Upheaval It is clear, then, that Pope John had completely misjudged the scale and scope of the Council he had launched. He seemed to be hoping for an ill-defined but universal improvement of every aspect of the Church's life, and that this could be brought about by a process of updating, or in Italian, aggiornamento.

What is the situation today, forty years after the end of the great assembly? It remains as Paul VI described it on 7 December 1968, 35 years ago: "The Church is in a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would better be called self-demolition. It is an acute and complicated upheaval which nobody would have expected after the Council."

The Pope was factually mistaken there. At the Council, Cardinals Ottaviani, Brown, Ruffini and many other traditionalists had warned that mistakes were being made and that trouble lay ahead. They were, however, laughed at for their pains.

Pope Paul continues: "It was believed that after the Council a sunny day in the Church's history would dawn, but instead there came a day of clouds, storm and darkness."

In February 1981 the present Pope summed up our situation very accurately in words which are still applicable in 2003 "[W]e must admit realistically and with feelings of deep pain, that Christians today in large measure feel lost, confused, perplexed and even disappointed; ideas opposed to the truth which has been revealed and always taught are being scattered abroad in abundance; heresies in the full and proper sense of the word, have been spread in the area of dogma and morals, creating doubts, confusions and rebellions; the liturgy has been tampered with; immersed in an intellectual and moral relativism and therefore in permissiveness, Christians are tempted by atheism, agnosticism, vaguely moral enlightenment and a sociological Christianity devoid of defined dogmas or an objective morality.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 10, 2003

Answers

> "The Pope was factually mistaken there. At the Council, Cardinals Ottaviani, Brown, Ruffini and many other traditionalists had warned that mistakes were being made and that trouble lay ahead. They were, however, laughed at for their pains."

Where is the PROOF that if the Church did not change, that it would be better off today?

In my archdiocese, there is one Church that offers the old Mass, and I went to it once, the small Church was only half full, while the Churches that offer the new Mass are full. People are voting with their feet, and they are going to the new Mass. If the new Mass was the problem, the Churches would be empty. They are not! If the old Mass was so wonderful as you make it out to be, then people would be clamouring for it, and they are not.

> "Pope Paul continues: "It was believed that after the Council a sunny day in the Church's history would dawn, but instead there came a day of clouds, storm and darkness.""

What is meant by this? It could mean anything Ed!

> "In February 1981 the present Pope summed up our situation very accurately in words which are still applicable in 2003 "[W]e must admit realistically and with feelings of deep pain, that Christians today in large measure feel lost, confused, perplexed and even disappointed; ideas opposed to the truth which has been revealed and always taught are being scattered abroad in abundance; heresies in the full and proper sense of the word, have been spread in the area of dogma and morals, creating doubts, confusions and rebellions; the liturgy has been tampered with; immersed in an intellectual and moral relativism and therefore in permissiveness, Christians are tempted by atheism, agnosticism, vaguely moral enlightenment and a sociological Christianity devoid of defined dogmas or an objective morality."

And you offer not one shred of evidence that this has anything to do with V2! Even the same paragraph the Pope says: "Christians are tempted by atheism, agnosticism, vaguely moral enlightenment and a sociological Christianity devoid of defined dogmas or an objective morality."

> "the liturgy has been tampered with;"

By liberals, who are not following V2. They would do the same with the old Mass. They would add their changes, and be subtle about it.

Ed, you come across like a guy who claims their is always conspiracies afoot, but you never have proof.

If the new Mass was such a problem, why has God not told us this, when their have been countless visionaries over the past couple decades claiming to talk to Jesus, Mary, etc? I never heard the new Mass criticized even once, and yet I have read so much of these so called "messages from heaven".

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 10, 2003.

Put the traditional mass every day in every church. Put the Novus Ordo, once a month, at 4pm on a Sunday, in the factory part of town, and see who wins...That is what the traditional mass us up against.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 10, 2003.

P: When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples and said: Take this all of you, and drink from it: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. P: As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in memory of Me. THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT, IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. P: Do this in memory of me. [The priest adores and elevates the Chalice. The bell is rung. He then continues:] [The bell is rung as the priest elevates the Chalice to be seen by the people. He then genuflects] P: Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.

[The people acclaim one of the following formulas:]

R: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

R: Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life, Lord Jesus, come in glory.

R: When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.

Does Our Blessed Lord double talk?. Go to one church, he says "Many". Across the street He says "All". One place has a better deal, doesn"t it?.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 10, 2003.

Ed, we have been over this. The Pope has been given authority by God, and he says the Mass is valid. There is nothing wrong with the Mass. If you don't like the new Mass, then attend the old one. You have a choice, just like I do, and I choose to attend the new Mass.

If the Pope gets rid of the new Mass, and says the old Mass is the only Mass, then that is fine by me also. As long as the consecration takes place, and the sacrifice is present, it is a Mass.

> "Go to one church, he says "Many". Across the street He says "All""

Ed, this was covered before, but you don't like the answer. One reflects our Lord's intention, and the other reflects what happens. Both are just fine. This has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Ed, you are not the Pope, and if you speak out against the new Mass, you are speaking out against the Pope. The Pope himself, the Vicar of Christ, has given his approval for the new Mass, so we have to obey that authority, or you stop being a Catholic. Obedience to the Pope is one of the cornerstones of our faith. The Church would never have lasted 2000 years, if it was not for this.

God bless Ed, and I hope one day you find peace over this issue, but I have a feeling it will not be anytime soon.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 10, 2003.

* Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one- third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

* Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

* Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus. .........Gordon, I am very happy with my mass. I am concerned for the souls of my fellow catholics. They seem to have a blind spot about John Paul. The man can do no wrong in their eyes.He could tell them anything and they would believe it, even if their eyes showed them otherwise. He seems to cast a spell over them. Not so much his fault but theirs. Take a look at these numbers. I know, you don't believe them.That proves my point.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 10, 2003.

Ed, and where is the connection to V2 with all of that?

You see Ed, even without V2, the Church could be the same or even worse. There is not one shred of proof that V2 has resulted in people losing their faith.

It a sign of the times. Other religions which never had a change in their religious service, have also have huge declines. The problem is how the world is today, and nothing to do with V2.

> "They seem to have a blind spot about John Paul. The man can do no wrong in their eyes. He could tell them anything and they would believe it, even if their eyes showed them otherwise."

That's not true Ed. You talking about the Vicar of Christ, and a very Holy man. John Paul is a HERO in my eyes. He has stood up for God's Church in an age that wants all kinds of evil. He is not happy with what's going on in the Church, but Catholics don't listen to him anymore.

Show me where, the Pope is responsible for any of those stats you posted? The opposite is true, the Pope has defended marriage, promotes proper sexual relations between husband and wife without artifical contraceptions, and so on and so on. The Pope is a great defender of God's morality and faith. If not, show me the proof. Show me where he said, that people should not get marriad, or should get abortions, etc?

> "He seems to cast a spell over them. Not so much his fault but theirs. Take a look at these numbers. I know, you don't believe them. That proves my point."

I believe those claims you are making, but I just don't believe they are result of V2.

Ed, you should show respect for the Pope. After all, if you are such a good Catholic, and concerned about the faith, you don't downplay the authority of the Pope. I think what you are doing borders on sinfulness, as you are criticizing the Vicar of Christ unjustly.

Ed I know of lots of Catholics who are as conservative about thier faith as you are, but do not attend the old Mass. The old Mass does not make you a better Catholic, and in no way can save the faith, like you imagine it.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

Gordon, I do not doubt your sincerity, and faith, and that also goes for others on this forum. You all are good Catholics. Probably the best of that 1 in 4 that still attend church. I respect John Paul for his stand against abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc. It is the dogma of the church that I contend he is not protecting. Ecumanism is not a catnoliv teaching. The word did not enter the catholic vocabulary until V2. Also the "new mass". it was nota an adjustment of the old mass, which was never tampered with for 1400 years. Every pope in that time never even dreamed of touching it. Paul 6th did not adjust it. He threw it out. He was honest enough to call it for what it was, a new mass, and I stress the new.If V2 was not the cause of the decline, it is very suspect that they were around at the very time of the collapse. It is horendus that in the reign of the past 4 popes the church lost two thirds of active churchgoers. When John 23rd opened those windows, he let more in than could be imagined. He should have tried to bring the modern world into the church. He sure did bring the church into the modern world, as those stats show. God bless you Gordon.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

Maria Gaitani says it so well.

