complete picture. Why in the world do people jump to the conclusion that one who holds such a notion has determined that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church? This conclusion is not automatic.

I contend that these things are displeasing to some to hear, or difficult to consider, and so therefore they just simply deny it and ridicule the messengers. Among the messengers are those who do not have a clear picture; this makes the task of ridiculing easier.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 16, 2002.

To all; I have never called any who disagree with me, heretics, schismatics, jackass, or anything else. If we disagree, OK so we disagree. Whaat I see in this disagreement, is that while Emerald, Dave, and the ladies, go out of this forum, to seek information, Eugene and John, just stay put, and improve on their vindictive vocabularies. Are you guys afraid to stick your head out when it's raining, even though someone comes in soaking wet, or do you just keep saying "It's not raining out and, that settles it?

I'll give you an example; A recent Gallup poll said that 70 percent of Catholics , do notbelieve in Transubstantion. Will you go to check it? No you won't. You will just say, "Another heretic's lie" That ends it. If that number is true then 70 percent of Catholics, are not really Catholics. They can not be part of the church, when Transubstantion is the heart of our belief. Result, not 65 million catholics, but instead, less than 20 million catholicsinthis country. God bless, folks

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 16, 2002.

Ed, a Gallup poll is no sane proof of an interpretation of the True Presence by faithful Catholics. If a poll were even feasible, it couldn't provide much more than 5,000 questionnaires and the question may or may not be posed honestly. Gallup and other polls are usually bunk. But, even if we assumed this trend were true, it doesn't give you and other dissenters a license to lie. You simply lie, Sir, reporting on a ''presider'' sitting on his duff letting a swarm of extraordinary eucharistic ministers bang out communion for him. You lie if you say you heard another man's confession. You lie if you pretend you know priests who say Mass without faith in Transubstantiation. These are subjective assertions and you've insisted on spraying them around here like a polecat.

In a majority of your posts you've taken a Pharisaical attitude to the faithful who worship in Novus Ordo communions. They have no grace, for you. Why have you shown utter disrespect for the Liturgy, or the faith of the community? No, to you it's always false, and ''inferior'' to the Mass where you can hear a pin drop. Get a life, Ed!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

John:

You absolutely make no sense to me. How you can attack me and say I am schismatic and "outside Catholicism" shows how "wacky" YOUR thinking is.

I never, ever said that the Novus Ordo was not valid. I believe it is valid. But it is, as Archbishop Lefebrve described, filled with a spirit of Protestantism even when it is celebrated with piety and according to the rubrics...which, by the way, is very rare. The reason for this is that it has deleted most of the prayers of the Roman Mass. It has substituted beautiful prayers and words which clearly expressed Catholic beliefs with ambiguous phrases which are subject to many interpretations. And, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, and Archbishop Lefebrve, once predicted, this New Mass has opened wide the door for so many abuses...

I saw a Mass, the Novus Ordo, on TV yesterday...I tried to watch and at least appreciate the piety of the priest who celebrated. But sure enough, there was a woman who was leading the responses who substituted the words to avoid so-called sexist language..."for the praise and glory of God's name, for our good and the good of all God's Church." and "It is right to give God thanks and praise." This woman takes it upon herself to not refer to God as "He" and "Him". Her and millions like her are permitted to do this, to directly blaspheme Almighty God, and are not excommunicated, are not refused Holy Communion as they should be. Rather, they are considered good Catholics, in many cases are nuns and teachers and even hold respected positions at the US Bishops Conference. And you have the nerve to call ME a schismatic? You, sir, are blind to the crisis in the Church. You, sir, are a "mule" in your thinking. I hate to resort to this kind of condemning-tone talk, because, sir, I love and respect you as a person, but I know no other way of getting my point across to you at this point. "WWJD"? I believe if He were here in bodily form as He was 2000 years ago, He would cast those feminists who change His Father's identity, as well as people like yourself who attack His faithful devoted followers, out of His Father's House, His Temple, His Church, His Mass...with a whip of cords!

In any event, how you can attack those who value and uphold the Roman Rite, and call them schismatic, when these people are truly Roman Catholics? Take Archbishop Lefebrve, for example: let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that he was disobedient, dissident, plain wrong, and sinful for consecrating the four bishops (I don't believe that, but let's just suppose)...still, he was never guilty of SCHISM. Pope John Paul's "excommunication" of Lefebrve and his four bishops for "schism" is without basis, no matter who you slice it. Schism must involve rejection of the authority's claim to authority. In other words, the Orthodox are SCHISMATIC because they REJECT the primacy and authority of the Pope. The "Old Catholics" are SCHISMATIC because they REJECT the primacy and authority and especially the INFALLIBILITY of the Pope... but the Society of St. Pius X does NOT reject the PRIMACY of the Pope. Even if they are DISOBEDIENT to the Pope, which would be a serious sin (although I believe in their case the issue is more complex), still they are not SCHISMATIC... so therefore, your use of the term "schism" is without basis and unfair. Even IF the priests of the Society are suspended, disobedient, leading people astray...they are NOT heretics or schismatics, and should not be called such. (And, by the way, I truly believe they are being faithful to the Church of All Time in a period of crisis, etc. which I understand and support their position).

As far as Russia is concerned, "convert" cannot mean conversion to any other religion but CATHOLICISM, John. There is only one true Christian Church...salvation ONLY comes through the Roman Catholic Church. If you don't believe that, then YOU are truly a heretic and schismatic.

--DAVE

-- DAVE MONTROSE (IREJECTSOCIETY@YAHOO.COM), December 16, 2002.

Dave,
John's very capable of correcting you. He will, I suppose become unnecessarily offended by your contumacy, and seem uncharitable. He will do so with many sincere disclaimers in parentheses. Let me just say I agree with him.

If not of the conviction you've entered a schism, at least in your poor understanding of the word itself.

John's wording is true to the spirit and the letter. It might surprise you to discover all these schismatic people who once were faithful Catholics. They became schismatics by rejecting the primacy of the Pope. That's a fact.

You said, ''Pope John Paul's "excommunication" of Lefebrve and his four bishops for "schism" is without basis, no matter how you slice it.'' I think you meant Paul VI, not John Paul; let it go. There was ample warning issued the excommunicated archbishop. He defied the Vicar of Christ on earth, and even called him a false Pope, as I recall. He asked for excommunication and left the Pope no choice. I have to wonder why you will exonerate a faithless bishop, and yet belittle the Pope of Rome. Somehow I wonder if John hasn't called a spade --SPADE.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

Dave, When wetry to give facts,figures etc. to John and Eugene < sometimes think, that we are talking to two lunatics. I have never used a term like that before, but I can't hold back any longer. Eugene claims that I said a man told me his confession; That's nuts! I said that he told me, the priest would not say the words of absolution. I attended Novus Ordo for 20 years, so I think, that I heard what my "lying ears and eyes", witnessed. Even on the Gallup thing, "What's 5000, or so samples". It's good enough to decide presidential races, but not for Gene. I called it exactly right. He didn't look anything up, to contradict. Just throws out another one of HIS goofy conclusions. The man wants to live and die in ignorance, so be it.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 16, 2002.

Hello, Gene.

You wrote to Dave M: "John's very capable of correcting you. He will, I suppose become unnecessarily offended by your contumacy, and seem uncharitable. He will do so with many sincere disclaimers in parentheses. Let me just say I agree with him."

First, thanks for agreeing with me. Second, even before I read your message, I had decided to do something that will surprise you -- i.e., I had decided that I would not reply to Dave M. His words didn't make me upset, because (1) he proved me right [by showing that he is in schism] and (2) folks at forum are by now well enough informed not to "buy" anything he is selling.

('Bye, Dave and Ed [the Tag-team Trads].)
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.

Emerald, you've got me worried again -- no, beyond worried.
The other day, I said that I feared that you had slipped away from orthodoxy, had been fooled by some dissenters, and were beginning to step down from the the fence and into the "schismatic traditionalist" back-yard. Then you hurried to reassure me that it was not true, that you weren't going anywhere, etc.. Recall how I expressed my relief?

Well, you only had me fooled for a few days, I'm afraid. Unless I am terribly mistaken, I have gradually discovered that you are taking a middle-of-the-road approach, one that is lacking in courage, spiritually perilous, and personally offensive.

On the one hand, you won't join Gene and me and the pope as an orthodox Catholic.
But on the other hand, you won't honestly admit that you disbelieve (or at least doubt) some Catholic doctrines and separate yourself from the Church.
Instead, you are pretending that you are a true and loyal Catholic by continuing to attend a licit parish, while at the same time you seem to be working from within the Church to undermine the authority of the pope and bishops. That is exactly what the "progressivist" dissenters (for example, the radical feminists in diocesan bureaucracies) are doing, rather than leaving the Church outright.

Emerald, it appears to me that you may actually be giving scandal by publicly denying or doubting some Church teachings. I think that you reject or doubt some teachings that are in Vatican II documents and/or the Catechism. Am I right? You withhold effusive praise and loyalty to the pope on this thread because you think that he has taught error, don't you? I will gladly eat humble pie and retract these comments/questions if you can snap out of the doldrums, give me a firm denial of all my suspicions, and make a profession of faith in all that is taught in the Catechism and by Vatican II.

In the messages you posted since I last wrote, you stated some things to which I want to respond [in brackets]

"... I stick by my statements that the terms of orthodoxy have been transmuted. ... you [John and Eugene] have been pried away in some respects from the orthodoxy of 2,000 years of Catholic doctrine."
[This is incorrect. You are merely attempting to engineer a new definition of "orthodoxy," so that your dissident theology will fall under its embrace.]

"I refer to (but not limited to) to loss of the status of the Catholic Church as being the sole means of salvation ..."
[Properly understood, this status has not been lost and could never be lost. The problem is only that you have never grasped the meaning of this doctrine, though people have tried to explain it to you many times. You made up your mind that it means something not intended by the Church, and nothing has moved you away from that error.]

"... and consequently, a deviant notion of ecumenism ..."
[No such deviant notion exists within the mind of the pope, the conciliar documents, and the Catechism -- and that's what matters most.]

"... and ... a somewhat deviant notion of assent to the supreme and ordinary magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church."
[There are no "notions." There is only appropriate assent. You don't like it, though, because you want a form of assent that gives you room to dissent.]

"You both have an aversion to anything akin to 'the smoke of Satan' syndrome; the notion that corruption can reach to the highest levels of the Church and deceive hordes of people. You seem to hold it to be de facto untenable."
[I didn't state this. You jumped to this conclusion. If, by corruption, you mean "personal sin," then I agree that it can rise to "the highest levels," even to the papacy. But if, by corruption, you mean "heterodoxy," then I say that it can rise up toward, but not include, the papacy. But that is the theoretical side. What about real life today? I think that you believe that corruption (in the sense of heterodoxy) not only can, but has, risen to the "highest levels" -- and for you that even includes the pope. ("The current occupant of the Chair of Peter, JPII... to be honest, I'm not sure what to think about him, besides the fact that he is my Pontiff." [Emerald])
[I, on the other hand, say that corruption (meaning "heterodoxy") can rise to levels just short of the pope, but that IT HAS NOT DONE SO in our lifetimes [i.e., since 1951, and probably not for centuries before that]. Those who say it has so risen are merely using the charge as an excuse to be dissenters.]

"Did you read the encyclical on Freemasonry and Naturalism? Pascendi (on Modernism)? How about the Syllabus of Errors, or the Oath Against Modernism. Mortalium Animos (On fostering True Religious Unity)?"
[None of these fine documents has anything to do with people who have been pope or worked most closely with the popes in our lifetimes. These documents are about people scattered around the world who are up to no good. That's where the modernists have been sprinkled in recent centuries -- in universities, in parishes, in seminaries, in the chanceries, in the workplace, etc. -- but not in the popes and their right-hand men.]

"What about the Saints, and the visions of Saints? What kills me is that you both want to hold a nuetral position of something as tenuous as Medjugorie, but John wants to dismiss anything I post having to do with the visions of Saints in regard to problems penetrating into the very heart of the hierarchy. That's inconsistant."
[There is nothing inconsistent. What about the saints? You would ask me that, after I have posted the whole year's daily messages about them? The saints are wonderful. The mystical commentaries/prophecies/locutions that a tiny minority of them published are fallible private revelations that can only subjectively be applied in or to our times. Trying to interpret and apply such things is pure guesswork that is never permitted to modify the Church's beliefs.]

"... much of what [Pope John Paul II] does, or I guess I should say, more of what he doesn't do, is quite puzzling to me."
[Yes, that's too bad. What he does and does not do is not at all puzzling to me. Perhaps it puzzles you, because you would do the opposite if you were pope, since you don't believe all that he teaches.]

"There is an excellent, plausible case that we live in times in which our doctrine, our identity, has been compromised at very high levels. This includes priests and bishops and cardinals, and yes, the disobedience of the laity for decades and centuries is part of the whole complete picture."
[You are partly right, and partly wrong. Being partly wrong, though, is a bad thing to be. It makes you seem melancholy, bitter, constantly dissatisfied. I advise you to get over it. Get rid of the false notions. Where you are "partly right" is in acknowledging that some sinful people, from laity to as high as cardinals, have not lived out the faith. Some, on their own, have even taught false things to people over whom they have had care or authority. Where you are "partly wrong" is this -- in saying that "our doctrine" and "our identity" have "been compromised at very high levels." Catholic doctrine itself can never be compromised, because it is protected by the Holy Spirit.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.

