Hi all,

This has nothing to do with our Catholic Faith, but thought you might find it interesting in view of what is going on in our country today, trying to make it a Godless country! MaryLu

Take out a one dollar bill, and look at it. The one dollar bill you're looking at first came off the presses in 1957 in its present design. This so-called paper money is in fact a cotton and linen blend, with red and blue minute silk fibers running through it. It is actually material. We've all washed it without it falling apart. A special blend of ink is used, the contents we will never know. It is overprinted with symbols and then it is starched to make it water resistant and pressed to give it that nice crisp look.

If you look on the front of the bill, you will see the United States Treasury Seal. On the top you will see the scales for a balanced budget. In the center you have a carpenter's square, a tool used for an even cut. Underneath is the Key to the United States Treasury. That's all pretty easy to figure out, but what is on the back of that dollar bill is something we should all know.

If you turn the bill over, you will see two circles. Both circles, together, comprise the Great Seal of the United States. The First Continental Congress requested that Benjamin Franklin and a group of men come up with a Seal. It took them four years to accomplish this task and another two years to get it approved.

If you look at the left-hand circle, you will see a Pyramid. Notice the face is lighted, and the western side is dark. This country was just beginning. We had not begun to explore the West or decided what we could do for Western Civilization. The Pyramid is un-capped, again signifying that we were not even close to being finished. Inside the capstone you have the all-seeing eye, an ancient symbol for divinity. It was Franklin's belief that one man couldn't do it alone, but a group of men, with the help of God, could do anything.

"IN GOD WE TRUST" is on this currency. The Latin above the pyramid, ANNUIT COEPTIS, means, "God has favored our undertaking." The Latin below the pyramid, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, means, "a new order has begun." At the base of the pyramid is the Roman Numeral for 1776. If you look at the right-hand circle, and check it carefully, you will learn that it is on every National Cemetery in the United States. It is also on the Parade of Flags Walkway at the Bushnell, Florida National Cemetery, and is the centerpiece of most hero's monuments. Slightly modified, it is the seal of the President of the United States, and it is al ways visible whenever he speaks, yet very few people know what the symbols mean. The Bald Eagle was selected as a symbol for victory for two reasons: First, he is not afraid of a storm; he is strong, and he is smart enough to soar above it. Secondly, he wears no material crown. We had just broken from the King of England. Also, notice the shield is unsupported. This country can now stand on itsown. At the top of that shield you have a white bar signifying congress, a unifying factor. We were coming together as one nation. In the Eagle's beak you will read, "E PLURIBUS UNUM", meaning, "one nation from many people". Above the Eagle, you have thirteen stars, representing the thirteen original colonies, and any clouds of misunderstanding rolling away. Again, we were coming together as one. Notice what the Eagle holds in his talons. He holds an olive branch and arrows. This country wants peace, but we will never be afraid to fight to preserve peace. The Eagle always wants to face the olive branch, but in time of war, his gaze turns toward the arrows. They say that the number 13 is an unlucky number. This is almost a worldwide belief. You will usually never see a room numbered 13, or any hotels or motels with a 13th floor. But think about this: 13 original colonies, 13 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 13 stripes on our flag, 13 steps on the Pyramid, 13 letters in the Latin above, 13 letters in "E Pluribus Unum", 13 stars above the Eagle, 13 bars on that shield, 13 leaves on the olive branch, 13 fruits, and if you look closely, 13 arrows. And, for minorities: the 13th Amendment. I always ask people, "Why don't you know this?" Your children don't know this, and their history teachers don't know this. Too many veterans have given up too much to ever let the meaning fade. Many veterans remember coming home to an America that didn't care. Too many veterans never came home at all.

Share this page with everyone, so they can learn what is on the back of the UNITED STATES ONE DOLLAR BILL, and what it stands for... Otherwise, they will probably never know...

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), July 01, 2002

Answers

Thank you Mary Lu,

That was quite informative. I will certainly share this with my son.

I love your posts, they are always giving me something to think about.

God Bless you Mary Lu,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), July 01, 2002.

Thanks, MaryLu. I learned numerous things from that essay.
Just about the only thing that the author could have improved on a bit were his translations from Latin:

"E pluribus, unum" = "Out of many [colonies/states], one [republic]."
(It is not out of "many people," since every nation is "one out of many people." Our nation is special in being formed from many separate states.)

"Annuit coeptis" = literally "He has nodded to the beginnings," or freely "He [God] has approved of our undertakings."

"Novus Ordo Seclorum" = "New Order of the Ages" (not "has begun")

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2002.

How wonderful that JGeezer didn't mind the cut and paste. But then again if it is his point of view...cut and paste is just fine.

-- ss (sss@ss.sss), July 01, 2002.

As one who had lived in the USA 17 years I came to believe it is truly a blessed country and has been given the " ordained " task of being the protector of the world at large. This I believe as a Marian.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 01, 2002.

The cut and paste Mary Lu posted is fine because of her "GOOD" intentions.

It is when a cut and paste has the intentions of the "DEVIL" to do harm, or to cause intentional havoc among the forum members, or to slander our Lord and the Catholic religion; that is when the cut and paste is not wanted.

The people that come here trying to stir up havoc, they do so because they are calling out for help. What other reason would there be to spend so much time on a religious forum?

So why don't you save yourselves the trouble, just come out with it. All you need to say is "Help, I am in dire need of spiritual help." Then you will get all the attention you so desperatly need.

Easy enough, isn't it?

Lord have mercy on these poor, unguided souls,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), July 01, 2002.

First of all ss, I received that in my e-mail box today...so, obviously it is going around the Internet. If you would like to report me for cutting and pasting, go ahead. I don't think the author would mind at all...

Secondly, John, thank you for improving upon the Latin. I do not know Latin, therefore, did not pick up on the errors. Thank you for always educating me! I truly appreciate that!

BTW: Is it a rule here that we should not 'cut and paste?' If I receive interesting, informative, messages I like to pass them on, but I do not want to break any rules. Forgive me, for doing so.

MaryLu MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), July 01, 2002.

Mary Lu,

I think your cut and pastes are done in good taste and I for one enjoy them.

God bless you Mary Lu,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), July 01, 2002.

MaryLu,

I agree with Kathy. I think that your contributions to the forum (both your personal opinions/questions and cut-and-paste) add a lot to the forum.

God Bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 01, 2002.

MaryLu,

Cut and paste some times really makes sense rather than providing a link or a url, as it is uncertain whether a particular url or link will be available in the near future. Go ahead MaryLu.

Peace & Prayers

-- Xavier (xavier_david24@yahoo.com), July 02, 2002.

Dear Xavier and Kathy,

Thank you for your support! :)

I do not know how to do the "link thing" - you know where you say go here and the link appears in blue...it would be much easier, but I have never learned how to do it.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), July 02, 2002.

Hey MaryLu.

Our currency is crammed full of Masonic symbolism, including most of the items in the top post.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 02, 2002.

The masonic symbolism on our currency is because most of the founding fathers where freemasons & Diests. Odd bit of trivia but historically accurate.

-- Kodie (kodie@yahoo.com), July 02, 2002.