Anyone who has been to a Traditional Mass will know that the moment of consecration is the most sacred and awe-inspiring moment of all! Oh, what a blessed moment! In silence and in deepest reverence Our Lord comes down from Heaven and presents Himself to us under the appearance of bread and wine. The bread and wine are COMPLETELY CHANGED into the most Sacred Body and Blood of our God! This is change is called TRANSUBSTANTIATION!! That means that God Himself is really and trully present upon the altar! Angels attend Him on either side! Invisible, but there!

Now, this dread moment was truly beautiful in the Old Tridentine Rite! The hush of the congeragation kneeling in wonder; the reverence and sacred action of the priest acting in persona Christi, using the very words of Our Lord Himself to effect the Sacrament! Oh, what a miracle! What a joy and consolation for our sinful hearts!

After this most awesome moment the priest performed a TRIPLE genuflection! What a marvelous thing! Heaven and earth meeting! Our Lord humbling Himself so much for our salvation! Does His Sacred Humility not deserve a triple genuflection on our part?? Of course He does! And could there be any doubt that the Catholic Faith was the true Faith?? NO! Never! No other Faith has so Great a Gift! God Himself with us!!

Oh, what a tragedy has befallen our poor churches where the New Ordo is used! That most sacred moment is lost! The words of consecration, once uttered so carefully, secretly and so very reverently, are now spoken aloud in such a casual way! How the Angels must weep to see such indifference! And quite often there is no genuflection at all! Or just a mere bow - like Our Lord was just an earthy prince, and not the Prince of Peace Himself!! Does not our King and our Creator deserve our very best?? I think he does!!

However, seeing what goes on in the New Ordo of Mass, it seems there are those who dont share our Faith!! No wonder belief in the Real Presence has declined with the Novus Ordo! What an evil thing has crept into our church! What indifference and sacrilege is committed in the name of being "up-to-date" ! The devil must be very happy with all these modern ways!!

Long live the Traditional Mass and the Traditional Catholic Faith! The Faith of our Fathers! We must never let it die! And, yes, we will be true 'til death!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

the reason that attendances are falling etc etc has nothing to do with the new Mass, in fact it is despite the new Mass.

BIG CLUE: just think about wealth (and what wealth leads to) -- and the world is getting richer -- and compare faith levels in the still-poor countries in S. America and Africa with those on the developed world. With wealth, comes material distractions -- PLUS education (and the ability, or arrogance, to challenge beliefs).

its part of he world growing up. if the Church held the attention of 100% OF THE WORLD'S population, then it would be all too easy. how i wish that i could have witnessed a miracle - how could i doubt after that -- but the disciples still did: the chips are stacked against us the older the world gets. its all a good thing, really. remember that we were not even originally invited to the party -- we got in cos the Jews screwed it up.

JXXIII was a great Pope. JPII is a great Pope.

-- Pater Noster Qui Est in Caelis (sad.oldman@latinmassonhisown.org), March 11, 2003.

It is theology like this that is leading to the destruction of the Catholic church, and the pope is pehaps the main perpetrator.Save to pretend, with the New Theology of Vatican II but against the entire Tradition, that every human being belongs to the true Church of Christ in a way or another, consciously or not, we may deduce (indirectly) from the proposition No. 17 condemned by pope Pius IX, that many human beings are probably not saved.

To draw a conclusion, we should ask ourselves: what is left of that salutary fear which has converted so many sinners and which is so justly, desired by God in a portrait of Wisdom and Goodness as well as justice, in this endeavor of John-Paul II to soften the suffering of hell by denying the pain of fire and by minimizing the danger of falling into it?

Is not the fear of hell in this life one of the most effective means to distance ourselves from sin? "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" said St. Paul (Philip. 2:12). And the same St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews: "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31).

John-Paul II remembered that hell is part of the teaching of the Gospel and of the Church. But what is left of the traditional teachings of the Church in the Pope's thoughts when he reinterprets Scripture and the Magisterium to conform to his liberal and ecumenical utopia?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

you cannot force people to believe in God let alone adhere to the Catholic faith. well maybe you can at gunpoint but what value is there in such "faith".

God is elitist. he chose the Jews, then we came along and we got lucky. we now get lucky by birth: EG if you are born a Jew/Muslim/Protestant, then chances are you are not within the faith and will never convert (and will never be given a realistic chance of understanding the importance of the conversion) - and, well, i am no expert but i think that your place in heaven is in doubt no matter how good a person you might be. (small caveat - maybe Mohammed appeared and was our God, jst didn't tell us and we willnever know).

anyway, my point was -- the real reason for the demise of faith (witnessed by the relatively slower decline in Protestant and other "faiths") is that the Catholic Church presents a realistic picture of what it means to be Christian but one which is hard to fit in between beer, etc etc. we live in a consumer society and too many people have too many other things to be getting on with. i say f**k 'em.

-- Pater Noster Qui Est in Caelis (sad.oldman@latinmassonhisown.org), March 11, 2003.

Maybe you're right!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

_____

Nowadays it is a commonplace to hear that most Catholics no longer know of, let alone believe in, the Church's teachings on The Eucharist. . Modernists, of course, hate the expression "transubstantiation" and, when asked if they believe in it, will quibble that that word is so tied to a Medieval Scholastic philosophy as no longer to be usable. . Instead, like the Arians of old, Modernists these days will proffer expressions that may seem fully orthodox, but are so permitting of easy mental reservations as to be meaningless. . The term "Real Presence" is a perfect example. . Real Presence of What? to Whom? in What Sense? . Let's face it, even New Age pagans can use that term. They, after all, believe that God is everywhere and in everything. . How, therefore, can one determine whether or not someone believes in the Catholic Church's doctrine on The Eucharist: . Ask him or her whether if, during that part of the Mass, just prior to receiving Communion, when the whole congregation, are all standing, along with the "presider". and together reciting aloud the "Our Father" prayer, there is, or there is not, any bread in that sanctuary.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

An Deserted Novus Ordo Cathedral: Attendance at the Novus Ordo Service Drops almost 20% in a Year It has taken over thirty years, as well as a scandal involving extortion, embezzlement, and perversion on the part of Novus Ordo ecclesiocrats in the highest ranks, but Catholics are now in large numbers deserting the New Order. Its falsity is now hard to deny, as it no longer has the four identifying marks of the true Church: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Naturally, the true Roman Catholic Church continues, even if it be in the catacombs, as it were, just as Pope Pius XII predicted it would be. Our Lord never promised that His true Church would be large or wealthy. In fact, Scripture seems to indicate just the opposite and could well describe the situation of the traditional Catholic churches and chapels around the world where the light of the Faith still burns, even as the New Order attempts to quench it

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.

Liturgical modernists are doing all they can to convice usthat the Latin Mass will be the downfall of the CatholicChurch in our modern age. We must be willing to show themthat the answer to increased devotion and attention at Massis not through the introduction of novel ideas. Rather, itcomes from personal efforts to derive all possible fruit fomrour attendance at Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Page 4

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.

If the new Mass was such a problem, why has God not told us this, when their have been countless visionaries over the past couple decades claiming to talk to Jesus, Mary, etc? I never heard the new Mass criticized even once, and yet I have read so much of these so called "messages from heaven".

Very often, God will punish us according to our own desires. Did he not do so time and time again in the Old Testament to the Jews? They were ungrateful and sick of the manna from Heaven, and wished for meat. God let them have meat, but it was not good meat. In their desire for something more than what God have given them (manna), many perished for gorging on poisoned meat. So if our innermost desires are wordly, then why would He not punish us by allowing the Church to try and fit in with the world? Naturally, if He did so, catastrophe would (and has) occurred. But the Church will never perish completely, for He have His promise on that.

Ed, we have been over this. The Pope has been given authority by God, and he says the Mass is valid. There is nothing wrong with the Mass.

You think? Try this on for size.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.

when their have been countless visionaries over the past couple decades claiming to talk to Jesus, Mary, etc?

Maybe this is also another reason most, if not all, could be considered bogus.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.

Um, I'm new to the bboard... Ed, does that mean you don't believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ?

-- marie (yshxf@yahoo.com.sg), March 12, 2003.