Does it really matter what John Paul says. There are 2 "popes" right on these threads, who have"excommunicated" me at least 4 times.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

Am I suggesting some sort of individual sovereignty over self- thought, without reference to authority, or counsel? No. In our case, the Catholic Faith provides us our framework of reality. Within the moral and doctrinal light of the Church, we are encouraged to not just know facts, but to understand those facts as deeply as possible. This increases faith and does not endanger it.

It seems to me the way you would want to have it work, John, is to have people agree under duress without understanding. It is a little hard for me to put this notion into words as I simply don't understand it your method, as it runs against every fiber in my nature. It is the substance of my chief complaint against the LC's. One never knows where you are going to fall on an issue, because it seems that a causal understanding is lacking. Or let's say they do know where you will come down on any issue; still... still, there seems a lack of knowing exactly why.

A person taking on the Catholic Faith, and having come to understand a bit of its principles in the beginning, I would expect would generate a bit of "expectation" or a feel of where it is heading next as they pursue a better understanding. Actually, I know that to be true; God rewards the truthseeker. A generally ability to anticipate direction should accompany a good understanding. A person should normally be accumulating a sort of feeling for the whole as they progress, an understanding of how things fit together in a puzzle.

Every now and then in the pursuit of the Faith, a seeking individual will encounter a roadblock... doctrinal or moral, a piece of the puzzle that does not seem to fit. They may move into a concentrated mode, spending a good deal of time to achieve an understanding. The principles of Faith guide this process and establish the boundaries within which an understanding can be had. But make no mistake, an understanding is what is sought after, not just a submission. If understanding cannot be had, submission will have to do. Submission is assumed at the beginning of the process just as it is in the resolution of understanding, if achieved, at the end. I do not understand the Trinity, but my submission to its existence and nature will do. An understanding of for instance Eucharist, this can be had in varying degrees by various good people.

My question to you is this: how, under your way of understanding submission, was it possible for Thomas Kempis to write his Imitation of Christ? What would have happened if someone had come along and said "Thomas, look, you don't have what it takes for this... put it down, quit writing and listen to what we tell you; you cannot possibly understand what we have not yet explained to you". In the case of Mary of Agreda, she had to stuggle with this very thing until another superior stepped in and rectified the situation. What about Kolbe? Should he have dropped his apostolate and run off into a corner in submission? I do not believe his superiors would have thwarted his incentives, but would encourage and support what good they saw in his nature. Was Ligouri told to knock it off? Aquinas...? Does one not even begin to achieve understanding without consulting those who tell them not to do so? They were saints, sure, but at the time nobody knew it!

Stemming from this is the blunt question, why should I listen to you? Why shouldn't you just listen to me? I think that's a fair question. But either question is worthless if the truth, and an understanding of the truth, is not the object of pursuit. If the truth is not the objective, then by all means, commence with the game of doctrinal king-of-the-hill.

I'm not saying that obedience to superiors or authority is to be set aside; I'm saying that any decent superior's objective is going to be to foster understanding in their student, not a mere set of facts, not a listing of beliefs, but a causal understanding.

Look at Thomas Aquinas's work. The five proofs for the existence of God. Existence of God is an article of Faith, yes? But look what he does... five proofs by way of human reason. He is seeking to promote understanding; he wishes to draw truth out of his students by means of the normal workings of the imprint of the divine in the human, that which is in the image and likeness of God. When we understand causes, we truly know.

Salvation really consists of these such as humility, nothingness, selflessness, littleness. He can have all the knowledge in the world but it is straw, it is folly, it is nothing. Once inside the Ark of the Church, there is still no salvation without the absolute demolition of self will, without possession of charity, without suffering. The Almighty demands no less than the complete demolition of the selfserving man of false gods and the rebirth of the servant of the Creator God. This is the essence of salvation, not a checklist made by peers.

All that being said, in the points you made, imho, are elements of a modernist influence. I can address each point you have made... maybe now, maybe later, maybe I just might let it go. But first, I request that you make a small effort to understand what angle I am coming in from, in regards to knowing and following the Catholic Faith, so I know that my attempts are not completely in vain.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 17, 2002.

well, john, you truly seem to lack charity, and seem to enjoy jabbing at those who do not agree with you (especially me and Ed)... or so it would seem...amazing how in the "ecumenical" conciliar church the ideologies of all (including pagans) are embraced, whilst those Catholics who would not change after Vatican II are cast out.

you seem to take pleasure in saying that i am in schism. well, i can say one thing for certain: i am not. i do not reject any catholic doctrine whatsoever. i am a catholic forever.

i do think the Holy Spirit indeed protected the Church at Vatican II, and continues to do so. however, the ambiguities of some of the Vatican II documents, as well as the whole crisis which flowed from the Council (or at very least brewed before it and exploded shortly after it) is undeniable. the windows of the church were opened to let in the tornado winds which have destroyed many things inside.

despite the unprecedented crisis of faith and crisis of the Church's life since 1960, the Holy Ghost continues to guard and preserve the Church, no doubt... but the fact that the Liturgical "Reform" and the crisis of faith in the hierarchy itself have weakened/diluted/ NEARLY destroyed the Church (she can never be prevailed against)should be obvious.

recommended works for you to read: "In the Murky Waters of Vatican II" (Gumares), "Mouth of the Lion", "The Last Roman Catholic" (Demers), and "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" (Lefebrve)

you should take the time to open your mind to the truth rather than be pompous and obnoxious. let me just say that my goal here is to simply speak the truth...not to attack anyone.

emerald, you on the other hand, have intelligent things to say and truly respect you.

--dave

-- dave montrose (irejectsociety@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

I'd like to add another book to Dave,s Goodbye Good Men, by Michael Rose. Guy's try reading something else besides the local diocesan Pravda

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

Recall, Dave a post or two back, my thanks to you for your kindly reply. This despite the fact I saw you far from the truth.

You at least aren't particularly subversive in your ideas; no matter how unwise.

But, we have to give God thanks for making Ed Richards' posts unkind. Like the last few, where his ill-will flamed out from behind the screen of sanctimonious joviality. He's a darling, as you know.

Remarks such as: "It is difficult to think of the Vatican 2 church as the Catholic church.''
''. . . what we consider Papolotry''.
''. . . live and die in ignorance, so be it.''
''The local diocesan Pravda.''
''There are 2 "popes" right on these threads.''

These coarse denials of all constructive and positive intent let all others see what I began to see in Ed's first posts. He's unwilling to see his church One Flock under One Shepherd. In fact, he leaves no doubt about his wishes; that the Catholic Church become dispersed, truncated and quashed, until there is no Pope. No Magisterium, or will to bring all of us together.

So, Chavez; your opinion's out in the open. Then? I said I'm glad our friend is openly hostile; so witnesses may judge his intent, not by that cordial, apparently devout image he wanted to cultivate in the beginning; but by the hatred he's revealed in the last page or two. It says something about his agenda when we consider the source. Let's pray for him.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.

Ed,
You claim to *know* absolution had been denied some friend. OK, you weren't in the confessional. Let me ask then. If I take that back, will you confess you listened to hearsay, and possibly a lie? Or to detraction against a catholic priest? Or, at least, that you don't *KNOW*, but-- possibly-- absolution was denied, er. . . Hmm.--- Let's see what your answer is.

Here's my words:
''A Gallup poll is no sane proof of any true interpretation of the True Presence by faithful Catholics.'' So? You have no way of proving anything with a poll. I'm correct; it proves absolutely nothing. Besides, as I continued on to say:

even if we assumed this trend were true, it doesn't give you and other dissenters a license to lie. You simply lie, Sir, reporting on a ''presider'' sitting on his duff letting a swarm of extraordinary eucharistic ministers bang out communion for him. --Lie? Have I seen it? No. Did you see it?

Let's assume you saw it. Did you see it in every Novus celebration in a particular region, or state, or all over our country? Does it happen all the time? -- I really can't say. Neither can you. But, you use it here for cannon-fodder. If it isn't a lie, it's still intended to mislead.

You lie if you pretend you know priests who say Mass without faith in Transubstantiation. These are subjective assertions. --Do I know wha I'm talking about??? Hey, Gene! What makes you think Ed's lying? OH? Ed could've read a priest's mind and multiplied that by twenty. Or-- It could be hearsay. Some other mind-reader, or some prostitute may be telling on a priest who likes her. The word got around??? Or, let's go way OUT! The priest said it frankly, at Ed's house. Sure !

/ / / / / /

Ed; Repeating;

In a majority of your posts you've taken a Pharisaical attitude to the faithful who worship in Novus Ordo masses. They have no grace, in your considered opinion. Why have you shown utter disrespect for the Liturgy, or the faith of the Novus Ordo community in our forum? Answer, please.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.

Eugene I mean no disrespect, seems to carry it to those extremes. And when it does, I apologize. However Eugene, when did you ever apologize for constantly calling me a liar, excommunicate me,and several other things. Not once Gene, not once.I want the Novus Ordo to be, what it started out to be, something like Mother Angelica's Mass. Better yet like Paul 6th original novus ordo, where the words "for many", rather than "for all" is used. Gene Our Lord never said "For all", so why did the English speaking Mass change to "For all"? Does that make it invalid? I don't know, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the popes, "For many".

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 18, 2002.

What the dickens it got to do with making YOU comfortable? I'm quite comfortable with ''for all''. Mainly because it's accurate. Our lord's Precious Blood wasn't shed for ''many'' it was shed so that ALL who avail themselves of the grace can be saved. All have been REDEEMED; the next step is up to them individually. So, whatever your comfort makes of it, don't split hairs; and try to RELAX your eternal vigilance a bit. Let the Holy Ghost hear your prayers, and become a man of faith, not scruples.

(Advice from a 65 year-old cradle Catholic, not some 60's radical.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 18, 2002.

Eugene, on anoher thread, I asked for Christmas truce, and I mean it. But Gene, you are well read, not trying to butter you up ,one thing though. Read session 22 , council of Trent. God bless you.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 18, 2002.

Why were we born? To go to heaven, thats why by God.

-- daniel DANZERA (diggerdanza@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.

Jmj

Well, Emerald, I must say that you have surprised and disappointed me. I thought that you had more intestinal fortitude. You wrote, in your closing paragraph:
"All that being said, in the points you made, imho, are elements of a modernist influence. I can address each point you have made... maybe now, maybe later, maybe I just might let it go."

I'm sorry, but for people to respect you and for your own self-respect, you dare not "let it go" completely and you ought not put it off any longer.

In my post, I leveled some serious accusations at you, I offered some speculations, and I asked you some questions. Every other Catholic at this forum, I believe, would have had the courage to reply directly and firmly to all the things I said, if I had been speaking to them. They either would have admitted (or, by words, revealed) that I was right (to say that they are dissenters or worse) ... or they would have proved that I was wrong (e.g., by professing assent to the teachings of Vatican II and the Catechism, etc.).

Did you do either, Emerald? No. Will you do either? Maybe (you say). By delaying and hesitating, you are clearly revealing a great deal of understandable fear. You know that you are a dissenter, but you fear the consequences of coming right out and admitting it. (You have always hated "progressivist" dissent, and you dislike the thought of revealing that you have embraced "regressivist" dissent.)

What did you do instead of frankly replying to me? That was the extra-sad part. You posted nine full paragraphs of double-talk. I mean, I literally could not understand the slightest thing you said up there.

At one point, I felt that it was as if you were suddenly revealing yourself to be bilingual, and that you had started to use the foreign language you know. At another point, it was as if you had written out an answer and then fed it through some kind of gobbledygook-translation machine, to come up with a whizbang, flimflam text designed to razzle-dazzle me. I felt as though I was reading some kind of incomprehensible defense of liberation theology, some kind of "progressivist" apologia.

Emerald, after we have had dozens of exchanges using normal English, that I -- a simple grandson of four Central European peasants -- could understand, you suddenly went into some kind of pseudo-intellectual prose that probably not even the pope (nor Fr. Teilhard) could understand.

The only thing I seemed to get a glimmer of was that you were attempting some kind of rationalization, searching for an excuse that would allow you to be a dissenter from the pope and Catechism. Maybe that idea is reflected in your final words: "But first, I request that you make a small effort to understand what angle I am coming in from, in regards to knowing and following the Catholic Faith, so I know that my attempts are not completely in vain."
Emerald, I'd say (with NYC accent), "Foggetaboutit." There is only one "angle" that Catholic people can "com[e] from, in regards to knowing and following the" Faith -- and that is assent, arising from an acknowledgment of the authority that Jesus gave to Peter and the Apostles.

I cannot make even "a small effort to understand" an "angle" in which someone pridefully requires the Church to change to his liking, in which an ordinary layman tells the pope and bishops that they are teaching error. No, sir.

Well, we shall see now what you are made of, Emerald. Do you have a backbone? Or will you excuse yourself again and revert to a teasing game, wherein you pretend to be appeasing both sides in this strife?

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.

John, NYC Czech, maybe!

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 18, 2002.

John:

Reading through your last post was interesting; I need to comment.

On what grounds do you think Emerald (or I) do not assent to the teachings and authority of the Church?