MaryLu, The 13 steps on the Pyramid can be a sign for the 13 ranks in masson communities. The all-seeing eye is a very popular masson symbol too. Also the "E Pluribus Unum" can be translated as "From the many the one". Annuit coeptis translating according to exact latin rules means "Announcing the birth of...", while "novus ordo seclorum" means "the new order of society" or "the new order of world". All together mean "Announcing the birth of the new order of world". The latin numerral can be translated as: 1776, 5/1 (MDCCLXXVI, V/ I) repeating the last two chars.

I am sorry for my confused message, see ya around

-- Little.GR.Jack (nospam@thanks.com), September 26, 2002.

My first experience with the pyramid was in first grade. The nun drew a picture of the eye and the pyramid up in the corner of the chalkboard, and left the room and said "that is the eye of God; you'd better be good while I'm out because the eye sees all..." I instinctively knew she was full of it, and I remember with clarity looking at that symbol and detesting it. I loath this symbol to this day.

The Eye belongs on our money because it is the symbol of mammon... mammon that chokes the soul and stuffs it endlessly with entities which are not the Supreme Being... suffocates us. Money is just a species of mammon and is in fact the least among many; anything objectively good can be mammon if it inserted in place of the object of our true desire. Mammon could be found in the applause at a speech on the Beatific Vision; it could be the endless carting the kids around from one extra curricular activity to the next; it could be the laud and praise for saying the most righteous and correct of things. Anything or everything in which the soul rests, or vainly attempts to rest in, which takes the place of service to the Almighty; this would be mammon. We all, each and every one of us, fights mammon, mammon served to us by the entities of death who call it subsistence.

Most mammon consists of things which are objectively good. There are a few things reserved for the most perverted among men which are things evil in themselves, but for most of us, it is objective goods that serve proxy to the Almighty.

Pink Floyd's pyramid describes more of this. All created goods subsist within Him properly and orderly as colors within light, but the god of the pyramid separates these colors and would have us become enamored of the individual goods, the colors, outside their incorporation into the Almighty. One must only give each color a physical substrate within which to exist independently of the true light, and when mixed together, they all become as black.

Of the many goods for which we work by the sweat of our brow, only a percentage can be counted as sustenance. We measure our precious time by mammon, and mammon pushes us to expend our existence to please it. The most perverse measurements occur, such as the measurement of pain and suffering in units of mammon. Even if we ourselves reject mammon, the mammon-demand of others, a whole world, will drive us, force us to measure ourselves and others by the rule of mammon. Besides what time is needed to maintain our existence, what of the time we have left; is it all not in owing to our Creator? Does not the our condition cry out for the gaining of the knowledge of and service of Him? A man in a casino... the greatest loss of this man is not money but time. Time to understand his condition. Time to learn of his purpose. Time to know his God and his true fulfillment and fulfillment in Truth. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's; give to God what is God's. Any ounce of time over sustainance and to profit is in the service of mammon.

The way things were meant to be, we would reach out our hands effortlessly and obtain our sustenance. But as punishment for our sins, it is by the sweat of our brow that we obtain them. If the air we breathe that is so taken for granted were in short supply, we would pride ourselves on how much we had in store for the future... we would say to ourselves "if only I had a lifetime's supply of air to breathe, then and only then would I be happy". Yet we do not work for it and count it as nothing... and certainly not happiness or fulfillment. But again, if it had to be purchased, we would brag to one another, and esteem one another, on the size or duration of each other's air supply, and soon enough, air itself would become mammon.

Mammon chokes to death in selfishness like a black whole sucking everything into itself without satisfaction unto death. The more it sucks in, the more things are sucked into it at greater speed and from further away, and the greater the burden at its core. This is what Hell consists of.

This pyramid is not the symbol of anything but mammon. It is the masonic symbol, the symbol of the machine of mammon, the god of mammon, the god of damnation. This symbol seeks to resolve everything unto itself and its own disorder under an all seeing Luciferian eye, ready to stuff and reward with the entities of Not- God all beings under its dominion.

The one who wishes to see God must be stripped to nothing before the journey even begins.

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

Emerald,

LOL. I tried using "The Hobbit" once as an example, and if I remember right it wasn't well received. Good luck with Pink. Also, are you sure you're not reading the pyramid backwards? Maybe it represents purgatory where all our faults and scattered beliefs, hopes, faith, and drives are synthesized into purity.

Frank

P.S. Actually, that won't work because our sins would be incorporated into our "pure" self, but what the heck.

P.P.S. Do you ever listen to Bob Marley? I've been listening to some of his stuff and there are some really Christian sentiments in his music (along with other stuff, obviously).

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

Ah, you know... you could take all the pyramid stuff out of it, but the mammon stuff, its all true I think.

As for Tolkien, you are as right as right can be. I never read the books and I'm not going to. I'm happy with the movie alone... I was lost in wonder about how well it portrayed my notion of the damn eye and pyramid, whether that's what the author intended or not.

Pink Floyd... well, I'm not saying that's what they actually meant to portray, but it sure makes for a good analogy. I used to look at that symbol and wondered what it was supposed to stand for, and I cooked up that above notion up yesterday while driving around in my truck. The new age obsession with rainbows... but then again, there's the rainbow after the Flood, too, and that belongs to God.

I used to listen to Marley and other reggae. Marley had some sort of Christian so called thing going, but wasn't he the one saying in his songs that the savior was a living man as in sort of a social idea? It was more like a social agenda type image I think.

My favorites back then were the Smiths, the Police, Genesis, especially Peter Gabriel's "So". All sang about a deprivation of soul.

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

A little circumstantial evidence, maybe... the fact that Moses led Israel out of Egypt, out of slavery to the promised land. The symbolism seems consistant.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2002.

Some of my family and myself were talking about the left seal on the back of the dollar bill and my uncle mentioned that the eye and pyramid were "mason" symbols. Now, someone already posted an answer comfirmimg that but how true is this? Also, my uncle mentioned that the mason had a secret society type thing going on and i wondering about how much truth was in that? Thanks for the latin lesson.

jeremy

-- jeremy (ZeveraiIndustry@aol.com), November 20, 2002.

Jeremy, it might help you to read this short article.
John

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

I like to call this age we live in the 'Age of SuperMammon'. But don't listen to me; I definitely have a screw loose. lol! Here's a prophecy of Saint Nilus, 4th Century (I think the 4th...):

"After the year 1900, toward the middle of the 20th century, the people of that time will become unrecognizable. When the time for the Advent of the Antichrist approaches, people's minds will grow cloudy from carnal passions, and dishonor and lawlessness will grow stronger. Then the world will become unrecognizable. People's appearances will change, and it will be impossible to distinguish men from women due to their shamelessness in dress and style of hair. These people will be cruel and will be like wild animals because of the temptations of the Antichrist. There will be no respect for parents and elders, love will disappear, and Christian pastors, bishops, and priests will become vain men, completely failing to distinguish the right-hand way from the left. At that time the morals and traditions of Christians and of the Church will change. People will abandon modesty, and dissipation will reign. Falsehood and greed will attain great proportions, and woe to those who pile up treasures. Lust, adultery, homosexuality, secret deeds and murder will rule in society. At that future time, due to the power of such great crimes and licentiousness, people will be deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which they received in Holy Baptism and equally of remorse. The Churches of God will be deprived of God-fearing and pious pastors, and woe to the Christians remaining in the world at that time; they will completely lose their faith because they will lack the opportunity of seeing the light of knowledge from anyone at all. Then they will separate themselves out of the world in holy refuges in search of lightening their spiritual sufferings, but everywhere they will meet obstacles and constraints. And all this will result from the fact that the Antichrist wants to be Lord over everything and become the ruler of the whole universe, and he will produce miracles and fantastic signs. He will also give depraved wisdom to an unhappy man so that he will discover a way by which one man can carry on a conversation with another from one end of the earth to the other. At that time men will also fly through the air like birds and descend to the bottom of the sea like fish. And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! -- he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases. Then the All-good God will see the downfall of the human race and will shorten the days for the sake of those few who are being saved, because the enemy wants to lead even the chosen into temptation, if that is possible... then the sword of chastisement will suddenly appear and kill the perverter and his servants."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 24, 2002.