Is the pope the vicar?. I don't know, but I do know that he has been harmful to the Church. Would a good pope kiss ,the Koran, for any reason? It would be blatant heresy prior to vatican 2. Would he pray with Anamists and throw cucumber peels to snakes?. Could you or I do that without being guilty of mortal sin?. I think not. I will not judge his soul or his mind, for that is God's alone to do. HoweverI can judge his outward, actions, and they are not what a good pope should be doing. The faith of many Catholics have been damaged. My opinion?. Not at all, look at the stats. They tell the story.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

John Paul II made a statement in Manila accepting "truth and goodness" found in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. Religious leaders gather at Assisi to pray for world peace - Christian, Moslem, Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Shintoists, Bahais, African Animists (snake worshipers). American Indian, Johnny Pretty-on-Top from Crow tribe which has a history of sun worship. When you join in prayer you validate the other's god.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

I mean, come on, it's not like we're pointing to Vatican II as the cause of a temperature decline in South Carolina. For instance, we're saying that if you take the Holy Mass and let Masons and modernists and Protestants pervert it, throwing out virtually everything that smacks of Real Presence and propitiatory Sacrifice, of the Communion of Saints, sin, penance, hell, and purgatory, then there is a good reason to believe that this might have something to do with the fact that so many "Catholics" nowadays who have been going to this mass no longer believe in the Real Presence, the Mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice, intercession of the saints, sin, penance, hell, and purgatory. Is this really so far-fetched?

But all common sense and rationality ebbs away with the Neo-Catholics when using these gifts would result in disagreement with something Pope John Paul II or Paul VI have approved. And that's why we find the people at Envoy, EWTN, and similar organizations engaging in the most ludicrous hermeneutical gymnastics when it comes to facing up to scandal after scandal in the postconciliar church.

Next, Olson asks: "I wonder if Mr. Buchanan would say the Holy Spirit 'blundered' in bringing about Vatican II. If so, can we surmise that Mr. Buchanan is no longer a loyal Catholic?"

Last time I checked, Pope John XXIII brought about Vatican II, not the Holy Spirit. But in the Neo-Catholic mind, everything the Pope does is necessarily inspired by the Holy Spirit (of course they won't admit this in theory), and so they consider it blasphemy to suggest that Pope John's idea of calling Vatican II wasn't the greatest possible idea of the twentieth century. But this isn't Catholicism. This is Neo-Catholicism.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

in his various questions-----is that the question is not sufficiently formulated.

The claim that Quo Primum was a "disciplinary decree" strongly seems to suggest that it was entirely, essentially and merely a disciplinary decree and therefore, not infallible.

First of all, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it was something merely disciplinary. It would not follow logically, therefore, that the creation of the Novus Ordo was permissible. Because the Church's doctrine regarding liturgy is formulated in many pronouncements-----infallible pronouncements-----before Quo Primum was ever issued.

It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema." For six hundred years, the Popes made a solemn profession at their Coronation, a public and solemn profession, that they did not have the power to change the liturgy. Then they invoked the wrath of God upon themselves if they should dare to change it or allow anyone to change it. READ THE OATH AND THE TRIDENTINE PROFESSION OF FAITH [OR CREED]

The 1565 Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, also known as the "Tridentine Profession of Faith," binds the Catholic to his traditional rites, to the "received and approved rite." One must embrace and adhere to the received and approved customary rites of the Church. This is the faith. Therefore, the creation of the Novus Ordo is contrary to the defined dogma of the faith, contrary to the faith solemnly professed in the profession of the Popes, contrary to the Tridentine Profession of Faith.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

Dear Ed and Gordon

When Pope Bl. John XXIII called for the Second Vatican Council, he wished to crack a window to let some air into the Church. He did not forsee that he would allow the liberals to open all the windows of the Church and let a whirwind into the Church.

Anyone who has studied Vatican II, knows that it was hijacked by the Liberals (The Rhine Group) from the beginning. The Liberal/Modernists (now called Progressives) didn't want to follow God and His teachings. Instead they wanted to be liked by the world and become like the world. These men were (are) like the Hebrews in the Old Testament who worshipped the golden calf, wanted a king, or many other worldly things.

The Traditional Latin Liturgy wasn't really hit as many Traditionals claim. Plus, the changes made at Vatican II are acceptable to tradition with the Liturgy. Most Traditionalists claim that St. Pius V said no one can make a change to the Liturgy. St. Pius V was talking about Cardinals, Bishops, or Priests can not change the Liturgy for three years after St. Pius V promulgated the Traditional Latin Mass after the Coucnil of Trent, he made a change.

The New Liturgy by Pope Paul VI is valid. Should he have done it? Most Catholics today, who have studied the Liturgy of the Church, would agree he shouldn't have. Most would have agreed to the Traditional Latin Liturgy in the venicular (?). There have been many Orthodox publications such as "Homelitc and Pastoral Review" has come out in 2000 by stating that the Church needs to go back to the Traditional Latin Liturgy.

We are in a fight for our souls, our families, and friends. The enemies of the Catholic Faith (Liberals, Modernists, and Progressives) have dug their dark claws into the Church. The only way they will be defeated will be when the Pope consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. For it is through God, the Church will be saved, but we, the faithful, must pick up our Rosary and pray for (1) the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, (2) Conversion of Russia (3) Conversion of America and (4) For our Priests, Bishops and Pope.

Mark

-- Mark Trieger (trieger4@earthlink.net), March 13, 2003.

> "The New Liturgy by Pope Paul VI is valid."

That's right, and that is the whole point of the matter. Until the Church decides to change it, it's something we have to accept, and Ed, has to stop believing that it's the cause of so many problems in the Church today.

There are liberals in the Church today, as there are liberals in the Anglican church today. It's a problem that is not a result of V2, but a problem of the day and age we live in.

Also note that liberalism is largely a problem of the West, and does not really exist in 3rd world Catholic countries.

Look at the Philippines for example, they don't have the crises of faith our Church here in North America and Europe are going through, and yet have the new Mass, same as us all along. Just shows you, V2 is not the problem.

Bringing back the old Mass would not solve the problems in the Church. If it would, I would be it's biggest advocate.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.

Mark, and Gordon, It is true that I seem to harp on the Traditional mass. That is not the only problem however. It is that the V2 church has not left well enough alone on anything. It would seem that they want to eliminate everything that existed before V2. The sacraments have all been changed, and that is one thing that even a pope cannot do.But they did it. Why would the ordination of a priest be changed to omit the power to forgive sins?. It was clearly stated, but now omitted. Consecration of a bishop changed. Words of consecration changed. And if you tell me a pope can do it, you are wrong. No pope can change the words of His Lord.But please, any one tell me WHY. Especially when they are watered down. When they said Novus Ordo, they sure meant it!.It is indeed a new church. Perhaps with a new pope. "By their fruits you shall know them" Some fruits Ha. People dropped out by the millions after V2, The priesthood is drying up. Priest are dying off far faster than replacement. They don't change dogma, they just rclarify it. Sure. You admit that Modernists and masons have infiltated the church. Who elects the pope?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.

Being fully aware of this, Pope St. Pius V did not shrink from saying "by our Apostolic authority . . . we order and declare . . . that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law." He declared solemnly and definitively that Quo Primum cannot ever be revoked or modified.

Why did he do this? Because it is an application of the Divine Law as defined by the Church regarding the Roman Rite specifically, the Roman Church specifically. So it is not merely disciplinary , it is a disciplinary decree rooted in the doctrine of the faith. There are other legal formulations used in other decrees saying "henceforth in perpetuity" but we are not dealing with something so simple as this. We are dealing with a very explicit pronouncement wherein he says, "by our Apostolic authority . . . we order and declare . . . that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law."

He did not mean until the next pope comes along. 400 years and a lot of popes understood this.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.

It is just unbelievable. Throughout his long pontificate which began in 1978, Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) has damaged the Church, the Faith, and the liturgy through action, inaction, toleration, silence, heteropraxis, and incalculable errors in judgment so that the holy Catholic Church now bears even less resemblance to her pre- Vatican II status than she did at the end of the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul I (who had hardly begun to act as Pope when he died). It started on the day of Wojtyla's election as Pope, as he chose the names John Paul, as his predecessor had, honoring the Vatican II Popes, John XXIII and Paul VI. This already spoke volumes about the kind of direction his pontificate would take. His very first encyclical in 1979, Redemptor Hominis, was already a disaster, and the few positive highlights of his pontificate, such as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) and Ad Tuendam Fidem (1998), have all but been drowned in the sea of scandal, heteropraxis, and theological error of his pontificate. In fact, John Paul II has never been a real theologian. Rather, by his own admission, he is a philosopher akin to Hans Urs von Balthasar, who was censored by Pope Pius XII for his heterodox views.