I for one do not find outright heresy in the documents of Vatican II (with the possible exception of the words "et publice" in "Dignitatis Humanae...that's another complicated issue). I do not dispute that the Holy Spirit protects the Church. I wish to clarify that what I reject was the presence and major influence of the "Modernists/Liberals" at the Council, and the direction things have gone as a result. What I reject, what should be rejected by any faithful Catholic, is the ambiguity of many of the Council's documents...much found in the Council's decrees was deliberately written in ambiguous language which could be interpreted in a number of ways...thus failing to openly and specifically proclaim much of anything definite, yet allowing liberals and heretics to "have their way" by favoring them, though perhaps not outright declaring them to be correct. The beauty of some of its passages aside, the Council opened wide the windows for disaster...it has caused harm to the Church. Even Card. Ratzinger said something to the effect that not all councils are of that great an effect in their time. What I'm saying is, we are not obligated to greet the current period in the Church as a "new Pentecost"...we are not obligated to hail the aftermath of Vatican II. In fact, we should weep over it. Also, we need not accept as infallible those things that were pastoral in character... the line between dogmatic and pastoral in regard to this Council is unclear and complicated (read "Murky Waters of Vatican II"). There can be no doubt, however, that a revolution exploded at Vatican II...a number of theologians verified that the Council was the first step in this process.

The fact that two opposing currents of thought tried to come together at this Council is undeniable. Can truth and error come together? Traditional Catholicism and Modernism? Orthodoxy and heresy? Church and world? Yet, the documents of Vatican II would appear to be the result of such attempts.

In the end, we as Catholics are not bound to accept or support anything which threatens or dilutes the Faith (e.g. Mass of Paul VI, prayer meeting at Assisi, destruction of sanctuaries, abandonment of Latin, Communion in the Hand, altar girls, eucharistic ministers, inclusive language, Pope participating in pagan rites in Togo and India, etc.) In fact, we are bound to oppose anything which dilutes the Faith or threatens to destroy it (which, of course, it can never be totally destroyed)...I mean destroy it on a massive scale or prevent its spread.

Dave

-- DAVE MONTROSE (irejectsociety@yahoo.com), December 19, 2002.

One more thing as food for thought...

Everything I just said aside...in the end, no matter what, we are meant to obey God, to obey God rather than men.

Remember that St. Paul said that even if angel from heaven should teach another Gospel, let him be anathema... if true for an angel from heaven, how much more true for the hierarchy of the Church.

We must remember at least the remote possibility of crisis in the hierarchy of the Church. St. Augustine interpreted to Our Lord's words about the sun and moon ceasing to give their light, and the stars falling from the sky...he alluded to the Church failing to shine and the stars representing the bishops...this is what it will be like before the Son of Man comes again...could this be the time we're living in?

I may sound like I'm contradicting my last post with apocalyptic talk...all I'm getting at, is, don't doubt that a major crisis could occur in the Church, even affecting the hierarchy. Everyone should be anathema who proclaims another Gospel, even a Pope or the Bishops, in the rare and unlikely event it could happen, at least in their private teachings and actions... of course the infallible Magisterium can never err.

--Dave

-- DAVE MONTROSE (IREJECTSOCIETY@YAHOO.COM), December 19, 2002.

No new Gospel has been proclaimed, Dave. Our Church is faithfully proclaiming Christ's Holy Gospel into a third millennium. No one changed the gospel, weakened it, or wants to abandon it. Just because you want it your subjective way, don't let your lips get loose. Tell the TRUTH.

anything which threatens or dilutes the Faith (e.g. Mass of Paul VI, prayer meeting at Assisi, destruction of sanctuaries, abandonment of Latin, Communion in the Hand, altar girls, eucharistic ministers, inclusive language, Pope participating in pagan rites in Togo and India, etc

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

Not a single item you've described above is weakening the faith. Our Holy Father did not ''participate'' in pagan rites; he met the native peoples on their home grounds. He is a Christian advocate to those people. He offers the love and peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

You are clearly making personal taste the criterion for faith here: ''destruction of sanctuaries, abandonment of Latin, Communion in the Hand, altar girls, eucharistic ministers, inclusive language,''

Catholics received communion in the hand in the catacombs of ancient Rome. If it did not ''weaken the faith'' for the first martyrs, why is it going to do it to me? Saint Tarcisius was a eucharistic minister in that same era. Find out for yourself; he was a boy martyr, taking Viaticum to a Christian family when he was martyred. He was NOT the priest who consecrated that host! Girl helpers??? Our Blessed Mother is God's loving servant; and she presumably participates with us in every Mass. Latin or vernacular. Dave-- Mary the Virgin is a ''girl''--!

''Inclusive language doesn't take away from the holiness of the vernacular Mass. We are all called to ''Love one anothe'' by Jesu Christ. Inclusive language is a language of love. We are never called to be EX-clusive!

Your phrase, ''I mean destroy it --the faith-- on a massive scale or prevent its spread.'' makes me laugh. Those things you're so alarmed about are spreading the faith as God Wills it. You couldn't spread it much at all forcing Latin on an aborigine in Borneo. --Speak Latin in Khazakstan or Siberia and all you'll get is bullet-holes, not faith. You need to wake up and smell the coffee, Davie! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

This is not to argue with Gene (at least for a week), but Dave I have read everything thata you spoke about, and completely agree with you.

Archbishop Lefebvre, was the Athanasius of his time. He tried to "play ball" with the powers that be, but they played with a "stacked deck".

The man had no choice, but to Consecrate those four bishops.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 19, 2002.

Eugene:

You are clearly in the darkness.

First off, are you aware that the Holy Father, according to what has been documented, knelt before a pagan "priestess" in India and received the anointing of cow dung on his head? Don't get me wrong, I admire him for reaching out to pagan peoples with love and compassion, but I think he clearly crossed the line!

Do you know that during the meeting in Assisi in the 80s, a statue of the Buddha was placed upon the altar in a Catholic church, and the Buddhist pagans "worshipped" there. And, do you know that around the world, interfaith services are held where not only do the people come together as at Assisi...they also "pray" together. For example, here in my diocese, the Cardinal hosted an interfaith service (not just ecumenical among Christians...Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais were present) where they prayed and sang together.

This sort of thing is blasphemy to Almighty God, Gene. Would St. Paul have prayed with the pagan Greeks and worshipped with them? Did God tolerate His chosen people in the Old Testament worshipping false idols such as the golden calf?

It is absolutely intolerable that this goes on...and yes, it DOES indicate another gospel being preached, if you will...it does threaten the true faith.

As far as inclusive language and altar girls, it shows the arrogance of feminism, the caving in of the Church to radical feminism, which is opposed to the Faith. How dare anyone change Sacred Scripture at all to suit an agenda? Take for example, in the Psalms, when the word "man" is used...many times it refers to Jesus. What may seem an appropriate change on the "horizontal" level really attacks the "vertical" meaning. Inclusive language, "horizontal" or "vertical" is blasphemous (especially "vertical") and should not be tolerated.

Communion in the hand: It is apparently true that Communion in the Hand existed in the Early Church. However, if one reads St. Cyril's description of commuion in the hand in his time, it was quite different from how commuion is received today. There was a great amount of reverence shown which is absent today. In addition, the practice of Communion on the tongue developed out of an increased sense of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. If you notice, both in the West and all of the Eastern Rites, Communion is given only on the tongue to the faithful. Communion in the hand was condemned early on to safeguard the Eucharist... the practice only resurfaced over a thousand years later by the radical Protestants (e.g. Cramner) who introduced the practice to demonstrate their disbelief in the Ordained Priesthood and in the Real Presence. Please note that in the 1960's, the practice resurfaced again by DISOBEDIENT LIBERAL PRIESTS in Holland...when the practice began to spread by the revolutionaries who betrayed the Faith and went Protestant, Pope Paul surveyed the bishops of the world. The majority rejected Communion in the hand. Pope Paul only allowed the practice as an exception in certain nations where it had already been approved (Holland)...then, we saw, as is often the case with the Holy See after Vatican II, the Holy See gradually caving in to disobedience and the subsequent approval of growing disobedient practices by Bishops' Conferences...e.g. altar girls, etc. For years, obedient priests would not allow altar girls out of fidelity to the Holy See. I remember this in the 80's when I was an altar boy; we had an obedient holy priest. Disobedient priests allowed whatever they wanted to, including altar girls. Then, in the 90's, the Vatican again caved in and permitted altar girls...making a mockery of those priests who were obedient, and patting the disobedient ones on the back. I am not disloyal to the Holy See to indicate the fact that it has repeatedly caved in to the liberals... In matters of discipline, we have the right to disagree.

In any event, Communion in the Hand was o.k. in the early Church...but the meaning attached to it by the Protestants and the post-Vatican II dissenters should be enough for us to refuse it now.

Gene, you are in the darkness. I'm sure my posting will do no good as you simply like to "lol" at me...You are the one who can't smell the coffee.

dave

-- DAVE MONTROSE (irejectsociety@yahoo.com), December 19, 2002.

Dear David Montrose:
If you intend to write one more word to me, DON'T make insulting remarks about the Pope! If for something I said you think I'm in darkness, show me what it was I said. Don't simply pass an unilateral judgment.

The Pope did NOT WORSHIP any pagan idol; you're a complete fool if that's what you thought.

He doees not commit blasphemies. YOU are blaspheming against the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Kindly do not say it DOES indicate another gospel being preached, (if you will...) NO--I won't! --(it does threaten the true faith)-- NO--IT CAN'T! --You are full of it!

Just remember; the Catholic Church is HOLY. It is always HOLY, not because YOU say so-- But because the Holy Spirit is here with her. Christ is here, and Our Blessed Mother. --You, Dave, and those other liars who came here are lacking altogether in FAITH! Letting you determine what does or doesn't ''weaken and destroy'' the faith is a farce. You have lost faith in the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

ed,

Archbishop Lefebvre, was the Athanasius of his time. He tried to "play ball" with the powers that be, but they played with a "stacked deck".

The man had no choice, but to Consecrate those four bishops.

LeFebvre incurred excommunication for his **** direct disobedience to the Pope**** and sin. Not for passively failing in some way, but for direct disobedience to the Pope! The priests he "consecrated" are also excommunicated. His followers as I understand it MAY or MAY NOT also be excommunicated for knowingly following him. Why you'd want to be separated from the Christ's church is beyond me, but clearly shows you are no guide for Christians if you follow this nut. To deliberately lead someone away from Christ's church is a MOST grave sin.

Athanasius on the other hand is a Saint for upholding the Trinity against Arian heretics. The REAL "new Athanasius" would be John Paul II for maintaining the Church against the schismatic Lefebvrists.

There will never be a "Saint Lefebvre", unless Satan has a heirarchy. Sainthood is not one of those things given to one who turns their back on Christ and his church and deliberately stays in disobedience and schism until their death. You can say prayers for Lefebvre's soul, after all God is merciful, but follow him into excommunication? You must be nuts.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 19, 2002.

Gene:

You are correct in saying that the Catholic Church is HOLY.

I have not lost faith in the Holy Spirit, Gene. The Holy Spirit continues to protect the Church, surely. I do not reject the continuity of Church teaching, the Magisterium. I do not pretend to have all the answers to complex questions, and it is true that Truth does not revolve around my sentiments, personal preferences, etc.

Yes, the Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. However, Gene, you border on papolatry, it would seem. You must remember that while the Church is Holy, and protected by the Church, and while the Pope is the visible Head of the Church, this does guarantee that everything he says and does is guaranteed to be holy.

We know that the Church is protected by the Spirit. The extraordinary magisterium of faith and morals via popes and councils is infallible. Sometimes the ordinary magisterium can be infallible, too. Also, the ordinary magisterium is a treasure, as a norm the guide, for us, even when not infallible.

However, the pope CAN sin, he CAN err as a private theologian or teacher or preacher, he CAN make bad laws for the Church, he CAN fail grievously, give a BAD example, even perhaps fall into schism to some extent! Christ's promise to preserve the Church until the end does not mean all his successors will be saints, Gene!

Yes, the Spirit protects the Church. The Holy Spirit has acted in great ways through pontiffs after Vatican II, even outside the extraordinary magisterium. Examples would include Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, Paul VI's heroic CREDO before the bishops and faithful in Rome, John Paul II's letter on the ordination of women.

As heartbreaking as it is for me to say, however, it is a fact that Pope John Paul has participated in pagan rituals; kissed the Koran, received an anointing of cow dung from an Indian priestess, and watched a pagan priest perform a pagan ritual calling a snake from the cave. I am not hear to judge the conscience of His Holiness. But I cannot deny facts.

You must remember that the HOLY character of the Church does not guarantee that every word, action, gesture of the Pope, or for that matter, any member of the Church, will be HOLY. I truly believe that you are wrong. By the way, I DID give examples of how you are "in the darkness" in my previous posting! Read it...READ IT...I explained some of the issues...I did not pass "unilateral judgment".

You are wrong to call me a liar. I am not. Think about this: have we ever, in the history of the Church, seen a pope participate in pagan rituals? (by the way, i never said that he worshipped a pagan god or idol). This is a serious situation, despite whatever good intentions the Pope may have had. Also, it is not possible to "blaspheme" the Vicar of Christ; blasphemy is a sin against God, not any man, including His Vicar.