Emerald, there is good reason to doubt that those words were written by St. Nilus many centuries ago.

It seems (from the above post and many others) that you are starting to get caught up -- or have been caught up for a long time, but are just now revealing it -- in lots of things that are of an extraordinary, sensational, or titillating nature, as though the basic Catholic religion has become tedious for you. You have been writing lots of messages about such things as prophecies of doom, elaborate private revelations, reading a whole book about an exorcism in one sitting, fears about impending end-times (or at least a near-future divine castigation of all mankind), etc., etc., etc..

Fascination with this kind of stuff (especially the demonic/exorcism) can be very unhealthy, even dangerous, to a person. It is to be recommended that anyone who falls into this trap make a good confession and get back to basics. Very slowly read the Catechism over the course of many weeks, read ordinary books by and about saints, pray before the Blessed Sacraments, and just try to be simple like the Little Flower. Put all that fearsome, sensationalistic nonsense out of your life, because it can't help you or anyone else to dwell on it and post messages about it.

Friends

-- We'd (Like@To.Help), November 26, 2002.

Use your real name and we'll talk about it. =)

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

I agree. Emerald stick with the basics. You go to far out there.

-- - (nas@dac.....), November 26, 2002.

Use your real names. Hurry up! lol. I have thoughts, but this techno-confessional box is not necessary.

Use your real names, and I will be happy to respond... step up to the plate.

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

Let me venture a guess... John? David? That should get the ball rolling. Hurry up.

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

*snore*

This reminds me of the scene from the tops of the Cliffs of Insanity in Princess Bride. I have to respond to Batman and Robin, and I forgot to bring my own costume. I didn't expect trick-or-treaters this late in November. =) Let's do it.

"It seems (from the above post and many others) that you are starting to get caught up -- or have been caught up for a long time, but are just now revealing it -- in lots of things that are of an extraordinary, sensational, or titillating nature..."

Well, if you look closer, I strictly limit the study to the Saints, Blesseds, and Venerables. The unseen reality is in fact extraordinary. Are you prepared to make the case that the things they speak of are sensationalism or titillating in nature?

"...as though the basic Catholic religion has become tedious for you."

Catholic Doctrine is anything but boring to me. In fact, I use it as best as I am able as the only real debunking tool available. The assumption is fails.

"You have been writing lots of messages about such things as prophecies of doom..."

To charactise them as such is to miss the point. The point is not doom; I have expressed this openly before. These are the words of holy people with the stamp of approval of the Church and who led lives of fantastic self sacrifice. Let's not toss them out as irrelavant.

"...elaborate private revelations..."

Again, strictly limited to Saints, Venerables and Blesseds. Who is it that stands against Medjugorie based on the belief that "basic Catholic religion", which I am presumed to have become tired of, is being compromised? Who stands against the private revelations of John Leary? And the titillating manifestations of the spirit through Fr. Zlatco Sudac?

"...reading a whole book about an exorcism in one sitting..."

It is on ETWN... geez, I figure anyone of a checklist-style orthodoxy would have found at least that fact redeeming. A study with an intention of understanding the rite of excorcism is not a matter of titillating, dark fascination but a matter of facts.

"...fears about impending end-times (or at least a near-future divine castigation of all mankind), etc., etc., etc.."

Complain to the Blesseds, Venerables, Saints, and Pontiffs about it. This is nothing new to them.

"Fascination with this kind of stuff..."

Not a fascination; a study.

"...(especially the demonic/exorcism) can be very unhealthy, even dangerous, to a person."

Sure it could be. That's why I don't like people getting involved in all sorts of unapproved visionaries and inner 'electrolocutions'.

"It is to be recommended that anyone who falls into this trap make a good confession and get back to basics."

Who is falling, what is the trap, and what is the sin to be confessed? I need specifics.

"Very slowly read the Catechism over the course of many weeks"

While it might be a good idea, I'm not sure how this pertains...

"read ordinary books by and about saints..."

None of the books by and about Saints are ordinary. They are all extraordinary. That's what makes them Saints.

"...pray before the Blessed Sacraments..."

I wasn't doing this? I can neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of this activity.

"...and just try to be simple like the Little Flower..."

Good idea for everyone, but does not serve your overall argument, specifically.

"Put all that fearsome..."

Not fearsome.

"...sensationalistic..."

Bad characterization. Doesn't due justice to the Saints, Venerables and Blesseds.

"...nonsense out of your life..."

Not nonsense. Too many Saints, Venerables and Blesseds alluding to too many of the same things.

"...because it can't help you or anyone else to dwell on it and post messages about it."

I don't dwell on it. There is a much deeper substrate to be dwelled upon, and this does help me.

So there you have it; I hope that helps put things into perspective.

Oh yeah; one more thing:

"Emerald, there is good reason to doubt that those words were written by St. Nilus many centuries ago."

Really? I need this information in order to help me continue my study and for the sake of accuracy. Can you provide this for me in my continued study of these things? Thanks Hon.

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

To interject a good Catholic role model who may quote other Christians who are not Catholic, the late Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, when he was a Msgr. Sheen on the Catholic Radio Hour in 1943 in a series of talks about the philosophy of war and where the U.S. was headed if it did not get back to God, quoted Dostoievksy in his The Brothers Karamazov saying:

Finally, in place of free men, the anti-Christ pictures the new Socialistic State in which he and his followers will organize everything after convincing people there is no sin – there is only hunger.

And Dostoievsky again pictures anti-Christ speaking to Christ: “They will tremble impotently before our wrath, their minds will grow fearful, they will be quick to shed tears like women and children, but they will be just as ready at a sign from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish song. Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated, if it is done with our permission, that we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviour who have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us. We shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have children – according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient – and they will submit to us gladly and cheerfully. The most painful secrets of their conscience, all, all they will bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves. What I say to Thee, O Christ, will be built up. I repeat, tomorrow Thou shalt see that obedient flock who at a sign from me will hasten to heap up the hot cinders about the pile on which I shall burn Thee for coming to hinder us. For if any one has ever deserved our fires, it is Thou. Tomorrow I shall burn Thee.” (Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, p. 269-270). - The Crisis in Christendom, Ch. "Freedom in Danger" p. 85 (4/4/43)

We can see from the foregoing that there will be a little twist between the truth and the lie. If we don't so the right things for the right reasons, we will end up doing the wrong things for the wrong reason, ultimately submitting to a creature like ourselves. And that is doomsday, for Our Lord spoke about it, particularly at the end of His ministry when He thought the Apostles were ready to take it. He also showed Himself Transfigured before 3 of them so they would not be scandalized by future events. We have many transformed persons, recent saints, stars in the gloom to light our paths. So, let's take back, hold on to and spread the truth of what we see and hear and realize that the present trials are part of a purification we all need. We are being called to holiness, a Divine holiness. It is nothing more than (1) a total abandonment to the Holy Spirit and the Divine Spouse, Mary, Mother of God; (2) Total, complete, intimate identification with the Heart of Jesus; (3) A deep appreciation of the living body of the Church; and (4) Full recognition of one's own responsibility and intimate connection with the Divine Heart of Jesus which will be seen in the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

That is the truth of Annuit Coeptis.