Now, let me be extremely blunt here: In my opinion, Pope John Paul II would have long been anathematized and excommunicated by the pre- Vatican II Popes. Assisi I (1986) and II (2002), Familiaris Consortio (1981), Ut Unum Sint (1995), Ecclesia Dei (1988), World Youth Days, visiting houses of worship of false religions, rejoicing over the opening of a mosque in Rome, kissing the Koran (!), praying that St. John the Baptist might protect a religion that blasphemes

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.

"Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church's enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith." –St. Peter Canisius (1521-1597

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.

First of all, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it was something merely disciplinary. It would not follow logically, therefore, that the creation of the Novus Ordo was permissible. Because the Church's doctrine regarding liturgy is formulated in many pronouncements-----infallible pronouncements-----before Quo Primum was ever issued.

It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema." For six hundred years, the Popes made a solemn profession at their Coronation, a public and solemn profession, that they did not have the power to change the liturgy. Then they invoked the wrath of God upon themselves if they should dare to change it or allow anyone to change it. READ THE OATH AND THE TRIDENTINE PROFESSION OF FAITH [OR CREED]

The 1565 Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, also known as the "Tridentine Profession of Faith," binds the Catholic to his traditional rites, to the "received and approved rite." One must embrace and adhere to the received and approved customary rites of the Church. This is the faith. Therefore, the creation of the Novus Ordo is contrary to the defined dogma of the faith, contrary to the faith solemnly professed in the profession of the Popes, contrary to the Tridentine Profession of Faith.

Ed:

If your interpretation of all of this is that the Pope has no authority to change the liturgy, no exceptions, then why are we no longer practicing in the eastern rite liturgies as in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? After all, the eastern lituries are far more ancient than the Tridentine rite, are they not? So wouldn't that have made the declaration of Pope Pius X wrong? Also, a simple reading of V2 and the Rite reveals that the tragic silliness that often happens at some Ordo Masses has absolutely nothing to do with anything the documents say. Besides that, can you honestly say that there were no abuses happening in the liturgy prior to V2?

-- Peter Hirota (hirotas@cyberhotline.com), March 15, 2003.

Peter, There were absolutely no abuses in the traditional rite before vatican 2 None whatsoever.. Pope pius fifth codified the traditional ro,man rite, and eliminated the abuses made in the prior 200 years.He did not have much to correct on the Chrysostom rite. From 1570 to 1962 just 26 words were added to the Mass. Not one of them were in the canon. Not till John 23rd added St. Joseph to the canon. After that it was all downhill.A prouncement calling down the wrath of Peter and Paul seemed to go intoeffect. From thereon it was one excuse after another to explain away the atrocious novelties that were taking place. "Brng in the clowns", superman, football players, Hula dancers and other deviations, all with the tacit approval of the bishops and pope. Whaat else can we expect in the future?.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 15, 2003.

Masonic influence (Freemason, Illuminati, B'nai B'rith, and others) is said to be very great in the Church. Just how widespread is unknown but many cardinals and bishops are either masons or in agreement with the principles of Freemasonry. Pope John Paul is no exception. He has accepted, for all intents and purposes, both non- Christian and non-Catholic Christian religious leaders as equals according to the Masonic goal of a "One World Order" that necessitates the development of a "One World Religion." The leader of such one world religion would of necessity have to be someone who accepts Masonic doctrines and authority.

Former President William Clinton of the United States is a known Mason. Additionally, even before being first elected as president he was known as an avowed supporter of sodomites and legalized abortion.* Both positions should be sufficient for any non- cowardly moral leader to keep totally disassociated from Clinton and all he stands for.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 15, 2003.

+

-- <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 16, 2003.

> "Masonic influence (Freemason, Illuminati, B'nai B'rith, and others) is said to be very great in the Church. Just how widespread is unknown but many cardinals and bishops are either masons or in agreement with the principles of Freemasonry."

You see that may very well be true, but in the absence of any PROOF, you have to be very careful about this.

> "Pope John Paul is no exception."

Saying that right after what you posted on Freemasonary is absurd. Ed, stop cutting down the Vicar of Christ. The Pope has never spoken in favor of Freemasonary.

> "He has accepted, for all intents and purposes, both non- Christian and non-Catholic Christian religious leaders as equals"

Show me Ed, that our Pope said these people where his equal? This is just nonsense. Because he welcomed them, does not mean they were his equal, and your criticism is no different then when our Lord ate a meal with sinners and tax collectors.

> "according to the Masonic goal of a "One World Order" that necessitates the development of a "One World Religion." The leader of such one world religion would of necessity have to be someone who accepts Masonic doctrines and authority."

And you implication is our Pope? I mean, if that is how you think, please provide PROOF!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.

> ""Brng in the clowns", superman, football players, Hula dancers and other deviations, all with the tacit approval of the bishops and pope. Whaat else can we expect in the future?."

Ed, what do you mean by "clowns, superman, football players, Hula dancers and other deviations"?

I have never seen that in the 37 years I have been going to Church.

If our Pope has approved of this, can you provide the proof for that, and what would that approval be for, since you are not specifying what.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.

Ed, slow down, you make so many claims that I don't think I can discuss every point you bring up. So I will only discuss some of the issues with you.

> "The sacraments have all been changed, and that is one thing that even a pope cannot do. But they did it. Why would the ordination of a priest be changed to omit the power to forgive sins?. It was clearly stated, but now omitted. Consecration of a bishop changed. Words of consecration changed. And if you tell me a pope can do it, you are wrong. No pope can change the words of His Lord."

Fine, show me where our Lord says the words of ordination for a priest, or the consecration of a bishop?

> "But please, any one tell me WHY. Especially when they are watered down. When they said Novus Ordo, they sure meant it!"

So anytime words are omitted it's watered down? Would that then be a sin? You see that's where you go wrong Ed, it's not a sin to say less than before, but you make it sound like one. Saying less words, does not make it invalid. That is an extremly important point!

> "It is indeed a new church. Perhaps with a new pope. "By their fruits you shall know them" Some fruits Ha."

And your fruits are being a Protestant against the Catholic Church, and slandering the Vicar of Christ on a public forum. Those are very sad fruits Ed.

> "People dropped out by the millions after V2, The priesthood is drying up. Priest are dying off far faster than replacement."

In the west only! In 3rd world countries the faith is growing by leaps and bounds! Seminaries are full! By your accounting, the same thing should be happening there, because V2 has "watered down" the faith, as in your words. The problem is in the western world, and it's wealth, and anti-religious culture (largely the anti-religious media), and has nothing to do with V2.

> "Who elects the pope?"

The Cardinals do, as I am sure you know.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.

Gordon, you say show me. I cannot come over and wave the evidence in your face. You have got to help. Check your priest next time he says Mass Holding the cup (as the NO 's call it), he says for you and for ALL. Now go to any bible and read the last supper section. Our Lord says for MANY. Any bible will do. If you can say many means all and all means many You are better than the guy that said What is, is. Is it not a pity that we have become a nation that ministered to other continents, and now must be ministered to?.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.

> "Gordon, you say show me. I cannot come over and wave the evidence in your face."

Then I must presume it's all your opinion. I not going to accept your opinion only. You have to provide evidence in your slanderous sinful accustations against the Vicar of Christ.

The fact that Catholic faith is growing in 3rd world countries is evidence that you are wrong in your opinion. V2 is not the problem as you make it out to be.

> "You have got to help. Check your priest next time he says Mass Holding the cup (as the NO 's call it), he says for you and for ALL. Now go to any bible and read the last supper section. Our Lord says for MANY. Any bible will do."

The Bible says both are acceptable.

Two Gospels say "for many" (Mt.26:28, Mk.14:24); Luke an 1Cor.11 only say "for you".

Ed, obviously what our Lord said, and what the author of those books in the Bible wrote are not in agreement with each other. One could argue that since the authors are not sure, what does it matter.

The "for all" is Christ's intent, so do you disagree that Christ did not intend to save everyone? "The many" is the result. Both are correct, and you claim that Christ's words have been replaced is false. Look it up in the Bible for yourself. Christ clearly says "for you" twice, and one could easily argue that "you" means everyone.