Gene, I pray you come to realize that while you have a heroic dedication to Christ protecting the Church, as well as the Church being Holy, you also have an erroneous and warped perception of that protection and that holiness.

--dave

-- DAVE MONTROSE (IREJECTSOCIETY@YAHOO.COM), December 19, 2002.

Thus sayeth the village idiot:

Dave speaks the truth. Well, maybe not this line:

"However, the pope CAN... even perhaps fall into schism to some extent!"

That would be contradictory by definition, Dave, but based on the general context I figure you might have meant something different. But look, you have the sense of it to be sure. Be strong in it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 19, 2002.

John, you told me:

"I'm sorry, but for people to respect you and for your own self- respect, you dare not "let it go" completely and you ought not put it off any longer."

Is this my objective? Should it be?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 19, 2002.

Dave:
Just saying the word papolotry to me is an insult. The Pope is a man of God; God he isn't. To me being accused of ''bordering'' on papolotry is tantamount to saying I'll adore a man in God's place. This, by the way , is the calumny accustomed by anti-Catholics. You place yourself in bed with them suggesting our Holy Father is the object of papolotry. I'm dead serious.

Kindly cease from laying blame on him for your fixations and scruples about his ''sins''. You ought to know better than that. RESPECT for the chair of Peter is what I'm demanding. If the Pope has sinned (as I said on another thread,) he can ask his confessor for absolution. I already acknowledged he *might have* sinned. But frankly, neither you or I are supposed to sit in judgment, and you are saying many inflammatory things here. Just stop it!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

Gene:

I didn't mean to, and I'm not, sitting in judgment. I indeed do have respect for the Chair of Peter, and the man who sits on it.

However, if the Holy Father had sinned publicly, or did something scandalous or harmful to the faith publicly, it is not sufficient for him to go to his confessor...it would be necessary for him to publicly apologize, or at least to express the truth to the faithful, to clear up scandal.

Especially in this age of overapologizing for past sins (in the Church), we in the Church need to look at ourselves today and realize our sins and failings today. It is hypocritical of us to criticize or apologize for our ancestors yet fail to see the logs lodged in our own eyes.

God bless,

Dave

-- DAVE MONTROSE (IREJECTSOCIETY@YAHOO.COM), December 20, 2002.

"RESPECT for the chair of Peter is what I'm demanding."

No it isn't. What you're asking for is something really quite different. The accusation of 'disrespect' for the chair of Peter is a straw man, and the little flair of righteous hurt provides a booster to move the tactic along. The tactic is just a way to win, but it sidesteps a consideration of truth.

What you really want, and what John wants, it to have people assent to your brands of Catholicsim. Far be it from either of you, more particularly John, to be wrong. If you are found to be wrong, your whole world of Catholicism would come crashing down... perhaps, because your Catholicism consists solely of being right.

John seems to have it constructed in such a way that it is harder for those who are inside the Church to live up to his self-made checklist than for who are outside the Church to be saved. This is folly.

John, your notion of assent is burdensome; it is of your own creation, it does not reflect the Church's meaning of assent. It in itself is an interpretation of the very kind you claim the laity are not allowed to engage in. It is a man's style of assent, not God's. Gene, much of what issues forth from you in the name of the defense of the Faith is just plain contentiousness. If you can dish it up day in and day out, then open up your ears and listen to what I'm saying.

By analogy, someone calls your mother fat. But is she still your mother, and do you still love her and she you? That wasn't the question. The question is whether she is fat or not. Some hurl the claim as an insult; others are being objective.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 20, 2002.

"[I, on the other hand, say that corruption (meaning "heterodoxy") can rise to levels just short of the pope, but that IT HAS NOT DONE SO in our lifetimes [i.e., since 1951, and probably not for centuries before that]. Those who say it has so risen are merely using the charge as an excuse to be dissenters.]

'Did you read the encyclical on Freemasonry and Naturalism? Pascendi (on Modernism)? How about the Syllabus of Errors, or the Oath Against Modernism. Mortalium Animos (On fostering True Religious Unity)?' [None of these fine documents has anything to do with people who have been pope or worked most closely with the popes in our lifetimes. These documents are about people scattered around the world who are up to no good. That's where the modernists have been sprinkled in recent centuries -- in universities, in parishes, in seminaries, in the chanceries, in the workplace, etc. -- but not in the popes and their right-hand men.]" ******************************************************************* I have already disproved the above words of John. Archbishop Bugnini, leader of the liturgical reform under Pope Paul VI, was a Freemason (later reprimanded by Pope Paul VI for doing so). *******************************************************************

My purpose here is not to attack John or anyone...however, what really irriates me is John's Pharisaic attitude as I read through previous postings. Whereas at first I could at least respect John for some of the knowledge he shared, then he said he decided not to respond to me... it's amazing to me how people can simply close their eyes and ears to reality, and then decide to refuse to even respond to those who threaten their comfort zone, who threaten to quash the wall they've built around themselves.

As far as the encyclical on Modernism, it too applies to our lifetimes...Certainly the errors of the Modernists that Pius X spoke of are held by the vast majority, or at least a large number, of priests, nuns, faithful, AND WORST OF ALL BISHOPS.

Also, another issue: John does not admit heterodoxy can reach the papacy, just short of it. Several fathers/doctors/saints/theologians have admitted to the possibility of a pope departing from the teaching of the succession of popes before him, i.e. falling into schism. The great theologian Suarez basically stated that one of the ways a pope could fall into schism would be if he wanted to reinvent or radically alter the Liturgy/ceremonies of the Church. I'm saying IT'S A POSSIBILITY that Paul VI to some extent could have fallen into schism by approving the Novus Ordo Missae, that Suarez's criteria apply in his case. When I say "schism to some extent" (in response to Emerald) I know that sounds contradictory... but I know no other way to describe a pope in that situation. Of course, it probably is not possible for a pope to be a formal heretic...there is no other office higher than that of the pope on earth, and he has primacy and universal authority, though not absolute authority. The office of the papacy can never be in schism, so to some extent, the pope can never be in schism...the issue is complex; I don't claim to be a theologian or father of the Church (and by the way, even they wrestled with these issues, which may not be totally resolved via conciliar/papal teaching). But, above all, John, heterodoxy could certainly reach the papacy insofar as in his role of a preacher or theologian (rather than universal teacher and pastor). There was one pope, for example, who preached a sermon during a Mass that the souls of the saved will not see the Beatific Vision until the Final Judgment, which is heresy).

-- DAVE MONTROSE (irejectsociety@yahoo.com), December 20, 2002.

Dave--
All the force you bring to bear on your argument is purely wasted It's YOUR PERCEIVED abuses and PERCEPTIONS of this kind ''it's amazing to me how people can simply close their eyes and ears to reality, and then decide to refuse to even respond to those who threaten their comfort zone, who threaten to quash the wall they've built around themselves.''

that throw out what good intention you have expressed. Closing our eyes to reality is absolutely NOT where we are here, Dave. Once or twice I examined the catalog of ''abuses'' cited by Regina, Ed, et al; and plainly exposed them as private scruples. Your scruples are all very commendable, but they don't have any claim to ''reality''.

I know Popes can err, and sin. But you receive the present Pontiff as a quasi-heretic who has an obligation to accuse himself publicly and do penance for your unhappy conclusions! My perception is not that narrow. I want John Paul II to toe the line and send the right signals; and I pray for the Holy Spirit to light his way.

I think the holy Spirit is doing that just fine, Dave. I do NOT demand as you do:

...it would be necessary for him to publicly apologize, or at least to express the truth to the faithful, to clear up scandal.'' -- Later with THAT; when did ''reality'' set you up as the arbiter of Christ's Vicar on earth? Keep on suggesting we're papologists, Dave. We are in touch with Christian reality. The Church is NOT run as a democracy.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Dave says it so much beter, and detailed, than I could. May I add though, one question.

Why did the Church (after the council) decide to change the form of every sacrament?. All seven. Did all the Holy Fathers , of past, even ancient history, get it wrong?. What purpose was served?.

It created doubt, divisiveness, and lots of othr problems. When just one thing, like annulments, leaps from three hundred to fifty thousand, We become the laughing stock of other religions.

They say, "don't bother going to Reno, jut apply to your local bishop".

I don't blame them.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 20, 2002.

We become the laughing stock of other religions

The sspx is the laughing stock of other religions? Then why did you join?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 20, 2002.

Frank, I did not joinanother religion. I just attend a branch of the one church, that holds a lot more respect for Our Lord, thanour "big brothers". They are not the folks giving out annulments, like cotton candy. Big brother is!

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 20, 2002.

ED:

sometimes i think minds like frank's, gene's, john's are hopeless cases.

i've determined we might as well not waste our time posting messages to them...better to spend the time in prayer for them-- only GOD could show them the way at this point, if they're ever willing to face reality. but, on the other hand, let's continue to post to communicate with reasonable minds like Emerald...and maybe to get through to someone out there who just reads and doesn't post.

i just can't believe how they can close their eyes to:

--leader of Liturgical Reform a Freemason, later dismissed from position by Pope

--Thousands of priests walked away in 1960's

--Homosexuality/Pedophilia in priesthood

--Priests infected with Modernism/ Bishops infected with Modernism/ --Everything radically altered: sacraments, liturgy, religious life, gone for most part are all externals of Catholic religion

--Priests/bishops hunger to "renovate" our parishes, move tabernacle to the side or chapel, and other strange things

--We have radical feminism, new age, we have pro-aborts speaking from pulpit (e.g. Hillary Clinton at Father Judge's funeral)

The Church is in such an unprecendented crisis...and the thing is, almost no one (least of all Gene) can PERCEIVE it! Ed, this is difficult for me to bear, you know?

NOW, everyone; especially John and Gene...you "defenders of the pope", as you seem to think you are, think about these words of Pope Paul VI:

"The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called auto- destruction. It is an acute and complicated upheaval, which nobody could have expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking herself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of concepts which matured in the great sessions of the council...one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself."

Obviously, Pope Paul, the Pope of Vatican II, could perceive the magnitude of this crisis... Why are so many Catholics blind to this crisis? Now let me clarify, I DO HAVE FAITH THAT THE CHURCH WILL SURVIVE THIS CRISIS...GOD IS STILL WITH US! Yes, I have faith. However, I want to get through to those of you who fail to see! The Church will get through the crisis...but how many souls will be lost between now and then? It will make it through because of voices like mine! I don't say this in any conceited manner, but feeling certain that I am one little voice pressing for what's right! I don't have all the answers...but I have some of them for sure!

--dave

-- dave montrose (irejectsociety@yahoo.com), December 20, 2002.

Dave, Right on the money, but some people never come out of a coma.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 20, 2002.

Oh. My apologies ed! I thought you were no longer a Catholic but followed the excommunicated priests of the sspx. I didn't realize you were just a truculent Catholic who enjoys the old rite.

You do agree though that priests in the sspx are excommunicated and not allowed to say mass though, right?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 20, 2002.

Dear Ed,
You're making something up again: --Why did the Church (after the Council) decide to change the form of every sacrament?. All seven.''

It didn't ''change'' them. Your notions are simply one string of negatives after another.

The Church has plenary authority in Council to make ALL decisions, and no one else has that, because the Holy Spirit is abiding in her.

You start right off, ''Did the Holy Fathers of the past,--'' etc.,

It's not for you to question the Catholic hierarchical authority. You're the lamb, not the shepherd.

Every day we have to come back and remind the lambs, Dave Montrose included, to stay in the fold; & let the shepherds do God's Will. You're a ''spring lamb'', Ed-- Offer thanks to the Good Shepherd you don't have the responsibility of guarding His flock. It's too heavy a job for amateurs.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Frank SSPX, and any other priest for that matter, were given the right tosay the Tridentine Mass, in perpetuity. Read quo primum again. If that isn't clear enough, nnothing. "Perpetual Indulgance". If that can be overuled by a future pope, then nothing is sacred. Will the nextpope wipe out everything put into place By John Paul , and the three prior popes. According to you, he has every right to do this.Apparently he can put the church into the 25th century, or bring itback to Trent, whatever he wishes, that is of course, until the pope after him, and on and on. And we as good catholics will have to say "of course your holiness'"! "You are in charge at the moment".

And Eugene. if SSPX, were guilty of one doctrinal error, I'd be out of there in a heartbeat, but they are not.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 20, 2002.

You'll enter the presence of God someday. Be ready, Ed, to make Him understand your pressing concerns. I'm sure you'll be forgiven. No one wants you to become schismatic and lose the grace you seem to think comes from nowhere. But it seems no one can help you now.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Ditto Eugene, one is wrong and one is right, or maybewe are both somewhat wrong. Leet's pray for each other, I do, for you Gene.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 20, 2002.

Ed,

I'm sorry, I've had a few busy days and haven't given you and "A" the consideration you deserve, but rather pointless antagonism. BUT, Lefebvre and the priests he "consecrated" were EXCOMMUNICATED. Remember Ed, PETER was given the keys of binding and loosing, not the Arians or any other disgruntled faction. If you follow these men you do so at your own peril. God help you if you have convinced others to do the same as you.

Go with God Ed.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 21, 2002.