In Jesus through Mary,

rosemary

-- Rosemary Getty (rgetty@SanDiego.edu), November 26, 2002.

Psalmody from Today's Evening Prayer, Liturgy of the Hours: You cannot serve both God and mammon.

-- Rosemary Getty (rgetty@SanDiego.edu), November 26, 2002.

We do not approve of this speculation. Cease at once.

-- Billy Jefferson, PGMfdG, Phoenix (ProGrandMaster@thefreemason.com), November 29, 2002.

Bummer.

Should I syllogize instead?

lol! =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 29, 2002.

When I was confirmed I took the name Maximillian Kolbe as my patron saint. At the time, he was still Blessed, not Saint, but if I remember correctly we got permission to take the name.

I love this guy. What people may or may not know is that this man was dead set against freemasonry. One of his stated objectives was this:

"I. Purpose: To seek the conversion of sinners, heretics, schismatics, Jews, etc., and especially Masons; also the sanctification of everyone through the patronage and mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Immaculate."

Keep in mind that Kolbe, of his own free will and impulse, laid down his own life to save the life of a Jewish man.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 02, 2002.

A good resource.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 02, 2002.

"Emerald, there is good reason to doubt that those words were written by St. Nilus many centuries ago."
Really? I need this information in order to help me continue my study and for the sake of accuracy.

There's no point in giving you the information, even though it exists. It's clear that you are so far gone that you are not open to facts and argumentation. You'll just find a way to talk your away around these things, so that you can cling to your present course. Such is the way with the insecure. They fall for some strange and flashy thing or other and will hang on to it for dear life, no matter what. It's so amazingly childish, not worthy of a highly intelligent Californian like you. Adults don't need to build their lives around layers of quasi-pious ephemera.

You appear to be intoxicated by sensationalistic junk, some of which is falsely attributed to holy people (e.g., St. Nilus), and some of which is merely the pious imaginings of people, but is being lifted to the status of Holy Writ by those of an overly emotional bent.

Only time and grace will cure you of this, if anything ever does.

Friends

-- We'd (Like@To.Help), December 06, 2002.

-- (clear@clear.clear), December 06, 2002.

Hi John.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 06, 2002.

"Dere's no point in givin' ya' de info'mashun, even dough it 'esists. It's clear dat ya' is so far gone dat ya' is not jimmey to facts and argumentashun. You's'll plum find some way t'talk yo' away around dese doodads, so's dat ya' kin clin' t'yo' present course. Such be de way wid de insecure. Dey fall fo' some funky and flashy doodad o' oda' and gots'ta hang on t'it fo' dear life, no matta' whut. It's so's amazin'ly childish, not wo'dy uh a highly intelligent Califo'nian likes ya'. Adults duzn't need t'build deir lives around layers uh quasi-pious ephemera. WORD!

You's appear t'be intoxicated by sensashunalistic junk, some uh which be falsely attributed t'holy sucka's (e.g. What it is, Mama!, St. Man! Nilus), and some uh which be merely de pious imaginin's uh sucka's, but be bein' lifted t'de status uh Holy Writ by dose uh an overly emoshunal bent. Man!

Only time and grace gots'ta cure ya' uh dis, if nuthin eva' duz.

Cuddies"

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 06, 2002.

I'm sorry, "Friend", whether John or not, somebody else, who knows... if it wasn't you, John, then my apologies.

But to whoever it is, I'm sorry. The above is all I can offer. I think your intentions are of ill will.

I'm not going to respond; I'm not going to debate a phantom with bad will that won't even use their name.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 06, 2002.

I might recommend a couple of things for you Emerald. First, I would recommend you go here and decide for yourself what the Masons are, what they do, and, even specifically, check out the question, and related question, on the Masonic symbols on the dollar bill. The homepage can actually be found here

Also, you might check out the latest issue of Crisis Magazine as they have an article on a few of the Catholic Conspiracy theories. You cannot read it online so I would suggest you check your local library, or if you are close enough, a seminary library.

Personally, given that the Church has kept silent for about the Masons for a while, I am not quite sure what to make of it all, but I think the research is helpful, especially with something I find I am pretty ignorant with regard to.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 07, 2002.

Thanks, seminarian.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me or take what I have to say as some kind of revealed truth. There's a lot of speculation there and I would be a fool to think that anyone and everyone would have to buy anything I have to say of this nature at face value.

What p'd me off here is that the Friend poster above is misrepresenting my thoughts as something they are not, gathered from various posts I've made on the forum. The nature of what I have talked about is various prophecies of mystic Saints characterizing what I believe may be some of the elements of our time. But the Friend is either purposely or cluelessly characterizing them as some kind of Bayside fetish. I have gone up against Medjugorie, Leary, Garabandal, the latter prophecies of LaSalette, you name it, I've talked against the same stuff "Friend" is accusing me of, and "Friend" is too much of a dumbass to figure it out. It is lost on this poster.

See now? So much for charity, huh. There are certain people on this forum who like to poke and prod other people as if they are out to make them fall down. The key indicator is the invalid assessments of a person's character, such as made by "Friend" above... such things a person could have no real knowledge of. I know this much; when I have gone out against certain idealogies or loyalties, I have tried for the most part to address the issue and not the person. I'm sure I have erred a couple times here and there, but I have at all times tried to be honest. Yeah, I'm a little strange but that's ok with me. If the above person sat down with me at a table over these issues person to person they wouldn't last 5 minutes. But see, there's my pride talking. We all have it, and posts like the above "Friend" are truly sinister in bringing that out in anyone.

It's probably a blessing in disguise that they don't give their name, because perhaps then I could bend the rules of charity a bit here and say what I really think. I personally believe the "Friend" above has the intuition of parrot strapped to a nine volt battery and couple of Sims chips. I believe if they were right about anything at all they would have reached the right conclusions from the wrong premises.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 07, 2002.

Emerald,

See, the thing is, you are letting it get to you, eat away at you, and cannot have a focused discussion as a result. You might take into consideration, that just because I have your name, and you have mine, we are still having an "anonymous" discussion, the name is merely proper netiquette, but really superfluous in the major scheme.

This "Friend" of yours seems to be baiting you, and seems to be working. I know how difficult it can be to have a discussion when people attack, misrepresent, and misinterpret what you say, but remember, the only medium you are using is the written word. Of course, because it is merely the written word, certain elements that would exist in a normal discussion don't exist in a cyber one. For example, inflection of your voice, eye contact, or lack thereof, and basically your overall composure. It took me a while to realize that despite the fact that we are indeed speaking to another person, we really know very little about that person.