> "Is it not a pity that we have become a nation that ministered to other continents, and now must be ministered to?."

Of course it's a pity, but it also destroys your argument that V2 is the problem in the West, since the 3rd world countries are having the same Mass as us.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.

Gordon, the bible says for many twice, and it does not say for all, not even once. You are presuming something that is not even there. Your agrement is weak and tendentious. You just like it to mean what you want it to, rather thanwhat it is. Those 3rd world countries were too far away and too backward to be affected by V2. Those in Europe and noth America, knew full what it meant and voted with their feet. The pope is not God and therefore is not above criticism. if you can write off all the popes before V2, what is 3 or 4 more or less. Gordon you are living in a fantasy world like Alice.If you and others are not going to fight to save our Church, you wil go down with it and the popes that uou idolize, who are leading it down that path. I love them in Christ, but I will not follow their destructive course. Humanitarian, yes indeed JP2 is, and I give him credit for that, but as a spiritual leder he is kaput.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.

The Roman Rite is the precedential and universal rite of the Church, being the rite of the Apostolic See at Rome, the rite of Sts. Peter and Paul. There are a few Eastern rites, but they not universal, but restricted to limited areas. Thus, the Roman rite is not just a rite, but the rite of the Church.

If you read any book before the Modernist period of the 20th century, you will find that this understanding is clear. It was only when the Modernists wished to change the Faith that they came up with this novel and unCatholic notion of the Mass not being dogmatic, but changeable willy-nilly at the whim of any pope. Any pope before Paul VI, including John XXIII, called that idea anathema!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.

> "Gordon, the bible says for many twice, and it does not say for all, not even once. You are presuming something that is not even there. Your agrement is weak and tendentious."

I had a feeling you would have problem with the explaination, which is not mine, but what I have read. The Bible does not just say "for many", and so you cannot claim that the Church is putting words in Christ's mouth. That's false. It also says "for you".

> "You just like it to mean what you want it to, rather thanwhat it is."

You making a mountain out of mole hill, simply because there is no sin in saying "for all", when you know perfectly well that is God intention. Even you admit, it's still a valid Mass.

> "Those 3rd world countries were too far away and too backward to be affected by V2."

That's absurd and you know it, considering one of your major arguments that many people in the West do not understand the teaching of the Eucharist.

> "Those in Europe and noth America, knew full what it meant and voted with their feet."

That's a laugh, because by saying that, you think they would all flock to the SSPX Masses, which is not happening.

> "The pope is not God and therefore is not above criticism. if you can write off all the popes before V2, what is 3 or 4 more or less."

I NEVER wrote them off, but disagree with what you are saying. I disagree with your interpretation of what they said.

> "Gordon you are living in a fantasy world like Alice. If you and others are not going to fight to save our Church,"

Another laugh, considering I always have defended my faith, and what do you think I am doing here. I am defending my faith from Protestants like you.

> "I love them in Christ, but I will not follow their destructive course. Humanitarian, yes indeed JP2 is, and I give him credit for that, but as a spiritual leder he is kaput."

All in your mind Ed.

Keep it up, as you will have me here instructing Catholics on the true faith, as I will not stand having you mislead them with your Protestant complaints.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.

Protestant Gordon?. I did not have 6 protestant ministers come to my council . They came to yours.Who never met a protestant that he didn't like?. Or any other religion for that matter. Not Lefebvre, Nope, it was JP2. Not only met with them but prayed for the coming of the Messiah with the Jews. Not Lefebvre, but JP2. And you are going to instruct in the Catholic faith?. Please Gordon come back to the Pure Mass. Note Gordon:I did not say N.O. was invalid. Just far from the best.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.

I have a question, that you seem to believe that a precedent has been set interms of the liturgy, where if a previous Pope has declared something on the liturgy, that is an infallible statement?

Does the Church rule on precedent, and are those statements on the liturgy infallible statements?

I still think that replacing "for many" with "for all", is just fine interms of the Catholic interpretation of the Bible, after all two accounts say "for you", and the Church has always made it quite clear that Christ has died for us all. All are to be included in Christ's salvation, and it's up to them if they wish to be saved.

> "I did not have 6 protestant ministers come to my council . They came to yours. Who never met a protestant that he didn't like? Or any other religion for that matter. Not Lefebvre, Nope, it was JP2. Not only met with them but prayed for the coming of the Messiah with the Jews.

And your point being? What's wrong with that?

Note, that ? marks, and ! marks, don't need a period after them, as they are fine on their own for ending a sentence.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.

Thanks fpr correcting my punctuation Gordom. See, we can always learn somSt. Pius V, MISSALE ROMANUM, De Defectibus, V

That "MANY" and "ALL MEN" do not mean the same thing, even children instinctively understand! If they did, there would have been no need to change the words at all; since the powers that be went to such lengths to do, gives rise to the probability that "All Men" was deliberately mistranslated because: the INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON ENGLISH IN THE LITURGY [ICEL] who holds the copyrights to this gem of a translation even though they slavishly accepted it from a non- Catholic German "Herr Professor," Goettingen's Joachim JEREMIAS who first, in 1963, discovered[!] that Christ's words at the Last Supper really were "This is . . . my blood . . . shed FOR ALL MEN," instead of "FOR MANY," which for nineteen and a half centuries had been accepted by ALL Scripture scholars.

And what a beaut of a "scientific" explanation the Herr Professor and his word-for-word repeating English parrots came up with! HEBREW, we are told, is a language which does not possess a word for all." "The word 'Rabbim' or 'multitude' thus served also in the INCLUSIVE sense for 'the whole,' even though the corresponding Greek and the Latin appear to have an EXCLUSIVE sense, i.e. 'the many' rather than 'the all.' Thus spoke Jeremias------not the Prophet!------in his "The Eucharistic Words of Jesus," New York, 1966, p.179-182, 229, and quoted in the ICEL's booklet "The Roman Canon in English Translation," in various editions sent to aI' English-speaking ething from someone else.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.

Among the twenty-seven dogmatic reasons cited by Cardinals OTTAVIANI and BACCI as justification for rejecting the "New Order of the Mass," the Number Eleven, dealing with "THE CHANGE IN FORMULATION," calls for our special attention. You are referred to the Ottaviani Intervention for further reading and contemplating.

Ever since the COUNCIL OF TRENT's INFALLIBLE definitions on the Mass were published in 1566 by Pope St. Pius V, codifying for all time the Mass going back to Apostolic times, no Catholic has ever questioned the Church's teaching that the proper FORM for the Consecration in the Mass------EVERY WORD OF IT NECESSARY------is:

Hoc est enim Corpus meum. FOR THIS IS MY BODY Hic est enim Calix Sánguinis FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD mei novi et æterni testaménti: OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT mystérium fidei: qui pro vobis THE MYSTERY OF FAITH et pro multis effundétur WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY In remissiónem peccatórum. UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS .

Of the THIRTY-SIX POPES who succeeded St. Pius V NOT ONE ever dared to change as much as ONE WORD in that Consecration form. And, until 1965, even the wildest liturgical revolutionaries------knowing as well as any other Catholic that the very validity of the Mass was at stake------always agreed that NO ONE, NOT EVEN A POPE, could or would ever touch the words of Consecration, or the entire Canon, for that matter. Enters the "progressive" former Pius XII-exile from Milan on the scene, and in scarcely more time than it took us to get used to a pope without a tiara, the world is told that the only Mass allowed from now on is a NEW one, with an abbreviated and, at least in some of its "official" translations, MUTILATED CONSECRATION FORM.

The peddlers of the New Mass did not miss any details either. It certainly was not just for esthetic or decorative purposes that in the past all printers of the MISSALE ROMANUM were obligated to always print the "form" of the Consecration in bold and outstanding letters. The reason behind this prescription was to even visually inculcate that, when pronouncing the words of Consecration, the priest was not just quoting certain words as part of a narrative description of an event that happened long ago, but was that moment------truIy "another Christ"------pronouncing the CONSTITUTIVE FORM of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross. And one would have to be really naive to believe that it was just "by accident" that the reformers also changed the printing type in their "Eucharistic Prayers," as they now call what used to be the "Canon of the Mass." [The below Consecration and "Eucharistic Prayer" words are a precise presentation of the original.]