Thanks for your concern Frank. I am definitely not against the papacy, or even not against this pope,but I feel that his ecumenism is agains all traditional teaching, and even he cannot bind what other popes have condemned.Even the name Novus Ordo, (new order), has an ominous ring to it. the new order has emptied seminaries, convents, catholic school, nd above all catholic churches.

Can't these loyalists, to this pope look around, and see this devastation? I am loyal to faith, before obedience.

St Paul warned us,"If I or angels. etc, preach a different gospel, cast us out". What if this pope said the trinity is a myth? Would you still follow him? What does it take to see throughall this stuff. I am not saying that he is evil, as only God can jude that, but he is messing us up, whatever his reason.I pray for him more than I do for pre-conciliar popes.I think that somedy, before he dies, he will at least try to correct his errors. I hope so.

God bless you, and your family in this Holy Season.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 21, 2002.

Ed,
Over and over again you return to this simplistic argument. The Holy Father has no problem distinguishing between a ''new'' gospel and the Tridentine gospel. Nor would we ever have to obey if he claimed the Trinity was a myth. Because he never would, get REAL. You raise impossible hypotheses to support your lack of faith.

Why is Novus Ordo an ominous name? You have no basis for statements like this, nor to say IT emptied seminaries, convents and Catholic schools. There is no ''devastation'', because the Church lives and has the Holy Spirit. You cause DIVISION with your morbid preaching. It's division would cause devastation to the Church. You're pitting your own morbidity against God's Will.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.

Eugene, I will rephrase mY question Are the seminaries down drastically since vatican 2? an honest answer yes or no?

ConVents almosT empty,,, yes or no

Churches being sold off, yes or no

If not V2, then what? Do not come back at me with the Holy Spirit, etc etc.

Fellows, give me YOUR REASON. yOU NEVER HAVE, YOU KNOW.

aLL i GET IS, HERETIC, HELL, AND ON AND ON. fOR ONCE GIVE ME A SOLID REASON FOR ALL THE ABOVE.

cAN YOU?

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 21, 2002.

There is another way to look at it Eugene. I personally believe that the Pope is well aware of the number and nature of the fractionalizations within the Church. His seeming use of a strategy of inaction is puzzling to many, including myself. The strategies could be a mistake, but I'm not sure if that addressed the issue of his holiness. It may be the case that the Pope, on the first day of his pontifficate, may have stepped into a broiling movement within the Church that was already in full momentum and far ahead of anything he could have slowed down or reversed, even if he willed to. It might be the case that he is so between a rock and a hardplace (literally) that his options for doing anything without getting blamed by somebody, or anybody, is impossible. This is why I think he ought to be in everybody's prayers at least once a day, and I'm sure people do pray and that it is helpful. The poor man must be miserable.

I think it would be behoove everyone to quit extruding the implicit and explicit support of the Pope for all the various causes they want championed. You can probably understand why I get frustrated when this, that and the other party keeps saying the Pope is on their side. All these people saying they know the mind of the Pope and they are his personal groupies... pfffffft! Eventually he, or his successor, is going to take a broom to all these people trying to crawl in his mouth and speak for him. There will come a day when enough is enough and heads are going to roll, and it will start to look a little more orthodox again.

Ahh, that's my two cents. Take it or leave it. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 21, 2002.

Emerald:
The mere fact you would judge our Holy Father of taking a strategy of inaction counts as dissent. He has no obligation to serve us with action or inaction. You lay plans for the Vicar of Christ arbitrarily and then call him remiss for not following them. Would it someday occur to you the Pope is guided in his works by the Holy Spirit?

Does the true Christian presume to correct the Holy Spirit too?

You think: ''All these people saying they know the mind of the Pope and they are his personal groupies... pfffffft! Eventually he, or his successor, is going to take a broom to all these people trying to crawl in his mouth and speak for him.''

Isn't it you, and Ed and Regina and Jake-- who are convinced they know? We advocate faith here. There is no sure knowledge other than the truth of Our Lord's irrefutable promise, to be with His Church forever. --Besides; my objection is limited. I only react to the doomsayers; the ones who carry on hysterically; ''Devastation all around, can't you SEE it?''

I don't claim to speak for God. I'm awaiting God's holy words. He promised us they would come by way of His Church. Not by way of nonconformist Catholic purists. Let the Pope work without interference and see what results. I think he has compiled a very good record so far.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.

"The mere fact you would judge our Holy Father of taking a strategy of inaction counts as dissent."

Nahh. Not. I mean, it would be nice if it were because it could solidify your position in concrete... that is, the position that the waters are calm and that there is no storm. I say there is a storm, but the boat floats and Jesus is in it.

It would be a damn tough case to make, for you to actually prove, based on the Deposit of Faith, and all the teachings of the Church high and low, top to bottom, that my statement consists of dissent.

"Isn't it you, and Ed and Regina and Jake-- who are convinced they know?"

Well to be honest, yeah, pretty much. I don't want to speak for them unsolicited, but as for me and my house, we believe so. Yeah, I've got a rough idea of what's up.

Of course the Holy Spirit will be with His Church until the end. Devastation does not mean Doom. Doom indicates complete destruction, I would presume, from its common usage. Devastation happens all the time and can be repaired.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 21, 2002.

Emerald:
We can call that fair. I'm a glass half-full, you're a glass half-empty. We see the necessity for patience and vigilance. Also the need for faith in God. I had used that example from the gospel myself. The bark of Peter was rocked in the storm. Our Lord was below deck asleep, and His friends got very alarmed. In a minute, he was calming the storm.

Maybe I'm too phlegmatic; I just don't take the last forty years as proof that the faith might go under, if we don't dispute with the Hierarchy over externals. Over vernacular vs. Latin and communion in the hand. I worry more about splintering of the faithful; every Catholic for himself.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 22, 2002.

Eugene, I do not think that anyone of us is judging the pope. Only God is our judge. However we have every right to judge his actions.

The difference between you and some of us, is that you believe that only pearls of wisdom come from his mouth, whenever and wherever he speaks. The Holy ghost does not take responsibility for every thought and word of the pope. According to your thinking Gene, when the pope sneezes, it is the Holy Ghost sneezing. No indeed, the man is human, and he can make some dilly of a mistake from time to time, as can any one of us. To think that he is infallible 24 hours a day, is indeed papolotry.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 22, 2002.

Dear Ed:
Your newest opinion doesn't even deserve an answer. You've consistently made such asinine statements, and mentioned papolatry in here several times. It's insulting; and yet I don't feel anything but pity for you.

I have once or twice used terms of disapproval; fanaticism, elitist, and now asinine. In your case, my friend, they're far from inaccurate. You are in the grip of fanaticism. You do behave like a member of an elite. And in this last post, you've said something imbecilic. More to the point: Do I idolize a Pope? No more nor less than you idolize past popes. No more than you idolize your country, your wife and children.

These may mean a lot to us. But none of these take glory and worship away from God.

Is this part of your post asinine? ''The difference between you and some of us, is that you believe that only pearls of wisdom come from his mouth, whenever and wherever he speaks. The Holy ghost does not take responsibility for every thought and word of the pope.''

It shows how truly fanatical you are. Do we only stand behind our Shepherd when he speaks pearls of wisdom? Or only if he says what we wish to hear?

Is the Holy Ghost letting us decide now if the Pope is worthy? You sound more and more like the Baptist we have here, on another thread. To the both of you, a Pope is nothing unless he gives up all authority over us. At least Tim is honest about his view; the Papacy isn't on his biblical radar screen, he doesn't think Peter was our Pope at all.

You don't believe it any more either, I guess.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 22, 2002.

Eugene, I do not mind the name calling anymoe,as one gets used to it. I have found a lot wrong with this pope. (my opinion of course)Ad yes, I do have the highest regard for many popes, starting with Pius 12th and going back from there. Every fiber of their body and soul was Caholic.

Ecumanism as practiced today, was a dirty word to them, and they spelled it out, with no apologies to anyone. The Catholic chuch thrived under these men. They did not Protestanize the Mass to please other denominations. "If you want to become a Catholic, this is what you get", and that was that!They did not need 6 Protestant minister, for "suggestions". If those people walked into the council, they would have been bounced out on their ear. What were these 6 doing there anyway? Observing?" In a pig's eye! They were there to make trouble, and they did.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 22, 2002.

So, the Holy Spirit did NOT participate, did not intervene, and never was involved in this Church Council, which operated in full view of the world, and kept no secrets from the faithful?

You simply don't believe in the Holy Spirit, Ed.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 22, 2002.

Ed--
Let's see if you agree then, with my assessment of:

''Yes, I do have the highest regard for many popes, starting with Pius 12th and going back from there.''

That makes you a papolater, by your own criterium.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 22, 2002.

Hi Emerald I feel sad to read of your position my friend. So many times this year you have been my measure of what it means to be Catholic yet I feel lately you have fallen astray. I can only offer you a few thoughts of my own, although I realise you are a deep thinker who will probably have considered all of these things long ago

Nevertheless...I often hear that things are worse now in the church today than they ever have. It is quite simply untrue. Consider the 18th century- the age of slavery, the so called age of enlightenment when the faith in Europe had almost universially gone cold, an age of abject poverty and wretchedness for most of Europes people.

For all the troubles that surround us today- abortion, war, poveerty the truth is that human beings today are living longer and are more healthy than ever before. Far more than ever before people are able to read and write and recieve an elementary education.Its time we as catholics took a second look at our church, our world and our selves. we need to discover that God is no wet blanket, no killjoy. On contrary God is the eternal optomist.

Lets get out theology straight. God believes in human beings, and made us in his own image. Indeed God loves us- he cant get enough of us-our shortcomings notwithstanding. God loves us and has nothing but good things in mind for us.

God intends the salvation of all people, not just the priviliged few (cf Lumen Gentium 15). Gods intent for universal salvation is throughout scripture (CCC 56-64). Catholics have no monopoly on grace as lucky and preiviliged as we are. God though ios not restricted in his love for his other children. You must accept this truth Emerald, it is not negotitable!

Yes the concerns you and Ed raise are a worry to us all. The church in the West is in decline along with much of the rest of Western culture. However I suspect we worry becaouse we cant see the bigger picture God is painting. Think of the growth of the Church in the developing world . Think of the new love for scripture, and the increase in lay men and women trained in theology and pastoral skills. Think of the young Catholics coming to Mass not to keep a rule, but out of love for the Eucharist. catholics are now often suffiently mature in faith and knowledge to make moral judgements without always reffering to the priest. in the church today we find a new openess to the world.

I believe God is teaching us , in the church to experience weakness, to be poor and powerless. We dont like it when our Church is weak, but the truth is that God operates better out of our weakness than our strength. We may fret, but in the end the Spirit will have her way.It is not easy to keep our balance in times of change, but Emerald it is essential that you do. Dont turn your back on the challenge and look to the past. Its Gods world, not our world. Its Gods church, not our church. Like it or not we have to be faithful, and obedient.

Finally mate dont think that God is sitting on his hands, off on break like me ;-), or that he has clean forgotten us. We need to keep our perspective.This means simply rembering that God loves us, that he is wityh us and that the Kingdom he is preparing will be a brilliant sucess.

Emerald again thankyou far all your help and the everyone elses this year especially Mary Lu, Gail, Theresa, Jake msn, Jake H, Brian, Frank, Seminarian, Jean, Fred, Chris B, Coosey, David, Mateo, John and Eugene. Its been a blast! May next year we all grow just as much.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

Kiwi, Thank you. Have a Merry Christmas.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), December 22, 2002.

Hi kiwi. I welcome every word you have to say, and certainly appreciate your honesty, as I always have.

Each word of your post I understand very well, as well as what is between each line too... that is, the understanding of The Process; you've got it nailed down for sure! That fact is impressive in and of itself; but things have a way of coming back to haunt the truthseekers though... when you recognize The Process as mammon, then my position will suddenly seem more appetizing.

Some things you need beer and a table for, and these subjects call for no less... =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 22, 2002.

Jmj

Emerald, it's time for you to be a man or remain a sissy.
Kindly cut the double-talk.
Be an orthodox Catholic (assenting to all the teachings of Vatican II and the Catechism), or declare that you are a schismatic dissenter.

If you prove to be the first, I will embrace you as my brother in the faith and look forward to future chats with you.
But if you are the second, I ask you to leave this genuinely orthodox Catholic forum, and take your five comrades in crime (jake1, regina, isabel, ed, dave m) to some other Internet site, to wreak satanic havoc there instead.

This was once a great forum, but a lack of discipline and courage have allowed the lingering presence of two malignant cancers (anti-Catholic bigots, schismatic traditionalists) that are growing worse with every passing week. As long as the site remains (effectively) unmoderated, without a firm banning hand, it will continue to go to the dogs. There are at least seven people freely posting here now who should be banned. Just as you, Emerald, need to muster up some guts to prove that you ought not to be the eighth one banned, so the crew that should be moderating needs to muster up some guts to clean up this manure-strewn stable, by banning the ne'er-do-wells.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

I stated: "This was once a great forum, but a lack of discipline and courage have allowed the lingering presence of two malignant cancers (anti-Catholic bigots, schismatic traditionalists) that are growing worse with every passing week."
Somehow, I temporarily forgot a third cancer (anti-Legion-of-Christ crew). That adds at least another two to the ban-deserving list.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

Well you folks of the "True Church", according to you, have one thing in common. You certainly are experienced "name callers".