Your charity, however, should be evident in both means of conversation, when you fail with an anonymous poster, how much more when you are face to face with them? Granted, I too fall into the same trap, and have to "check" myself often, to make sure, but when you come to realize the actual "goal" things tend to make more sense. Don't get me wrong, we are not merely sitting down to tea and crumpets, discussing things that will have no bearing, if so, then you've already failed. As a wise seminarian once told me, "if they don't get fired up, nothing will really change." That is not say you pull out the sword the moment the discussion gets a little heated, but to exhibit both temperance and a healthy, as St. Escirva says, "manliness" in the given situation.

You say that certain people like to poke and prod, but, in essence, don't we all do that? The first question posed is prodding and the first response delivered is a poke. However, this is where temperance comes in again, there has to be a balance, you are not out to destroy them, nor their character, rather, your goal is to bring them to Christ, one way or the other. You seem to realize this though, in that the issue is what is ultimately being addressed, not the person. The problem, however, is that many people take things personally, and fail to draw that important distinction. If I fell apart everytime someone attacked my beliefs I wouldn't be in a seminary, I would probably be in an institution. That is not to say I would fall apart completely, but that when dealing with things, sometimes being lighter throws off the balance of the "heaviness" on the other side. Again, that is not to say you take lightly fundamentally important and infallible teachings, but it is to say, you approach those kinds of discussions with a certain humility and, again, temperance.

There are ultimately two things you must remember, "we have here no lasting city," and "we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face." Nothing is forever when dealing with the world, and what we know is little when dealing with Heaven. It's easy to be angry, it is easy to know everything, but the most difficult thing, is to have someone else expose our weaknesses.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 07, 2002.

You are so right seminarian. Thank you for all the input.

Back to the topic, in support of my overall theory, I put out this piece by Alice Von Hildebrand, which makes mention of the influence of freemasonery in the last century especially, as well as addressing an overall intuition that I have concerning the present state of the Church.

I remember that rant you wrote many months back, against the progressive Catholics that you and I both grew up under the influence of. I loved that piece. I was proud that you wrote it. I have a real respect for the charitable way in which you write your posts, the intelligence that comes through them and the good will that exudes from them. At the same time, I get the sense of a little edge of modernism. The same with Chris' posts... and I have grown to love this guy. The same with Mateo's posts, and some others as well. I hope to God you all don't take this as an insult or in the wrong way. I do believe that there has been an attack of the evil one of such a subtle nature, and so difficult to isolate and hard to define that it almost defies detection. It is so subtle that even jake(msn) and his friends in the SSPX category, whom I also have an intense respect for, have suffered from, and LeFebre himself, in you can believe it.

One of these days I will get it together in a post as best as I am capable of, in an attempt to lay it out as I see it. I am not even confident that I will be able to pull it off in a way that will be understood.

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

"I put out this piece by Alice Von Hildebrand"

I meant, I offer this link. Sounds like I wrote the piece or posted it on the net the way I wrote it; I didn't.

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

Emerald,

Wow, out of everything I have been called, I have never been called a Modernist :) As a matter of fact, I find it quite interesting that you think that, and if I may, why do you believe me to be one, or rather, exhibit Modernist "tendencies?"

Also, I am not sure that that you associating the right seminarian with that post about progressive Catholics. As a matter of fact, I don't remember ever writing anything as such. Although, I do post quite frequently here, so it is definitely a possibility.

I thank you for the compliments, whether they were inteded for me, or the other seminarian, and I am glad that my own observations were helpful to you, in some measure.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 08, 2002.

lol! I think it was you. Nah, I know it. It was under a name you used to use to believe, but maybe I am wrong. You got me doubting me.

Anyways, here's why I think what I think about this back door modernist influence, and why I think that jake, even in the SSPX department, has been sucker punched by modernism even while in a noble attempt to get rid of it.

Let's take the SSPX. They seem to concentrate on the passing of a lofty liturgy as the cause of declines in the Faith we witness; declines of numbers and reverence. What they don't realize is that is not a cause but an effect. As an effect, when finally in existence, it then becomes a cause again for further laxity and whatnot.

Jake's people didn't look deeply enough for the cause... this is why so many people look at the SSPX variety and see them as people attached to externals, in love with cleaning the outside of the cup, etc. In many ways they are right, and long before I looked into the details behind these things, say, 15 years ago or so, I always got that impression about this set of people. I think it some ways it is a right impression. At the same time, I knew there was something they (trads) were seeing, albeit seeing rather dimly or confusedly. So they express it as an 'in your face' thing, or as a brand of disobedience.

The reason why... well, LeFebre himself was subject himself to a modernist error, and if you look hard enough, you can find it. It is his failure to fully stake the claim that all salvation comes through the Catholic Church. He has that 'waters of salvation' take on it, instead of the archetype of THE ARK. If LeFebre fails this test of rejecting modernism in its sneakiest of forms, then all he has left to complain about is liturgy. This also puts his defiance squarely and solely in the arena of action, not doctrine, where he boxes himself into a corner because he must choose openly for or against obedience based on conscience. Nasty position to find yourself in... he acts and gets the can. Validly or invalidly, it makes no difference to me, since it is not addressing the root of the weed of modernism. LeFebre attempts to pull out the weed but it breaks off and the roots stay.

The real root is the failure of nearly all to uphold the Catholic Faith as the only means, and I mean only means, of salvation. It is the horrible notion that God is not bound by His own Sacriments. This notion is not a mere theological speculation, but it is a statement that fails when compared to the fact that "in the begining was the Word, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us". And God is not bound to His own Sacriments?

People wish to make loopholes for people, specifically the ignorant, to achieve salvation. It is untenable, they say, that they would be damned if they do not hear the Word. But this is the 'ways of man' speaking. It lacks faith in God, it lacks trust in God, and presumes that our reason can comprehend His mercy. But we reason anyways, and controvert the words of God with our own brand of mercy. Far be it from us, people think, to allow God his own ways... the 'ways of God', to effect salvation where it seems impossible to us. But we have no right to say that it is so... that there are other ways besides Sacrimental entrance into the Church. That of God's law which we find untenable, unmerciful, we want to lay aside by using our own human reason and calling it doctrine, and say that it has always been the understanding of the Church when it in fact has not been.

This is the root of division in the Church caused by modernism, and there is hardly a person I know who has not been touched by it. This mistake, barely visible, is the cause of the ecumenism that is rending the Church instead of effecting any sort of unity at all. It is the wolf in sheep's clothing to the letter. Those who see the damage but do not understand the root cause panic and scatter to the four winds for the wrong reasons. Those who long for unity and surety look to the papacy and foster a brand of loyalty wrought out of emotion rather than substance and high-five each other as a sign of unity... "JP all the way, man...!" They never consider the fact that their unity may consist of adherence to the Deposit of the Faith.

The entire Church is already involved in some sort of a schism. Not openly, but there cracks everywhere that are not yet visible. Nobody knows for sure who has schizzed though. When this Pope dies, and another is installed, it will be quite a show. Of course the Holy Spirit will be ready and available, and the gates of Hell will not prevail, but it will eventually be quite a show.