Simply by placing the respective texts side by side, it is as plain as can be that the words of the "consecration"------although they no longer even use the word------in the "New Mass" are not the same as in the "old" Mass.

"THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS"

Has now become:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

Without underestimating any of the other changes, such as the replacing of what the old Mass prayers used to call "this precious Chalice" with a cafeteria-style "CUP," the alteration of prime importance is the one introduced in the final words: "For you AND FOR MANY unto the forgiveness of sins" has become "For you and FOR ALL MEN so that sins may be forgiven."

Please, my dear reader, do NOT stop reading this point! The subsequent discussion of "MANY" versus "ALL MEN" is not an exercise in futility on the part of some hairsplitting theologians seemingly getting all steamed up over mere words. On the contrary, pay double attention to the next few paragraphs, technical as they may sound, for what we are exposing in them is a diabolically clever pseudo-scientific maneuver to destroy the Catholic Mass and, with the Mass, the Catholic Church herself.

The Church's official teaching------as we already explained above----- -is very clear on the subject. "If anyone omits or changes ANYTHING in the form of the Consecration, . . . and in this change of words THE WORDS DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING," he not only commits a mortal sin, but "HE DOES NOT EFFECT THE SACRAMENT."------ St. Pius V, MISSALE ROMANUM, De Defectibus, V

Thanks for the punctuation lesson Gordon.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.

http://www.catholictradition.org/true-mass2.htm

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.

I will give you an A for effort there Ed.

> "Please, my dear reader, do NOT stop reading this point! The subsequent discussion of "MANY" versus "ALL MEN" is not an exercise in futility on the part of some hairsplitting theologians seemingly getting all steamed up over mere words."

That's the way I see it.

> "On the contrary, pay double attention to the next few paragraphs, technical as they may sound, for what we are exposing in them is a diabolically clever pseudo-scientific maneuver to destroy the Catholic Mass and, with the Mass, the Catholic Church herself."

The very same Mass that you say is valid, so I don't get you claim that the maneuver has destroyed the Mass? "for all" has not destroyed the Mass, as it's an acceptable Biblical interpretation, and the Bible also says "for you", which is easily understood as "for all".

> "The Church's official teaching------as we already explained above----- -is very clear on the subject. "If anyone omits or changes ANYTHING in the form of the Consecration, . . . and in this change of words THE WORDS DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING," he not only commits a mortal sin, but "HE DOES NOT EFFECT THE SACRAMENT."------ St. Pius V, MISSALE ROMANUM, De Defectibus, V"

Now you got me confused. "THE WORDS DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING" - well the Church is saying the words do mean the same thing, in that Christ died for all men. That has always been part of the faith.

"HE DOES NOT EFFECT THE SACRAMENT." - well if he does NOT effect the sacrament, then what's the problem?

A lot of hairsplitting if you ask me.

If the past Popes made infallible statements on this, and the current Popes also make infallible statements, then what do you believe? I have never heard from the Church that Church law is based on precedence, as it is with English Tort law.

This is order: Divine Law: No sin is being committed here. Church Law: what ever the Church decides, and if they decide we no longer have to fast on Good Friday for example, then we do not have to, regardless of any prior announcement.

Your welcome on the grammer lesson.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.

well if he does NOT effect the sacrament, then what's the problem?

If I may jump in for another grammer/vocabulary lesson here.

affect - to have an effect on; to produce a changed in; to act in a way that alters or affects the feelings of. [Which I think is what you meant by that statement.]

effect - the result of a cause of action by some agent; the power to produce some result; an impression on the senses. [Which is what the article speaks of, that no effect is taking place.]

Not trying to put my oars in this debate at present, just trying to clarify the difference between the two words.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.

Gordon, what all this comes down to is:

I will not allow this pope to get in the way of tradition.

You will not allow tradition to get in the way of this pope.

God bless you Gordon, and Isabel

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.

Ed, thank you for your reply and the blessing. I appreciate your responses, as you do discuss things in the civil manner, even though I feel you should be very careful what you say about the Pope.

> "I will not allow this pope to get in the way of tradition."

Ed, we are talking about Church law here are we not? I mean, these issues are not divine law. The Pope has the authority to change Church law, regardless of any prior announcement. Church law is not based on precedence, and if it is, I would like to know where that teaching exists.

> "You will not allow tradition to get in the way of this pope."

I don't feel that way at all, and like I have said in another thread, I consider myself a traditionalist. I have no problems at all with the old Mass, and have attended such a Mass from time to time, even though I do prefer the new Mass, but I attend the new Mass in Latin.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.

Gordon, We see these things through such different eyes, and minds.You see Jon Paul changing disciplines, and I see him trashing solemn prouncements of many popes. If the next pope comes along and wipes out the past 4 popes, where does that leave the church? It will lose all stability. God Bless you,

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.

> "If the next pope comes along and wipes out the past 4 popes, where does that leave the church?"

That has not happened, and it all depends on what. But you see V2 has been accepted by succeeding Popes, and by the laity!!! Only a tiny handful have rejected it, and so you are in the wrong. You don't have the Church on your side, and you don't have the laity.

Stability has not been lost, as it been what like 40 years since V2, and the Church is doing just fine by it. Only a tiny minority has dissented.

Ed, you know Church law is not decided on precedent, and that's why you refuse to agree with me on that. You avoid the question all together. You had a weak position all along when you quoted past Popes on Church law, forgetting that the Church can change those laws, as by it's authority given by God.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.

Gordon, 36 popes in succession, did not ouch those laws. 2 of them were saints. Paul 6 and JP 2 have changed more than the popes way back to Gregory the Great. Where did they get that wisdom? Certainly not from the Holy Ghost. You asked me the other day why all those that left did not go to Pius 10th. They didn't know about it. I did not, for a number of years.... but when I did, I went. No regrets. I have gotten the same story from dozens of people. They have no problem in recruiting candidates for the priesthood, and sisterhood. Contrast that with the "big church" As you admit they have to bring them in from other continents.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.

> "Gordon, 36 popes in succession, did not ouch those laws. 2 of them were saints. Paul 6 and JP 2 have changed more than the popes way back to Gregory the Great. Where did they get that wisdom? Certainly not from the Holy Ghost."

How do you know?

> "Contrast that with the "big church" As you admit they have to bring them in from other continents."

I realize that the traditionalists have an appeal to people, and those Catholics tend to be stronger in their faith then the average Catholic, but that does not mean you are in the right, when you dissent. It's wrong to dissent against God's Holy Church.

Those priests from other continents are "modern" priests, as you like to refer to those who were raised in the new Mass, and practice the new Mass.

I agree the Church in the West is in very bad shape, and there is a lot of problems in our Church, but it all goes hand in hand with what is going on the West. Our society as a whole has gone down the drain interms of morality, and the Western Church is full of liberals. This is a result of our anti-religious society, and the corruption of wealth. Wealth has destroyed so many civilizations in the past, why should ours be any different? Nothing to do with V2, as you are always arguing.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.

According to you Gordon, V2 is the "teflon council".Yes the 60's and on have been truly, the devil loose in the world. Bu V2 did not help matters by opening the windows at that time, to let that foul air in, and the commies lurking in bishops robes waiting their opportunities. They got them and stole the council. It was a brilliant coup.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.

> "According to you Gordon, V2 is the "teflon council"."

Ed, I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you want to debates specifics about V2, that's fine by me.

> "and the commies lurking in bishops robes waiting their opportunities."

Love to see your proof, and would like to know what they did, along with the proof for that also. This is more of your opinion. You make a lot of claims, but almost always fail to provide any proof.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.

Gordon, The proof is in the results.It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what has happened since 1962. I suppose that if you do not want to see it, you won't see it. I cannot forever show poll results. You don't believe them. I cannot show enpty semnaries to you, but they are there.Imagine how much more empty if they had not become a haven for homosexuals.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

ol.

SECOND GALLUP POLL: BELIEF IN DOGMA ON HOLY EUCHARIST

In January 1992, the St. Augustine Center Association sponsored a second Gallup poll, called "A Gallup Survey of Catholics regarding Holy Communion." This poll, which included telephone interviews of 519 U.S. Catholics during the period of December 10, 1991, to January 19, 1992, revealed that

ONLY 30% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS BELIEVE THE DE-FIDE DOGMA ABOUT THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

namely, that at Communion they are really and truly receivng the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, which is known as the Real Presence.

70% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS NOW HOLD AN HERETICAL BELIEF IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST.