Whatever you may think of the rest of us, we do not attack you, and call you names. As for that V2 council, they themselves called it a pastoral council, and not a dogmatic council. No Holy Ghost, was ever called upon.

I wonder why we Trads, dont join you, as life in the novus ordo is much easier. We have to abstain from meat, every friday, plenty of other fast days,ember days. no saturday night mass for sunday. sunday is sunday. no general confession. no fifty thousand annulments, and on and on. The novus ordo is tailored to YOUR NEEDS AND WANTS, not to God's. Communion in hands, so what particles end up in your handkerchief, door handles of you cars extraordinary ministers, must have plenty of those particles in their hands or floor around them. Not ever one receiving is careful, you know.You may be carrying the Lord on the soles of your shoes. Tell me I'm nuts but deep down youknow that this is true.Do you play "find the tabernacle" when ypu enter a new church?.It's right smack high up in the middle, in our's , Why kneel to receive Tje Lord of Hosts when you can stand. Why be quiet and respectful, when you can gab with your friends, in the center aisle after mass, (I know because I used to do it)On and on, but what's the use.

And we're the heretics, and schmatics"!

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 23, 2002.

John, you lay out exactly the dissent which you say I am guilty of.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 23, 2002.

"but things have a way of coming back to haunt the truthseekers though... when you recognize The Process as mammon"

Help me out here Emerald, I need specifics in clear simple terms. As as I used to ask Chris -dumb it down for the plebs, just plain speak for us simple types :-). Where are you at and why? Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

Ed,

I wonder why we Trads, dont join you, as life in the novus ordo is much easier.

I wish you were a "traditionalist" within the Church. Unfortunately, if you follow Lefbvre, I don't think you can make that claim as he was excommunicated as were the priests under him, making them no longer able to give the sacraments.

In your understanding (as I haven't really researched the standing of the sspx followers) what is the Vatican's position on the status of people who were once Catholic and now follow the sspx? More importantly, what is the status of children of sspx members who were never *baptized* as Catholics, but rather started out in the sspx? They would still be considered Christian, but are they still considered Catholic?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 23, 2002.

John:

You ought to read the gospels and read about the Pharisees...you may see in them what you should see in yourself.

I'm tired of your attacks against me and others who think like me.

I am a Catholic and I am NOT wreaking "satanic havoc."

The fact that you appear to be completely blind to what has happened over the past 40 years is sad. The fact that you have ignored the things i have stated in my postings (e.g. that there is no clearly stated heresy in the Vatican II documents, albeit with the unresolved issue of explaining "et publice" in Dignitatis Humanae) and choose to lump me in with your preconceived labels also shows your ignorance.

I can't believe it ! You want a "firm banning hand" to wipe out anyone who says something that might prick your conscience and suggest you could be wrong about something, John! What, exactly, in your mind, makes me "schismatic", John? In what way have i entered into schism? The fact is that i have not. You apparently love to throw the crime of schism at someone you don't even know, just because you don't agree with them? Yes, if someone disagrees with you, calls you out of your comfort zone, makes you have to see reality, you apparently just call them a name and label them, then just go on living in your bubble.

I am truly disgusted and disappointed by your lack of charity, your closed-mindedness, and your ego. You should try to SINCERELY GET THROUGH to people you disagree with in charity...and also listen to what THEY are saying, not just condemn someone as if they were a piece of garbage. You who love Vatican II should know about the openness and dialogue the Church now embraces towards heretics, schismatics, and pagans (even ceasing to use those terms)...yet you herticize, schismaticize and satanize, in your mind, all Catholic traditionalists. Doesn't make much sense, now does it?

food for thought: The Holy Father and the Vatican have ceased to call the Orthodox and EVEN THE COMMUNIST-APPOINTED CHINESE PATRIOTIC CHURCH "schismatic"...and yet you can call CATHOLICS who love the TRADITIONAL ROMAN CATHOLIC MASS "schismatic traditionalists". This doesn't make much sense, now does it?

In any event, John, I suggest you quit dismissing me and others as if we were worshipping the devil. It is insane, it is disheartening...it is un-Catholic and un-Christian on your part.

To the others who read this, I apologize if it sounds like I'm condemning someone...it's not my place to judge anyone's heart, obviously...but I felt the need to say this, because what John is doing is unacceptable. If anyone should be banned here, it should be HIM!

--DAVE M

-- DAVE MONTROSE (IREJECTSOCIETY@YAHOO.COM), December 23, 2002.

Dave,

There is a very big difference between attending a Tridentine mass in a Catholic church (which I'm sure John would have NO problem with) and knowingly attending a "mass" from an excommunicated priest who is not allowed to perform any sacraments. I think all Catholics would have a problem with this. The question to me is which side are you on?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 23, 2002.

Dave, you've said it so well, once again. It comes down to one simple fact. If they were wrong then, they are wrong now BUT, if they were right then, they are still right now. These folks can call us whateverthey like, but when we walk into Mass, it is the same Mass as those saints and martyrs attended. What would they think of some of these hooligan shows, that they are putting on today?.

My concept of Mass is one of standing on that hill at Golgotha, on a dark friday afternoon, with the weeping Blessed Mother, John, and the others. I cannot see a jolly priest singing, "Happy fathers day, right after the gospel. 0Teen agers talking loudly in front of me, and everyone afraid to tell them to shut up. Jolly father, loosening us up with a few jokes, and people applauding, when he finishes. Yes indeed, that is the right attitude for Golgotha. I suppose "we schismatics, will have to stand along with Our Lady, and those other schismatics, at that desolate site.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 23, 2002.

"but things have a way of coming back to haunt the truthseekers though... when you recognize The Process as mammon"

Well, I didn't write it very well, Kiwi. Judas was at the last supper, so the concept of having the enemy present right there at the table is not unique. He was sitting right there.

Judas held the purse. Within the Church there will always exist those who wish to undermine it... but proving someone to have a direct intent to do so is nearly impossible. However, identifying those who serve Mammon is a bit easier. Titles, rank, honor, prestige, notability, power. When these things are not absorbed in submission and service to the Almighty, but instead are sucked into to one's self and had for their own sake, they qualify as mammmon.

We were told by Christ that one cannot serve both God and Mammon. There will always be the Judas' among us that serve mammon. Getting stuffed to the gills with mammon (gods that are not God) is the reward for those who reject the Almighty God. The gods they choose are the gods of this life and not the God of the next, so naturally the aims of the Judas' are limited to this life. Their aims will appear in the form of setting up a utopia in this life of their own design, of a humanistic design, according to the ways of man.

Whether in full awareness or witlessly, they tend to want to draw down heaven to earth rather than to aspire to raise the faithful to heaven by means of the Church Christ instituted. Their aims are geo- political. True virtues are reduced to social justice. True sins are reduced to conditions such as poverty and so forth. The sense of the angelic struggle between good and evil is forgotten, and all sense of the Divine is reduced to the ways of man and what men can do for other men according to men's wisdom.

When the apostles were in the upper room on the day before the Resurrection, they were scared, confused and lost; Three and a half years and before Pentecost it almost seems at times that they had grasped little. Three and a half years with Christ, and despite swearing up and down he wouldn't do it, Peter denied Christ. Thomas doubted though he had seen miracle after miracle.

These apostles, though, through the help of the Holy Spirit, perservered so that we today have the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and the way of salvation has endured. Peter repented and asked forgiveness and received it, and Thomas' doubt was resolved... "my Lord and my God".

What marked these people out is that they were truthseekers. God always rewards the truthseekers though they fall down; what makes Judas Judas was that he chose Mammon, and part of what is involved in what makes the truthseekers prevail is that they rejected mammon.

The fact of the matter is that salvation, the ulimate goal of truthseekers, is absolute death to self for the sake of the Beatific Vision, which is not of this earth. "My kingdom is not of this earth." I believe that God is faithful to the truthseekers, and will assist them in the avoidance of mammon.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 23, 2002.

Frank, Are we Catholics? I will leave that up tp God, but I know one thing for sure. We behave like Catholics, in Church!

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 23, 2002.

Whatever you may think of the rest of us, we do not attack you, and call you names. As for that V2 council, they themselves called it a pastoral council, and not a dogmatic council. No Holy Ghost, was ever called upon.

You've gone the whole way now, Ed--

You dispute the 2nd Vatican Council and the preltes of the catholic Church. That is all schismatic.

And, you've called her faithful ''papoloters''. Not only a calumny, since no on here has ever suggested the Pope is divine, or even that he takes God's place. He has Christ's full authority, we know that. You reject it. Therefore, john hasn't name-called. He's said what we see now as true. A true schism in action. Not just that, some of you have even tried to support the ones ex- communicated by our Pontiff. You seem to have no worry about placing yourselves in the same camp with the anathemetized.

Mind you, I'm not calling you anathema. You should just realise what you're flirting with.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 23, 2002.

Jmj

You are right, Frank. Some people are such fools, assuming that I reject the old rite of the Mass simply because I reject their schism. I have attended Mass in the old rite once in each the last two years -- where it was celebrated licitly, with the bishop's permission. I think that it would be good for every Catholic to have this experience. I am not drawn to make it a frequent occurrence, even though I was an altar boy at old-rite Masses prior to Vatican II.

Emerald, you wrote:
"John, you lay out exactly the dissent which you say I am guilty of."
(I assume that this is an imperative statement, because I can't make sense out of it if you intended it to be declarative.)

Please try scrolling up to my last message, just above those words of yours. You will see that I did not say that you are "guilty of" "dissent." Instead, what I wrote was this:
"Be an orthodox Catholic (assenting to all the teachings of Vatican II and the Catechism), [Emerald,] or declare that you are a schismatic dissenter."
Please excuse my omission of the word, "or." I wanted to say, "... or declare that you are a schismatic or dissenter."

So I am here to ask you for a profession of faith and obedience, in a certain form. I am not here to "lay out ... the dissent" of which you may be guilty. The profession of faith and obedience that I ask of you is one that I whole-heartedly give myself at this very minute.

Emerald, will you follow suit? Why have you not followed suit already? Why have you been beating around the bush, double-talking me for nine paragraphs in one message and now double-talking Kiwi (and failing to answer his question) for eight paragraphs in a new message?

By professing the faith in the way requested, you would lay to rest all suspicions of possible dissent (or possible de facto schism) that you have been raising for a week or more on various forum threads. What are you waiting for? Could it be that you are waiting for Chris Butler's promised thread -- to see if, despite clinging to some dissent or schism, you might "squeak through" and somehow still be considered a Catholic in good standing (in Chris's eyes)? I hope that you are not doing something so foolish as that. You know very well that dissenters and schismatics are not Catholics in good standing.

Or is it just that your pride is hurt -- that you don't think that I have a right to ask you to profess your belief in the teachings, and obedience to the disciplines, found in Vatican II and the Catechism? If you won't answer me, whom will you answer?

I hope that you don't think, as some ignorant souls do, that Vatican II taught nothing. You are smart enough to know that two of the sixteen documents are called "Dogmatic Constitutions," because they contain dogmas and less formally declared doctrines as well. In fact, all sixteen documents contain doctrines. They teach us, and we must assent to those teachings. The Council is called "pastoral" because (1) it did not define any new dogmas, but (2) presented anew, for the use of "pastors" in our times, many of the ancient dogmas and doctrines of the Church.

Emerald, I am still talking to you here at forum, because I have high hopes for you and do not consider you banned (as I consider five schismatic traditionalists). They are not banned by the Moderator, but they have forfeited the right to receive replies from me. I will gladly reply to "cradle protestants" before I will reply to schismatics, because the former usually have an excuse (invincible ignorance) for their error, while the latter are almost inexcusably despicable. I speak from clearest knowledge and experience, as one who was once almost inexcusably despicable myself.

Emerald, I pray that you do not become a sixth person in schism, and I pray that you are not a dissenter either.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

John, please lay out the way(s) you think I am a dissenter, or am in danger of being a dissenter.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 23, 2002.

I didn't dodge kiwi. I attempted to explain that there are those in high positions that are the proponents of a spirituality of the things of this world and the things of man, and that those parties work progressively in opposition to other holy men in high positions that are proponents of the age old gospel of Christ, the gospel of salvation. I believe that the former are gathered at the table as Judas was, in greater or lesser degrees, some knowingly and some unwittingly.

I believe the Pope is against these Judas' and works on the side of the gospel of salvation. I believe that these Judas' work against the Pope. I believe much is projected onto the Pope, and credited to the Pope, that he would not himself espouse. I believe that from our vantage point it is nearly impossible to determine whom is working for whom. I believe the Pope is in opposition to those who proclaim a gospel of humanistic worldly advancement as opposed to a gospel of salvation.

As for the profession of Faith you want, John, fine... any one of the professions of Faith, or creeds, that the Catholic Church endorses, I profess and submit to. That good enough?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 23, 2002.

I am tired of getting into an endless harangue, with the neo- catholics,(my estimation) on this website. They want to anaththematize me, while I believe that they are anesthetized. I would just like to communicate with the people who really know what is going on. Dave, Jake1, Regina, Isabel, Emerald, and Christine (of course), if she'd care to. If the others want to still keep beating the drums of Heretic, and anything that follows, that's OK. I'm for free speech, and not for barring anyone.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 24, 2002.