Remember The Road Runner and Wiley Coyote? He has the roadrunner trapped out on the precipice. The precipice cracks and breaks off, but instead of the protruding part falling, the precipice that is, the mountain part falls instead. It will probably get that Looney.

So in summary, the ways of men are ecumenism. It will not work. It eats at the very essence of the Doctrine of the Faith. Fatima warned us of this in the last days of kings, the early part of the last century, as did Saint Pius X and others, but instead we as a Church have chosen the hard way, the way of men, to achieve unity instead of the way of God as expressed through His mother.

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

I should have added something, sem, and that is that the rocking of the boat, or the assault upon the archetype of the Church as The Ark of salvation began long before this last century, and I am speculating that it reared its ugly head contemporaneously with the rise of republics and the decline of the great monarchies, and may have its visible origins, from what I can tell, near the beginings of the 5th age of the Church beginning around the time of Luther.

The disobedience of Luther in the spiritual realm has a beast for a brother in the temporal realm as the rise of republics and the fall of the great monarchies. Until this time, the archetype of ARK of salvation, to the best of my knowledge, was not even a subject of concern, but just 'was'. Its compromise came into being when the existences of societies 'outside the Church' became the norm.

There seems to me an interesting correlation between the American concept of unity and the unity intended by ecumenism. The American unity is failing, since it fails a true unifying basis, in that we are all unified in the sense that we are all doing our own thing. But this is no real unity and cannot last, and already according to the dictates of human design our system has corrupted its own badly laid principles of freedom, or sovereignty, no matter how noble was the intention of our Constitution. It seems to me that political system of the United States and what it is going through at this time, is a political analogy or mirror image of what is happening in the ecumenical endeavors of our spiritual existence. The self-same poorly laid yet well intended principles of self government promising freedom, are a political paradigm of our poorly laid yet well intended principles of ecumenism promising salvation.

I speculate that it cannot last as it is the ways of man, and that we will (however inconceivable as it may seem) eventually move into the sixth age of the Church and a return to proper order.

So it is everything but doom and gloom from my perspective... it is hope.

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

One more thing...

Pardon my multiple posts, but I just thought of this, since it is close to Christmas, when the salvation of men came to us from eternity, the Word made flesh:

God said, "peace on earth to men of good will."

The back door modernism says "peace on earth and good will to men."

The ways of God, and the ways of men; the latter interpretation being the ecumenist twist.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 09, 2002.

Emerald,

It is late, I have to get to bed. However, I was curious, do you believe everything after Vatican II, including JPII to be a part of that "backdoor modernism?" As far as I am aware that translation was changed after VII, since in the Douay Rheims it is the original way you put it.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 09, 2002.

I wouldn't say everything. To be honest, I don't know, but I know this: to leave the Church, to abondon it, to say that the Holy Spirit is not in it, is to say that the gates of Hell have prevailed against it. I refuse to say this; I hold on to the promise.

I don't know, but it is most certainly a wheat and tares situation, and God has retained for Himself the job of separating the two. Tares are not just any weed, but weeds that look like wheat.

In the end, I suppose that it is not a matter of being right or wrong so much as a matter of having either a good or a bad will, as the one with the good will, will embrace the truth when the truth becomes more and more apparent.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 09, 2002.

oops...

"I wouldn't say everything. To be honest, I don't know, but I know this: to leave the Church, to abondon it, to say that the Holy Spirit is not in it, is to say that the gates of Hell have prevailed against it..."

is a BIG mistake.

Had to complete that thought. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 09, 2002.

Emerald,

First let me wish you, and all members on this forum a Happy Feast Day. Our Seminary is named after Our Lady's patronage, and therefore, it is a big feast here.

Now to the issue at hand:

I wouldn't say everything. To be honest, I don't know, but I know this: to leave the Church, to abondon it, to say that the Holy Spirit is not in it, is to say that the gates of Hell have prevailed against it. I refuse to say this; I hold on to the promise.

I agree with you, I too would never be inclined to say such a thing. She is weak, She is very sick, but that does not mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against Her. I don't know, but it is most certainly a wheat and tares situation, and God has retained for Himself the job of separating the two. Tares are not just any weed, but weeds that look like wheat.

Agreed. I do not think I would lump the Pope and certain priests under that heading though. Personally, I found that it is easy to make a judgement about the state of the Church, those within it, and those that are appear as weeds until I saw it from "both sides," as it were. I can tell you this, it is much harder to be wheat when being choked often by the weeds. That is not to say that everyone will ultimately become weeds, but soon the Church will be in need of a gardener unlike one ever seen before. Pray for our Church, She is very sick.

In the end, I suppose that it is not a matter of being right or wrong so much as a matter of having either a good or a bad will, as the one with the good will, will embrace the truth when the truth becomes more and more apparent.

Good or bad will based on whose assessment? Truth in what context, and in what sense? Are you speaking of The Way the Life and the Truth, Jesus Christ Our Lord and King, or truth?

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 09, 2002.

"In the end, I suppose that it is not a matter of being right or wrong so much as a matter of having either a good or a bad will, as the one with the good will, will embrace the truth when the truth becomes more and more apparent."

What I mean to say here about being right or wrong, is that it is difficult, very difficult to determine the exact nature of this sickness in the Church, and moreso about who it is that is sick and who isn't. This is why good people at this time, who intend well and want to be right and true, can fall under any number of designations or influences. So they may either be right or wrong about what exactly is the orthodox position, but as time goes by those of good will will receive clarity from the Holy Spirit.

So, a person with good will, through effort and by the grace of God, will be able to discern the truth, the right place to be, or should I say, what constitutes the truly orthodox position, no matter how difficult it is to discern in these tough times.

You see, I am glad to hear someone at least admit that the Church is sick... not dead, but sick, and can and will be healed. Many hear a statement like this from me and assume that I am on the outs with the Church, or have no faith or hope or trust, or am saying the Holy Spirit has abondoned us, or am being just an overall negative nellie, a malcontent. I look at them and think that denial can cure nothing, and cannot understand why they cannot seem to perceive the most obvious of red flags.

I'm glad I came across that piece I linked to above the other night, by Alice Von Hildebrand. Coming from me, these ideas are easy to write off, but Alice... she's hardcore, and well accepted and recognized by most anyone of this forum. If she says it, admits of it, allows for it... then perhaps people on the forum might come to understand the gravity of our situation, and be moved to a greater understanding and even a greater faith.

Heresy, difficulty, suffering... how could we be saved without it? lol! If it weren't for these, I would probably be out living it up somewhere without a thought to my immortal soul.

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

Jmj

Hello, Emerald.

While getting caught up in reading this thread, I saw something that happened more than two weeks ago, and it surprised me greatly.
A message was left by "We'd (Like@To.Help)" on November 26. Another message was left by "- (nas@dac)."
At first, you didn't reply to these, but instead stated the following:
(1) Use your real name and we'll talk about it. =)
(2) Use your real names. Hurry up! ... Use your real names, and I will be happy to respond... step up to the plate.
(3) Let me venture a guess... John? David? That should get the ball rolling. Hurry up.