Specifically,

1) 29% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that when receiving Holy Communion, they are receiving bread and wine, which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus Christ, and in so doing are expressing their attachment to His Person and words. This is the heresy of Protestant John Zwingli, who taught the false doctrine that the Mass is merely a symbolic commemoration of Christ's death.

2) 24% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that when receiving Holy Communion, they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, which has become that becuase of their personal belief. This is the heresy of Protestant John Calvin, who taught the false doctrine that the faith of the recipient transforms the bread and win intot he Body and Blood of Christ.

3) 10% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that when receiving Holy Communion, they are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus Christ is really and truly present. This is the heresy of Protestant Martin Luther, who taugh the false doctrine known as "consubstantiation," that the Body and Blood of Christ coexist with the elements of bread and wine during the Eucharist.

Fruits of Vatican 2

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Church and of Catholic society is,

for six centuries now, persevering in a mortal combat. In a slow and

systematic march forward, it has overthrown and destroyed almost all

of the catholic order, i.e. the City of God, and has made an attempt

to build the city of man in it's place. The name is "Revolution".

What does it want?

To construct an order of human life, a society and a humanity

that is devoid of God, without the Church, without Christ Our Lord,

without Revelation, solely built on human Reason, on Sensuality,

Cupidity and Pride. To attain this, it is necessary to pull down and

destroy things radically and to take the place of the Church. This

enemy is very active these days because he is certain of his victory

in the years to come. An yet, many Catholic pastors reject these

considerations with disdain as so many dreams that would have come

forth from a bad imagination. They act like the inhabitants of

Constantinople during the years which preceded the disaster: blind

people, who do not want to see the danger.

A. THE FREEMASONIC SECT

The eyes of the whole Council should be turned towards this sect.

The words of the Sovereign Pontiffs are still valid, who declared

that it's philosophy is opposed to Revelation and who denounced

it as the central weapon in the implacable war against Catholic society.

After two centuries, we can observe the results of what Pope Clement

XII indicated had been the program of this sect. Some elements on

this program are still lacking, but are presently being pushed with

great intelligence, perversity, energy and logic, and they are coming

to pass at a brisk pace. Little now lacks in the construction of the

city of man. How many years will be granted to the Church in

the "meeting of the kings of the earth"? How many years will it take

to impose the "new world order" on the world and the faithful?

These are excerpts from a bishop before V2 pleading with the council fathers to be watchful. It seems that many failed to hear the warning.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Ed, we are going over the same ground.

If V2 is the problem, it would be a world wide problem and not limited to the West only, as the modern Mass is world wide, and the seminaries are full in other countries.

I notice that you have now brought up three different groups that are the reason for V2. The Masons, the Protestants, and the Communists. A very unlikely collaboration if you ask me, but I guess you assume all these factions are not working together.

If don't want to provide proof that's fine by me, as then I will just refuse to believe what you have to say. Pray for God's Church Ed, if you want to save it, and teach people the proper teachings of the faith, but stop dissenting against the Vicar of Christ.

Sad to see, but I can't believe how many dissenters there are on this forum. I mean, having to defend the faith all the time from you guys is tiring, and I see fruitless.

I tended to avoid debates in the past with the Biblical Protestants, but now I think I am going to avoid discussions that involve the dissenting Catholics. I mean, it's sad to say, it just seems so hopeless, when you are so set in your ways.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Ditto Gordon. I see you the same way. Let's at least pray for each other.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

Ok, so just looking through all of this here, and its all really interesting. I'm a theology student on a research mission. I have NO idea about the catholic church, and i am trying to understand more about Vatican II and what was at stake for the progressive and traditional catholics. Are you at all able to shed some light?

-- Olivia Wallis (bond_007babe@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

Olivia,

You will find much information here.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Dear Olivia,

You won't learn much on the site Isabel recommended. It is a "traditionalist" site, not a Catholic site. Catholics follow the teaching of the Church, and respect the Vicar of Christ, the Pope. Self-proclaimed "traditionalists" oppose the teaching of the Church and challenge the authority of the Vicar of Christ. As such they are borderline schismatics, and not in a position to offer you much solid truth regarding the Church's current teaching, or the holy council which was instrumental in bringing such blessings into the Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Olivia,

And Paul accepts anything the Church says, even if it is contrary to prior teachings. So, Olivia, check it out, research, and see for yourself what the truth is. God brought you here for a reason.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

so as an alternative, what can you tell me. I thought that the "traditionalists" wanted to keep things "old skool" (student expression) such as the tridentine mass (am i right)

i appreciate any help with this as i really want to learn more about catholicism within christian history

-- Olivia Wallis (bond_007babe@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

No, Olivia, traditionalists just want to keep the Faith, as it was handed down through the ages, complete and undefiled. It has nothing to do with 'old school'. I am only 32! :) The Tridentine Rite does have a lot to do with it, though, but not for the sake of nostalgia. More for the sake of doctrine.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Hi Olivia !

Please do not put much faith in what Isabel tells you on this issue,unfortunately as gifted a writer as she is, she can not be trusted to provide orthodox Catholic teachings on a number of issues .

By all means do some research on your own as the history of the Catholc Church it is amongst the most intellectually rewarding and intresting fields history I have looked into but try to use credible sources not drivel like Isabel has given you. Try the online authority The Catholic enylopedia (www.newadvent.org) for starters.

Paul is true Catholic scholar and Deacon in the Church. Of course he is not always right, nor does he hold all the answers but Ive yet to see or read anything from him that is not 100% accurate and in line with Christs teachings!

I will provide you with an old post to Isabel, Ed Richards and Jake who sadly all hold a deep mistrust (in Eds case hatred) of many aspects of Church teachings since Vatican II. It may help you understand just how misguided these three "traditionalists" are.

"I will not sit back as some here are prepared to do and let you offer your “traditionalist” private judgment mindset go unchallenged- it is neither truly traditional nor rational. To me it uses a fool's and zealot's methodology, and deserves nothing but contempt and ridicule on a public Catholic forum.

The various rhetorical devices you use do far more to obscure than inform. Again, the terminology you all use is loaded and absurd, the level of understanding sadly shallow and the expression rash and imprudent

I treat you as I do all “traditionalists” simply because you operate on the same analogy of the heretics of the past, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Protestants, and Old Catholics. All of whom thought that they knew better than the will and mind of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and headed by the Holy Father-Quasi defectability

Now you guys rarely come out and say this but we have seen on this forum just how close you are prepared to go. Remember these words are all contained in recent all posts from these three folk(Jake Isabel and Ed). There plenty more of this drivel, but I found what I need quickly enough.

"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."

“the post-conciliar church and its new fangled liturgy.”

“You won't find any distractions, novelties, "innovations," or liturgical abuses at the True Mass. You will hear the real words of our Lord as He spoke them at the Last Supper. You will be able to assist while our Lord recieves the proper reverence and devotion due to Him.”

“You see, as Catholics today, according to the modern church, we are allowed to believe absolutely anything we wish, except what was taught for the first 1900 years of Christianity.”

“the New Mass advocate strives to bring God down to the level of mankind instead of raising themself up to God”

“The fruits of Vatican II are rotten. Our Lord has been uncrowned and cast aside”

“A warm fuzzy Mass where everyone can feel good about themselves while Christ sits alone in a corner ignored”

“The Novus Ordo(new mass) has made the priest more of a talk show host, with Our Lord taking a back seat, on a side altar or in another room altogether.”

“Also, the prayers of the Mass are so much more beautiful, expressing clearly what the intention is”

“Compare and see how much more uplifting the prayers in the Latin rite are.”

“I have never seen so many Novus Ordo Catholics who are so strong in the faith before now”

“VII has brought forth a new religion”

“I say the New Mass is not a mass, it's out of line with Catholic doctrine, it's a Protestant form of worship, a striking departure from all which has been taught by the Apostles and revealed to us through Our Lord. The New Mass is an abomination.”

Its hardly surprising then that Im prepared to lump your cynical, pessimistic position to the formally schismatic positions and sedevacantism. Indeed it would be easy to say it is a distinction without a difference, but I will let other posters make up their own minds.