I am tired of getting into an endless harangue, with the neo- catholics,(my estimation) on this website. They want to anaththematize me, while I believe that they are anesthetized

Then form your own forum. WE aren't the ones who are following excommunicated priests, you are. I'll even help you with a name for your sect, why not call it... "the SSPX"?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 24, 2002.

The anesthetic is working well, Frank

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 24, 2002.

Unfortunately, no it's not. I still feel very sorry for you, although it seems to come out as anger. So you had problems with the Novus Ordo. You could find a Tridentine mass or petition for change, but instead you left the Catholic Church, the one formed by Christ.

How can you rationalize that to yourself? Don't you think the Lutherans believed in their cause? They too like you criticized the church as being the "Babylon of the apocalypse" and the "synagogue of Satan", and yet I think you'd agree that they were wrong at that time. Yet you make the same claim now that they did then. I'm sorry, ed, just because you don't like Vat2 it was no excuse to leave the Church. How will you answer Christ when he asks you why you left His church to follow excommunicated priests just like the Lutherans left His church? Do you think Christ will be just as happy with Lutherans as Catholics? If not, why would you sit in the same boat with them? You can't even use the excuse that you were *born* an SSPX'er, you left the Church of your own, informed, will.

Sorry ed, no anasthesia here, just sadness and bewilderment at another lost soul.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 24, 2002.

Frank, I appreciate what seems to be your genuine concern for my soul. I apologize for the vitriolic answer I gave you. Frank, you have got to realize though, what you, Gene and some others are doing. All of you are making pronouncements, that you have no right to make. It is one thing to say, change your thinking, but another to prounounce judgement on them. Dave and I are prime candidates for that. If the pope allows religious feedom for protestants, muslims, jews, and others, why are we denied the same religious freedom?. I am, (I hope), a devout catholic of the eternal church, and what it has taught for 1900 years. I do not reject even one council, except V2. Even that one I accepted for 20 years. I was much slower in catching on, than others I know. I defended John Paul, with every excuse in the book. The usual, "He has bad people advising him" or "His intentions are well meant" etc etc.

One day a learned person said, "Look it up, this pope's writings were modernist, long before he bacame pope, and another thing, about all those cardinals, who do you think put them there". I could no longer defend him after that.

I suppose that I show anger, when I think of what a fool i've been. Yes, he is a pope, but a pope that I cannot trust.

My question is "what was wrong with the church, that they needed a V2"?. Is it any better off today than then? The history, and numbers since then, tell the story. We did not have all this division before V2. Why did the Mass have to be changed?. These are honest questions, that deserve honest answers. Instead we get vilified for asking. Frank, or anyone, can you give us reason for the change, other that "the pope said so". I will wait for that kind of anwer.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 24, 2002.

Dear Ed--
You say, ''One day a learned person said, Look it up, this Pope's writings were modernist,'' etc., But I tell you we here are just as learned as your learned friend, and we adhere to the same Church you claim lost the way. YOU claim; not the Pope claims. You set yourself and some learned friends against the successor to Peter. You call him modernist, and us ''neoCatholics''. So be it.

You are the deserter, not the Catholics here. We are faithful. I hope the God of all Christians will deal as mercifully with you and yours as He deals with anti-Catholics and sectarians over the whole of Christendom. They are deserters too. May He be merciful to them all, and to you. May He be merciful to us all; and yes, I'm a sinner. I haven't any cause to feel myself a part of the Elite.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 24, 2002.

"I am, (I hope), a devout catholic of the eternal church, and what it has taught for 1900 years." (So sayeth ED-iot)

Note that Ed would capitalize the first-person pronoun ("I") but not the "c" in Catholic and in Church. Shows who's in charge in his life -- "I" (and not the Catholic Church).

Incredible that this dingbat claims to be "a devout Catholic [believing] ... what [the Church] has taught for 1900 years."
He conveniently forgets that all "devout Catholics" for 1900 years were TOTALLY obedient to the popes. Eddy don't need to be obedient to the pope today!
He conveniently forgets that all "devout Catholics" have accepted ALL ecumenical councils, without ever DREAMING that they had the right or ability to judge a council to be invalid. But lay dingbat Ed is smarter than all devout Catholics of 1900 years, being able to judge that Vatican II was invalid and that our pope is a modernist.

This Richards guy is in danger of permanently frying in a skillet over hellfire if he doesn't tame his pride and get down on his knees to beg forgiveness.

-- (Begone@Satan's.Minions), December 24, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Emerald.

You stated, "John, please lay out the way(s) you think I am a dissenter, or am in danger of being a dissenter."

I'm sorry, but, under the circumstances, it is not proper for you to demand or request this of me. For a week or two, I always spoke up immediately to let you know that you had made a statement that lacked necessary assent to Church teaching. Surely, you will recall those situations and subject matters. It is neither proper nor necessary to rehash those matters here. (I will just mention one problem, for the benefit of other readers who may not be aware of all the wrong things you said in the past week or two, on a few threads. You adamantly and repeatedly denied that non-Catholics are Christians -- e.g., Protestants and Eastern Orthodox -- even in the face of the Church's crystal-clear teaching that they are Christians.)

You wrote: "I didn't dodge kiwi."

Hate to be so blunt, but that is a falsehood. Here is what Kiwi wrote, showing that he was really after the same thing as yours truly: "Help me out here Emerald, I need specifics in clear simple terms. As as I used to ask Chris -- dumb it down for the plebs, just plain speak for us simple types :-). Where are you at and why?"
Obviously, Kiwi didn't want (nor deserve) a cartload of double-talk about "mammon" and the suchlike. We really don't give a damn about speculation concerning various Vatican officials. That is a side issue. Like me, Kiwi simply wants to know if you are a loyal, believing Catholic [as he and I want to be] or a schismatic [disobedient to papal disciplines] or a dissenter [rejecting doctrine].

I proposed a perfect way for you to declare to Kiwi and me that you are a loyal, believing Catholic: a profession of faith and obedience to ALL the doctrines and disciplines found in the documents of Vatican II and the Catechism. This is your third and final chance to make that profession of faith and obedience. No batsman gets a fourth swing-and-a-miss.

Why do you treat me as though I were an idiot by making this statement?: "As for the profession of Faith you want, John, fine... any one of the professions of Faith, or creeds, that the Catholic Church endorses, I profess and submit to. That good enough?"

Obviously it is not good enough, because those "professions" do not contain all the doctrines and disciplines given in the documents of Vatican II and the new Catechism. I'm not here to be trifled with, sir, as you well know. This is not a game being played, and your soul is not a toy. Please wise up, before you find yourself eternally in a place with a sulphury smell.

Despite this argument, I hope that you will have a blessed Christmas. I hope that you were able to get to Confession earlier today.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 24, 2002.

John, Merry Christmas! I love you, man. Maybe its the rum.

"The woman you put here with me; she gave me the rum, and I drank it."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 25, 2002.

Emerald, Unlike John Paul, who doesn't think that hell is a place, the four "fire eaters" certainly do, and they are pushing all of us who give them a hard time, right into it. Oh well!

God bless you and your family, this Holy Christmas.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 25, 2002.

Hi Emerald and Merry Christmass to you and your family. As for "mammom" and the rest of your post let me see if I am on the right track

Haw haw seriously I had no real idea what youre on about, but I do have to question just how many of JPII own words you have read. Seems were reading different words from his encylicals and books. I think Johns request is more along the lines of what I was wondering. As for wooly mammoths...

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 25, 2002.

That's it! You got it man... perfect! I love the way the wooly mammon incorporates the concept of hairshirt with the concept of extinction.

I'm fully Catholic my friend; you are just going to have to trust me. John is trying to set up a speed trap for me, and I'm just making sure his radar gun is properly calibrated.

Merry Christmas to you, and to you Ed and Gene and Dave.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 25, 2002.

A wooly Dumbo. Great. I guess that "a mammon never forgets."

Anyway, here it is from the dictionary for you, Kiwi:
Mammon -- NOUN: 1. (Bible) Riches, avarice, and worldly gain personified as a false god in the New Testament. 2. (often lower-case "m") Material wealth regarded as having an evil influence.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Late Latin mammon, from Greek mamns, from Aramaic mmon, riches, probably from Mishnaic Hebrew mmôn.

Found in some translations of Bible, as here from Matthew 6:
"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Merry Christmas.
John
PS: Emerald, you struck out, but I'll give you a fourth and final strike because of the rum.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 25, 2002.

"I'm sorry, but, under the circumstances, it is not proper for you to demand or request this of me."

Sure it is. You see, you are insinuating that I am in dissent, so the burden of proof is upon you to show it. Of course, this would entail a response by me. Therefore, what I am asking is that you lay out the exact nature of the dissent(s) of which you claim I am either guilty of, or at least leaning towards or flirting with.

You need to show a desparity between anything I have said and the Deposit of the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 25, 2002.

Jmj

Emerald, you wrote: "You [John] need to show a disparity between anything I have said and the Deposit of the Faith."

It depends on what you mean by the "Deposit of the Faith." If you mean something very confined by that phrase (e.g., the central tenets listed in the Creeds), then you are wrong. Someone, once a Catholic, who rejects one of those tenets is a "heretic," not just a "dissenter."
You know well that a person can be a dissenter by rejecting a Catholic Church teaching (e.g., against contraception) that is not mentioned in a Creed.

I recall showing, on several threads (and even one example in my last message on this thread), an apparent "disparity between [things you] have said" and the Church's clear teaching.

Since we are both human, I may have misunderstood you, or you may have expressed your actual beliefs poorly. That is why I am giving you a simple way to clarify the whole thing. You have three choices:

EITHER (1) declare (a) that you assent to all that is taught (and confirmed by up to three popes) in the documents of Vatican II and in post-Vatican-II documents, including the Catechism -- and (b) that you submit to the disciplines [Church binding us] contained in these documents, including Canon Law ...
OR (2) say that you don't assent to doctrine "A" [and "B", etc., if applicable] because the Church has begun to teach errors since the beginning of Vatican II ...
OR (3) say that you assent to all doctrines, but reject the pope's authority to bind you in discipline "A" [and "B", etc., if applicable].

Do you want a fourth choice -- "I plead 'the fifth amendment,' on the grounds that anything I say may tend to incriminate me"? OK, you can have that fourth choice, but I (and any intelligent Catholic) will immediately translate that into, "He means #2 or #3, but lacks the courage to say it."

So, Emerald, which is it, #1, #2, #3, or #4? I am not going to let you play any more word-games or mind-games after this post. If you fail to reply with one of these four numbers, I will assume #4 (and all that it implies), and I will have to consider you not to be a Catholic in good standing (i.e., either a dissenter [#2] or a schismatic [#3] or both). No matter what number you give (or fail to give), I intend to move on to other things after this post.

Merry Christmas.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 26, 2002.

The 4th choice is that people are claiming that post conciliar documents are teaching things that the post conciliar documents are not teaching.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 26, 2002.

How about this, John. Your idea of what constitutes assent/dissent is an interpretation of your own making, and does not accurately represent what the Church teaches, and as such, you are breaking your own rule regarding how the laity ought not render their own interpretations of doctrine and discipline. That's a fair argument, no?

In a manner of speaking, you have deputized yourself as Sheriff John Gecik of Greenspun County... and it is unclear to me by what principle you assume this title over your laity peers here. We could keep this up low speed chase up for a while, but eventually I could probably make you run over your spike strip. After, we are human, are we not, and every last one capable of error, or God forbid even charity? But what concerns me most is, does any of it have to do with obtaining the truth...

Just to be blunt, that's all. I hope you had a good Christmas, and I have no hard feelings for you. In fact, if you want to press it further, I wouldn't mind. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 26, 2002.

I want to make sure you understand, John, that I don't get on the net and think to myself "dang that John, I'm going to show him up today". I really don't feel that way, and I'm hoping that you won't take it as such... that we are sworn enemies because of some disagreements or misunderstandings we have with each other. I hold you to be a member of the mystical body of Christ as a baptised Catholic, and I know full well that I am as capable of error and wrong headed thinking as anyone else.

To be completely and 1000% honest, John and kiwi, I believe these are difficult times in the Church, whether somebody admits that they are or not. I believe that we have always been under attack by the Evil One, but I admit what everyone does not, and that is that at this time the attacks are incredibly intense in nature. And also in number, for that matter.

continued...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 26, 2002.

continued, due to strange posting error message...

I believe that nowdays there are any number of ways that a person of genuinely good intent, one who wishes truly to pursue the will of God, can be deceived. I believe that God knows this and will take various degrees of ignorance into account, and look to the will of the person and eventually put those of good will into right thinking.

As a gesture of good will, John, I will admit this much; that what seems your intense drive to promote a unified thinking among Catholics, and to attempt to step in and uphold a list of standards, derives from a heartfelt good intention to promote that unity. I believe in some ways it is misguided and deviant from principle, but I will hand you the good intention. I am not setting myself up in opposition to you for fun, for its own sake, or for the sake of contention.

In confusing times, I think the safe haven is charity and doctrine. When right doctrine itself becomes an item of potential confusion, then charity alone will rule the day, and I'm wondering if when all else resolves itself into a cloud of unaviodable confusion, that charity alone will be the measure. After all, no one can make an excuse for failures in charity, as we all know what the rules are. This is not pointed at you but at all those involved in disputes concerning truth.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 26, 2002.