As I said, Emerald the above surprised me greatly. The first strange thing was that you were ordering anonymous message-posters to reveal their identities. You know that this forum allows anonymity. You take advantage of that yourself, by using a "handle" and by never having revealed your real name. No one has ordered you to reveal your real name as a pre-condition to his/her replying to your messages -- and that's as it should be.

The second strange thing was that you mentioned my name and David's? I'm not saying that either message was written by me or David, but if either one was -- or if David or I knew of other people who may have written either message -- why in the world would we give the "real name" of the writer? Emerald, you and I have had some private e-mail exchanges, and you have revealed your real name to me, but I respect your privacy and your choice to be anonymous here, so I have never revealed your name, and I never would do so. I hope that, because of all that I have just said, you (and all other visitors here) will avoid this kind of thing in the future. It is just improper, given the rules of the forum.

Now, having said all that, I will mention (for at least the third time) that I often post messages here anonymously. In fact, I have probably posted 6,000 to 7,000 messages here in three years, and maybe 1,000 of them have been anonymous. Sometimes I post anonymously just for fun, but mostly it is because I get sick of spelling out (or feel too rushed to spell out) my whole name and e-mail address. Because I do this, I don't mind if anyone assumes that I wrote any given anonymous post. It really doesn't matter to me, because I'm not afraid of anything or anybody. Everyone here should know what I really believe, from reading my 5,000 to 6,000 signed posts, most of which have still-functioning e-mail addresses.

Turning to what you have been discussing here (first with the anonymous posters, then with "seminarian") ...

I have to disagree with some statements that "sem" made, for the same reason I disagreed with you on another thread a few days ago -- the use of improper terminology. Here is what "seminarian" wrote:
"She [the Catholic Church] is weak, She is very sick ... Pray for our Church, She is very sick."

I believe that we should never say such words as these. It is, rather, certain people in the Church that are "very sick" and "very weak." The Church, however, is the spotless Bride of Christ. She is the indefectible, infallible Body of Christ -- which, by definition, cannot be "sick" or "weak" or erring. We must never use those words (or other negative words like "wrong," "sinful," "sexist," etc.) as adjectives before the noun "Church." When we use them, we play into the hands of the devil, who wants to sow seeds of pessimism and/or doubt in the minds of Church members ... and who wants to make the Church look bad to potential converts.

We must always use only positive adjectives about the Church -- while simultaneously being honest about the shortcomings of her members. When Catholics refer to their "Church" in negative terms, they even give aid to those false creeds (especially Mormonism and certain protestant sects) that insist that our Church went into an apostasy and is no longer the Church of Jesus. When we speak of the Church only with positive words, we truthfully show that the Church is indefectible and that an "ecclesial apostasy" is impossible.

Emerald, regarding the subjects raised by "We'd (Like@To.Help)" above, I would say this ...
Having read some things that you have been writing at the forum very recently (including some things you've just said to "seminarian," above), I would say that I am far more concerned that you may be heading toward joining something like SSPX (in a traditionalist schism) -- than I am concerned about anything mentioned in the "We'd (Like@To.Help)" message. You see, when you first started coming here, my impression was that you were a real "soul mate" to me, just an ordinary orthodox Catholic who had no problems with the pope, the Vatican, the new rite of the Mass, etc.. But little by little, it seemed as though you were climbing the fence that divides orthodox Catholicism from schismatic traditionalism. And most recently, I have been worried that you are about to step down from the fence into the schismatic "back yard."

I mean, there are just so many little evidences of this -- such as a strong distrust of certain people in the Vatican, the references to "modernism" tainting the Church, the rejection of ecumenism, the reference to the verse in St. Luke ("peace to ..."), the lionizing of Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, as though she always speaks with magisterial wisdom, etc.. Alice seems to be a generally decent woman, as you seem to be a generally decent man -- but I have to say with sadness that she she has imperfections that I urge you to avoid imitating. Along with her huge number of good qualities (and sound advice, especially on virtue), she is burdened by (1) an inability to refrain from speaking about things on which she is not an expert and (2) a terrible melancholy that no Catholic should possess. She is unjustifiably pessimistic about certain things. She even publicly disobeys the Church's liturgical law by remaining silent while attending the new rite of the Mass, failing to participate even by making the responses. [I've observed this on EWTN more than once.] The worst thing about this situation is that Alice is so talented that good people (without even realizing it) often absorb, into their thoughts and behavior, her bad points along with her good ones.

Emerald, I have looked a bit into the subject of the verse in St. Luke ...
You require the use of the Douay-Rheims translation, which you actually ascribed to God himself -- "God said, '... on earth peace to men of good will.'" [I don't think that God did the translating into English, my friend!] And you reject, as "back door modernism," an alternate translation used by some folks (but not at Mass) -- "peace on earth and good will to men."
Emerald, I think that your statements about this are examples of intemperance. It's simply true that (1) we don't have the original (presumably Aramaic) words of the angels and (2) the Greek manuscripts have slight variations. There is no single correct translation, and there is nothing heretical about the one that you reject, anyway. The Church has approved of the following words, found in the (revised) NAB and used at Mass: "... and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests." The Church has also approved of these similar words from the RSV: "... and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!"
I respect your affection for the Douay translation, but I respect even more the authority and competence of the Church to approve alternate translations of this verse, without suspecting anyone of some kind of "ecumenical conspiracy" or "back door modernism."

God bless you.
John


-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.

John,

I am sorry, but lately it seems you are going out of your way to prove everything I say as outright wrong. First, with biblical interpretation (which, incidentally, I had a very long discussion with my professor, and still hold to my beliefs. However, like I said, I am not discounting nor writing off Matthean Priority, I have just not seen enough evidence as it stands right now) and second, by arguing semantics over my using the term "Church" with regard to the people within the Church (which, incidentally, newadvent defines the same way). However, newadvent actually refers to everyone: "The term, in its full meaning, denotes the whole body of the faithful, both rulers and ruled, throughout the world (Eph., i, 22; Col., i, 18). Church

Now, I am not sure if this is intentional or not, but I would ask that you not discount everything I say so quickly.

You can rest assured that I am not trying to paint a glim picture of the Church, nor am I acribing to those things that are opposed to the Church, rather, I was merely relating facts as they unfortunately are. I am sure there is no need for details, but the scandals are merely a consequence of a lot of things. In a sense, the scandals are, unfortunately, the tip of the iceberg. Now, like I said, I am not trying to discount the Church, rather, in this case, let Emerald know that the Church needs prayers, many many many prayers. We need more people to pray, mortify, and to love the Church, including those that are called to serve as priests, religious, brothers, and sisters.

My point is not to expose some unknown truth, nor is it to slander this or that person, rather, it is to lament the state of the Church as it is today. I am, obviously, too young to have known what the seminaries, parishes, and religious orders used to be like, but I seriously doubt that they were anything like they are today.

Now, don't get me wrong, where there are many fallen away, there are the few that are there to support the Church, and these are the shining examples, the beacons of hope, and the solace that many should find hope in.

Contrary to popular belief, the scandals were done by older priests, the younger ones, though not perfect, are the ones that are doing well, and have, in a sense, learned from the mistakes of the past. In fact, we are exposed every Friday to a two hour talk on how to integrate our sexuality, how to live as a celibate, how to avoid certain behaviors the offending priests fell into, how to adjust after being newly ordained, and how to foster all of that with a strong prayer life rooted in the Holy Trinity. The issues are being dealt with, despite what the media or anyone else wants us to believe.