Jmj

There is no "confusion," Emerald. People with eyes open can see everything as plain as day.
As I said last time, "No matter what number you give (or fail to give), I intend to move on to other things after this post."
The number you have given (by default) is #4 -- which is to say, #2 and/or #3. Too bad.

I'm now moving on.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 26, 2002.

That's a cop out. You don't have a case.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 26, 2002.

John, if I held out the olive branch to you, and claim that I only seek the truth, would you take it? I'm being sincere.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 27, 2002.

Emerald, Ed & Dave,

I have been reading this whole thread with much interest. (Emerald, I completely understood your 'mumbo-jumbo' post. Maybe John had a hard time with it, but I saw exactly where you were coming from.) I can definitely see you guys are on the path of truth, and if I follow you, I can learn alot. About the others (John and Eugene, mostly).....well, I am reminded of a Dixie Chicks song;

"You don't like the sound of the truth Coming from my mouth. You say that I lack the proof, Well, baby that might be so. I might get to the end of my life And find out everyone was lying. ............. But I'd rather die trying. Ooooohhh! Swing me, Way down south. Sing me, something brave from your mouth......."

Only, I know we don't lack proof, and I know it's everyone else who is lying. Oh, well, sorry for being so ridiculous, but as I was reading this thread last night, that song kept popping into my head. (I love bluegrass music.) :)

Isabel

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 27, 2002.

Isabel, Dave, Emerald, What those folks cannot see (or refuse to see), is the devastation all around them. As one of you pointed out, it is not total destruction, but things are very bad. If anyone is the glue holding this situation from total collapse, it is the Traditional people, who are trying to keep the faih of 1900 years together.

I would bet, that the three or four of us, trying to do this, might have some minor differences.

Most traditionals do. I believe however, that we totally agree on the real essentials.

Whatever else, we do it in a dignified manner. I have sometimes lost it, and come back at them, but they are viscious, and deserve it.

God bless all, especially the true believers, the trads.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 27, 2002.

For anyone interested, go to your search engine. type in Gerry Matatics and the old mass He says it all beautifully!

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 27, 2002.

Jmj

Emerald, you wrote:
"John, if I held out the olive branch to you, and claim that I only seek the truth, would you take it? I'm being sincere."

The olive branch is a symbol of peace. There's no need to extend it to me, because I have never considered myself at war with you. I still consider you a friend, but a friend who has let me down for a little while.

You're "only seek[ing] the truth"? I can't accept that, because you already had the truth earlier in your life. Now you're not "seeking the truth," but possibly straying from it. Just go back to where you were -- where everyone at Thomas Aquinas College is -- and you will be fine. Don't sweat the extraneous stuff (such as dopey clerics playing power games or mouthing off carelessly).

I'm praying that you will see the life of spiritual emptiness that comes from associating with people who write things like this:

"I would bet, that the three or four of us, trying to do this, might have some minor differences. Most traditionals do. I believe however, that we totally agree on the real essentials."

I couldn't help but notice how much Ed, in saying those words, sounded like a protestant of one denomination talking to three protestants of three other denominations. No unity, but Ed doesn't mind.

I will stand with the pope, the symbol of unity, the man who "confirms the brethren" in the truth and "feeds" Christ's "lambs." With him around, I don't need to still be "seek[ing] the truth." I have it.

Happy Feast of St. John!
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 27, 2002.

Isabel is incapable of impartiality:

''John had a hard time with it, but I saw exactly where you (Emerald) were coming from.) I can definitely see you guys are on the path of truth, and if I follow you, I can learn a lot. About the others (John and Eugene, mostly).....well. . . Only, I know we don't lack proof, and I know it's everyone else who is lying.''

Let's tell Isabel lies, John; to her heart's content. --Is it certain, then? You guys are all on the path of truth? People like John, Eugene, or others just lie?

Ask Ed;

Ed has it: ''What those folks cannot see (or refuse to see), is the devastation all around them.'' You point out, it is not total destruction, but things are very bad. If anyone is the glue holding this situation from total collapse, it is the Traditional people, who are trying to keep the faih of 1900 years together.''

Nothing self-absorbed in that commentary; Ed and Isabel keep the faith of 1900 years from total collapse!

Just like Walt Disney keeps Saint Peter's Basilica from total collapse. Like Madonna is the Sistine Madonna, and Isabel is Isabel La Catolica!

Such extravagant self-praise is indicative of the Elite.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 27, 2002.

Part Two of this post: (error message demands shorter posts.)

We see the gratuitous insults just a graceful example of humility and really Christian charity: ''I believe however, that we totally agree on the real essentials. Whatever else, we do it in a dignified manner. I have sometimes lost it, and come back at them, but they are vicious, and deserve it. God bless all, especially the true believers, the trads.''

Others, needless to say are false believers. Thanks, Isabel. Keep the faith, Ed! -- Nice group here, which hopes to assimilate you, Emerald! So devout; and ''dignified''.

My, but why Ed's ''glue'' has power to hold the entire Church in place, saving her from total collapse; Who woulda thought it??? I was to Midnight Mass in Northern California; and with the New Liturgy concelebrated, holding more than 400 Catholics entralled; a choir with brass and organ playing; simply glorious exaltation in Christ's presence --on Christmas Day. Yes; with communion in each species; extraordinary eucharistic ministers; and altar girls. Yet HOLY!

But of course, I must be lying. The devastation was all around me; only I refused to see it. --Thanks to Ed's glue, we'll last only a few more years to celebrate the feast of the Nativity before the total collapse.

''Trads'' will then rejoice when their own Midnight Mass is back to Latin only, with no more Cardinals and Popes on a hierarchical line back to the apostles.

Because, you see, Tradition ended in 1962. Popes don't rule anything anymore. Only ''trads'' know what's good for the Church.

We'll be sorry we spoke out, John. Nothing traditional about you and me. {{{Sniff!}}}

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 27, 2002.

"Nice group here, which hopes to assimilate you, Emerald!"

The question is, can I be assimilated? =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 27, 2002.

I am glad the Eugene and the 400 had a beautiful Mass.I am not being sarcastic Gene, I really mean it!

You are one of the very fortunate ones, ad that's good. What about the rest of us who began to believe that we had the Barnum and Bailey circus in town. Are we supposed to tolerate that, because you are more fortunate?

Our churches became "palaces of novelty". All trying to see who could provide the best entertainment. When we atend the Traditional Mass, we do not get novelty. What happens Eugene if(God forbid), a new pastor comes into your church, fresh from the circus. Do you shut your eyes, plug your ears, and say "Let the Mass begin"?. I don't think that you would. If you even care to answer this, please stay civil. I did no personal attack on you, so see if we can go for one post, without slurs and insults.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 28, 2002.

Ed--
Read, por favor, my post under ''Consecration of Russia, why--?'' and see what I said there in answer to your repeated accusations of ''slurs'' and insults. Check these posts and find slurs, if you can.

One at atime: ''Our churches became "palaces of novelty.

Correction: a church you've attended; or some few churches, may have struck you as such. Further correction: My church is just ONE of a great number in the region I live in where the vernacular Mass is celebrated in great reverence and holiness. I've lived in northern Calif. 3 years now; and only one church (with a teen rock band) was irritating to me. Even in that one, the Rite was devout and the priest was holy and pleasing in every way.

For the 40 plus previous years I lived in other cities around Calif. None were as offensive in the celebration of the Eucharist as you paint your single experience.

Maybe not just a single one; but I have little doubt you've tarred all of them everywhere with the same broad brush. You do not distinguish; you're simply prejudiced from the start. Like some folks who write off entire groups, classes and colors of people. They don't treat others as individuals, but in large groups. They part with those groups for what they perceived in one or two persons. Perceived-- may I add, --judgmentally.

So-- While I may conced you've been present at some Mass in which a pastor came fresh from the circus; I have a right to refute you if you claim the wider range of Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated in such a manner.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 28, 2002.

Continued:
I have a right to say you simply exaggerate, you may even lie. Because, without doubt, you are biased. You can't be fair or impartial.

Just because a Tridentine celebration of Mass is in Latin; it won't necessarily mean all the people in attendance are devout; nor will they all be equally reverent. There is no standard for judging the community as a whole, and you shouldn't pretend you keep to any standard in Latin masses. It's catch-as-catch-can from one Sunday to the other. As in Novus Ordo churches

The only criterium you can apply from week to week is the range of conservatism from radical to conservative in your priest. Over that aspect, you have adequate controls. You can take grievances to the bishop, or you can find a better parish; one which suits you better. All else is simply prejudice.

Thank God, the priests I've been in close contact with over the entire span dating back to the 2nd Vatican council-- over forty years; have on the whole been devout, conservative or liberal, either way. I didn't care for some; but never would I presume to judge their faith or their sincere love of God. Only possibly two individuals (in forty years!) were the kind we'd say were ''circus variety''. One of them is institutionalized today. The other laicized & married to an ex- nun; back in the 70's.

You have branded them all with the same iron. I call that bigotry. You've tried to stigmatize four popes in the same way; as if you could rightfully judge. You have a very great problem, Ed. Calcification of the soul. I'm not a psychologist; forgive me if I dare say you are somewhat neurotic as well. --Ciao, and God bless you!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 28, 2002.

Eugene, I can take the criticism that you give, andt's entirely ok. However you still are in the chacter assasination business , with as full fury as ever. Gene do you ever read your own posts?. I have never said that all Novus Ordo's are garbage. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT? The one's in my area are NOT GOOD...i DO NOT THINK THAT i HAVE TO MOVE TO nORTHERN cALIFORNIA TO FIND A MASS.

I am three thousand miles away, and would be a long trip, even by plane!

I stop in sometimes to pick up the localCatholic paper, and a rock band would be jealous of the sound. And that's when people are walking back up the aisle, just after receiving. I am not lying Gene this is the truth! The other church in my area is a little better, just the three hill billies, and father belting

it out, on occasion.If I have to travel anyway, I might as well go to a traditional Mass. I don't know what is in their heads, but their body language sure shows quiet, devout respect!

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 28, 2002.

John says "where everyone at Thomas Aquinas College is -- and you will be fine."

Well, I don't know... there were all different types when I was there; all good people to be sure. I don't know what it is like there now. That was a while ago.

I was 18 to 22 when I attended. In all honesty, I wasn't focused at the time, but I do believe the 2% of the potential I actualized there was worth it. I didn't apply myself; I was preoccupied with the thoughts of a younger man. Regret? Not really. Aristotle himself said that a man should begin his philosophical pursuits at age 35, and it was just about that time that I began my own more focused and organized pursuit of the truth. That's a bit of an understatement, because at this time it is a pursuit of absolute vengeance.

I am not so much of a product of Thomas Aquinas; I don't feel as though I owe them (they've been paid in full... lol!), but the influence upon me is in fact there. At the time I attended, I was a bit of a blacksheep but just as Catholic as any of the rest of them, and I will always be a blacksheep my friend, as it is in my nature to be such. I think it is a mistake to think that I am a product of any persuasion, or to think that there is a concrete ideology to which to return to and embrace. Or that I am one who is impressionable, to be assimilated or unduly convinced of anything in particular.

In all honesty, I could not measure the tone of thought at Aquinas at this time; my friends that I have kept contact with there I see or talk to only infrequently. I would, however, highly recommend this college to anyone as being of immense intrinsic value. I am not their paradigmatic student, one that they would want to showcase; but I wouldn't want that anyway... it would only be so much 'mammon' and not relevant to eternal life or to the pursuit of truth.

I stole a pretty wife from them, though. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 28, 2002.

So, good for you:

''on occasion.If I have to travel anyway, I might as well go to a traditional Mass,''

When Has the hierarchy denied you the privelege?

All I ever used to refute you as to the merits of our Novus Ordo vs. the Tridentine celebration of Mass, is --your personal preference.

Your taste runs to the so-called traditional Latin Rite. Is this a sin? No, and I never said that it was. But you, on the other hand, say we have committed and/or put up with abuses and sacrileges. Which is a lie.

We have all the due respect for the Latin Rite, as faithful Catholics all. You can't give respect to the Rite of Novus Ordo, or the priests or prelates. The whole story in a nutshell. Our faith is in the Holy Spirit. Your faith is in personal taste and elitism.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 28, 2002.

I'm back! It is absolutely amazing to me as I read over this discussion, just how sad a situation the Church is in...

I am here to say: I am Catholic, I love the Catholic Church, I love Jesus Christ.

Rather than try to argue with anyone on here, I am just going to ask you to do one thing: go to www.traditio.com, and read the commentaries from the mailbox. that says it all better than i ever could.

Whereas some people would like to throw a white cloak over Vatican II and its aftermath, pretending all is well, I cannot fail to see the reality. We need a new counter-Reformation now.

May the True Light of Tradition one day be restored to its former glory. May the True Roman Mass one day be reinstated. May the True Faith shine forth for all to see.

-- DAVE MONTROSE (IREJECTSOCIETY@YAHOO.COM), October 16, 2003.

Welcome back friend in the Catholic Faith, the One ever ancient, ever new.

So many good things have happened even since the above discussion.

Quid retribuam domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Calicem salutaris accipiam et nomen domini invocabo. Laudans invocabo dominum et ab inimicis meis salvus ero.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 16, 2003.