Be that as it may, the Church, as it has been defined, is sick, and She needs prayers.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 13, 2002.

"I would say that I am far more concerned that you may be heading toward joining something like SSPX."

John, I'm not going anywhere. I'm already where I need to be; I'm in the Ark, and trying to convince everyone that the ark is indeed the Ark. I've never left home, I just found out that I was indeed at home. The Ark is going somewhere, and in that sense, yes I'm on a journey, but relative to the ark, I have not moved and do not intend to. There is a storm, but the Ark is not sinking, nor is it is not scheduled for any additional construction, expansions or design improvements. It is designed to weather the storm. The measurements of the Ark's height, breadth, width and depth were prescribed by God.

The Ark is the archetype of salvation, of the Catholic Church.

Now once inside the Ark of safety, there is a lot of more of which is demanded of someone for salvation, but that's another issue; first things first.

You do have a soulmate in me, John. Are we not bound together in the body of Christ by baptism? I never break my loyalties with people, with friends. If I have, that was a different Emerald.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 13, 2002.

Jmj

Thanks so much, "Soul-mate Emerald," for those friendly and reassuring words. Please don't take it personally, though, when I continue to give you a bit of hard time, now and then, on other threads in the days ahead. You and I don't see eye to eye on some things, but, having read what you just said, I'm not so troubled as I was before.

Hello, "seminarian."
Don't worry. Things are not at all as you feared. You wrote:
"John, I am sorry, but lately it seems you are going out of your way to prove everything I say as outright wrong. ... Now, I am not sure if this is intentional or not, but I would ask that you not discount everything I say so quickly."

First, I should say that there no intentional attempt to come after you. You are one of the forum regulars whom I admire the most, and I agree with more than 95% of everything you have ever written here. What just happened was only a fluke -- a freak occurrence that I happened to disagree with two things you wrote, very close together. Please reflect on the fact that you have recently posted many messages to which I did not respond at all. If you keep in mind that I agreed with you on ALL those other messages, you'll see that I have not been trying to hurt you -- and surely not "to prove everything [you] say as outright wrong."

Believe it or not, "seminarian," when I disagreed with your use of the word "Church" on this thread, I did not even remember that I had recently disagreed with you about Marcan Priority. I simply spoke up, as is my custom, when I saw something with which I disagreed. There was no personal component in what I did. I'm sorry that you were unnecessarily alarmed by this. [By the way, I still argue that it is wrong to say that the "Church is sick," even in light of the definition you quoted. <|;)=]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.

Well, John... that last post to sem with the 95% and all... when judging the unity of a group of people, one way to pull this off is to measure relative agreement between the members. I suppose there is some sort of shell of unity there, but that does not necessarily mean the truth has been attained or retained. In other words, the truth is not necessarily the product of concensus. You can have a group that marches in lockstep and be, as an entire group, deviant from the truth.

I was hinting that something like this existed before when I made up the term 'checklist orthodoxy', or said that you tend to be more precise than accurate sometimes. No intention to rake you over the coals here, just something I've seen in your posts, and in lots of other people I talk to. Everyone has a job to do in the body of Christ, and I'm not going to say that I understand your job, and everyone else's job, when I don't even fully understand my own.

That being said, going back to "precision": If one is firing at a target and all the hits are all close to each other in a tight formation, but off and wide of the bullseye itself, then they are "missing the point" all together, quite literally. This despite precision. It makes for a good show, but it can certainly at times miss the point.

Otoh, if everyone aims individually for a common goal, you will most likely attain "accuracy", and all things and people more or less tend towards the truth. If people look not to their position in relation to others but instead at their position in relation to the truth, then accuracy is achieved. Add to this the Deposit of the Faith, the Church, its authority and all that goes along with it, then you have precision and accuracy working together; the best possible success at hitting the bullseye.

I feel a lot of times you are looking to gather together Christ's own into a group measurable by a checklist, with the least possible deviation. But I wonder sometimes about it being the ways of man. I wonder if you might have the notion that people who observe a group of in lockstep like this, admire such a thing. I'm not sure they do; you know, people are wierd... as much as they all do the same things as each other day in and day out, they all want to at least carry the illusion that they are unique. So when they look at a tight group of homogenous believers, I'm not sure they are impressed.

Walking lockstep in a concensus of relative unity makes the mystical body of Christ appear to be made up of homogenous parts... but it isn't; it is made up of unique members working in unison, in the same body of truth.

It has to be the case that our unity is not in our agreement with each other, but in our agreement with the truth.

Just some random thoughts on a Saturday morning; best of intentions my friend.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 14, 2002.

Interesting, Emerald.

"I wonder if you might have the notion that people who observe a group of in lockstep like this, admire such a thing. ... when they look at a tight group of homogenous believers, I'm not sure they are impressed. "
No, I don't have that "notion," because I never think about (nor care) what "people" think, when they observe me. Being faithful to Catholic faith and morals -- not "impressing" anyone -- is what matters to me. We should be, in a manner of speaking, in "lock-step," because we are the "Church Militant." We are soldiers of the Holy Spirit.

"It has to be the case that our unity is not in our agreement with each other, but in our agreement with the truth."
I would instead merge them and say, "It has to be the case that our unity is in our agreement with each other, in fidelity to the truth."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 15, 2002.

"It has to be the case that our unity is in our agreement with each other, in fidelity to the truth."

Well, yeah... that's what I was trying to say. Both precision and accuracy, with the help of God. That was sort of the sum and substance of the whole target thingy I rambled about above.

But there is this brand of Catholicism that has become unhinged doctrinally... but as always, liturgy or accidentals rule the imagination at the expense the real principles... so out of the liturgy department, let me try to give you an example... take alter girls. Before they were allowed, if you were to go up to one of what now passes for a conservative Catholic, they would have railed in your face about how evil it was. Then a decision is made to allow them, and suddenly, there's no problem with it. This is not an exaggeration at all; I've actually seen this phenomena occur with people over a variety of issues.

I think this what passes for loyalty to the Pope anymore. To me, it just indicates a lack of depth in understanding in the person of the Faith itself. To cover this deficiency of understanding, a bizarre brand of loyalty is lauded, a loyalty that I believe in no way represents our strong 2,000 reverence of the Papacy.

I would rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons, as the first malady is more easily and readily remedied.

At any rate, to expose the liberalness of today's 'orthodox', it would be a rather easy case to lay out. The hard part is to get the other party to actually listen to you.

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

Alter girls? Geez, that would be a whole 'nuther discussion. I meant to write "altar girls".

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

Emerald, I am so physically tired that I was not going to reply to your message. But I figured that, if I did that, you'd think I had agreed with you -- and you might have a heart attack.
So I just need to say that I disagree with everything you wrote from the words, "But there is this brand of Catholicism ...," to the bottom of the message.
See you later. JFG

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

Hey John, get some rest and we'll go back at it later.

Dang, I thought it was my brain that was messed up... I never thought about my heart being in any danger. Well, hmmm... I'll take a couple aspirin, like they say, just to be on the safe side.

Yes, my friend, I am indeed the village idiot. I freely admit it. All in all, I believe it is the safer, saner path to salvation.

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