I believe your own understanding of development of doctrine is dim and your position a false dichotomy that forces your pre conceived notions of demise of the Church. Catholics believe that our God will not let our Church in any way shape or form be destroyed. Your gloomy negative attitude and backwards approach runs contrary to a robust faith and trust in God. It also highlights a serious lack of working knowledge of past crises. You apparently blithely dismiss any counter arguments if it doesn't comply with the opinions you already are set upon, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

“The Church is from the first a thing holding its own position and point of view, quite apart from the accidents and anarchies of its age. That is why it deals blows impartially right and left, at the pessimism of the Manichean or the optimism of the Pelagian. It was not a Manichean movement because it was not a movement at all. It was not an official fashion because it was not a fashion at all. It was something that could coincide with movements and fashions, could control them and could survive them.”

CK Chesterton {The Everlasting Man, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1925, p. 228}

Or this from a conservative orthodox Catholic Dave Armstrong perhaps best sums up the change needed in misguided traditionalists.

“I do think, however, that faith and perseverance must enter in, in such troubled times. We need to understand that Church history shows this pattern repeatedly; that even the early Church had tremendous scandal and hypocrisy, and - above all - that the Church is indefectible. That's why I remain forever an optimist. I acknowledge that modernism is rampant (one only has to be awake to do that). I deny that it can ever overthrow the Church. One must have faith. Read Job, for Pete's sake. I would have thought that this was elementary. Tough times afflict the Church as well as the individual. It is to be expected. Why does it surprise you? Liberalism, heterodoxy, and unbelief is never a surprise, but a Church which remains orthodox despite all is perpetually a delightful and heartening "surprise." The glory of the Church (like that of the saints) is not that it has no problems, but that it always sees a way through the problems. It always conquers them. Heresy has no life of its own, so it always fails eventually, while the Church marches on (as in Chesterton's marvellous reflections on "orthodoxy"). It does so because it is God's own Church, and God cannot fail (therefore His Church can't and won't, either). History offers ample illustration that the heretics always eventually disappear, or at least greatly diminish in influence. The Church will survive. In fact, the beginning signs of coming revival are plain already, if one would simply maintain a little hope and optimistic faith that God is in control.”

God Bless Olivia and please feel free to start a new question thread if you have any other questions on any aspect of our faith.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

This may take us off track a bit, but it just sort of bothers me...

"And Paul accepts anything the Church says, even if it is contrary to prior teachings."

"No, Olivia, traditionalists just want to keep the Faith, as it was handed down through the ages, complete and undefiled."

This is borderline, if not full fledge, Protestantism, is it not? I mean, that's what they wanted to do; keep the "church" complete and undefiled.

It all boils down to the Authority of the Church. You either accept it, in which case you accept the Pope and his teachings (which by the way Christ intended), or you don't accept the Pope and his teachings. One cannot get by with saying, well 92.5% of his teachings are correct, but 7.5% are not. According to who? I mean, you might as well be a protestant, claiming to know something the Church doesn't. By who's authority do you speak? Your own? Or are you Spirit led, like all 30,000 protestant denoms. Or is it in the Bible? OOOoooo. If you can interpret the Bible better than the Church, then who are you to say that Luther didn't have the right one either!

Okay, traditionalists. Why do you accept the Church's teaching on the Eucharist, yet reject her teaching on the mass? It completely stumps me. If you believed Pope Paul VI, why reject Pope John Paul II? Has the Church all of a sudden lost her authority? Was not John Paul given the same key that Paul VI carried?

If you believe that the Catholic Church could possibly become corrupt, then you are no better than the Protestants!

This Church will never be corrupt. EVEN if all her members become corrupt to the marrow, She will never corrupt.

It just seems so simple to me? Why are traditionalists afraid of the Church becoming corrupt? Sheesh! I mean, they better take a long look into history and realize that it's been 2000 years (well, according to traditionalists 1963 years; and according to protestants 1500 years - but they'll tell you the Church corrupted right after it began, it only took them a little while to correct it).

If you accept the Church up until the 1960's there's no reason beyond foolishness to believe that it all of a sudden became corrupt.

Either,

1) the Pope is not really a pope - in which case Christ was a liar and all the other Popes were fake too. If you believe that JPJ is the only fake pope, than Catholicism is phony because the Church was built on a Pope (Peter). Or are we just taking a 30 year break?

2) the Pope is indeed the Pope, but he's errored on several (or few) doctrines, in which case again Catholicism is a phony - because Christ’s Church was promised the guidance of the Spirit. And it is just silly give yourself the authority to judge that Pope Paul VI was real but John Paul II is not, or that one docrine of JPJ's is legit but another is not. If you believe he has the authority for one, then you better believe he has the authority for the other.

or 3) We are the True Church, united under one earthly Leader, the Pope. And that Pope was promised the Spirit by God. And the gates of hell will not prevail over her. In this case, then as long as you are with her you are free from worries.

Last couple of off topic questions: Did you worry when Peter led the Church (he denied Christ 3 times!). If not, why worry with Pope John Paul? Did you scroutinize all 264 popes before Pope John Paul II? If not you better get going on it. Because if he could goof up, then all 264 might have. What a historic Pope. Out of 265 popes over 2000 years, he's the only one to teach something against what others have taught.

Unlikely.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Well, and so it begins! Olivia, you will see that I often get attacked for being a Catholic, but that is OK. I take heart in it. Christ himself warned that we would be despised by the world. I can truly say, that I don't think anyone is quite so despised as traditional Catholics. I only hope to please Him by my persistency in the Truth. Study, and you will learn. Kiwi did list a good site for you to look at. I often go the newadvent.com for research. But there are other good sites out there as well, not to be ignored. Check out both sides, see for yourself. I have been on both sides of the fence, and can honestly say, that never have I felt more peace then when I am on the 'right' side of the fence.

Kiwi, you were unjust to post individual quotes, without posting the author of the quotes. You only generalized as to who they were written by, and no one who is new here will know how to attribute those. I trust in the future you will be more fair and just in your use of quotes. Paul is genuine, and very knowledgeable, I will agree with you on that. We disagree on the fact that I find it very capable that the Church is influenced by Modernism even to the hierarchy, he does not seem to believe that to be the case. We also disagree on the fact that he thinks that the understandings of doctrine and dogma can evolve. (It appears you do, as well.) I do not. It has been stated infallibly that the meanings of dogmas, when defined, are to be the meanings kept in perpetuity. The 'evolution' of dogma was denounced in the Syllabus of Errors. You say I denounce any evidence to the contrary, well, I could say the same for you. I have posted many, many, many infallible statements to back my positions, all gone unheeded. Wonderful quote by Dave Armstrong! I agree completely. I have complete faith in God, and know that He will keep his promise to us. How long he will let this last, only He knows. But in the end, the Immaculate Heart of His mother will triumph.

Jake, Ah, you have twisted my words. I said "Faith", not "Church". How is that Protestant? To want to keep the Faith of our Fathers complete and undefiled? To want to keep it pure? To not want Modernism to infect it? Protestant? It is a bit funny that when all else fails, "That's Protestant!" It is getting a bit old, though. You must come up with a new argument.

One cannot get by with saying, well 92.5% of his teachings are correct, but 7.5% are not. Absolutely we can, if that is the case. If his teachings are not faithful to infallible doctrine, then we *must* reject it.

? I mean, you might as well be a protestant, claiming to know something the Church doesn't. There's that argument again! :) One must only know how to read to be able to discern the truth. It has been laid out very nicely for all to see in the infallible statements of the Church.

Why do you accept the Church's teaching on the Eucharist, yet reject her teaching on the mass? I don't reject her teachings on the Mass, because Quo Primum (sp?) has never been abrogated, nor can it ever be. I wish to worship in the same manner as all the glorious saints, because it is tried and true.

If you believed Pope Paul VI, why reject Pope John Paul II? I have never, nor will I ever, reject the Supreme Pontiff. I only reject those things not in accordance with the Deposit of Faith. Again, one has only to know how to read to know what the Deposit of Faith is.

Has the Church all of a sudden lost her authority? Absolutely not. And she never will, in all things in accordance with the Deposit of Faith.

If you believe that the Catholic Church could possibly become corrupt, then you are no better than the Protestants! That's the third time for that argument! :) But this time, the third time is not a charm. :) If you don't believe that members, even hierarchy, of the Church can become corrupt, then you need to read Pascendi. Why would St. Pius X have been so adamant about fighting Modernism within the ranks of the Church, if it were so impossible? Quote from Pascendi: That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, You may read the full text here.

This Church will never be corrupt. EVEN if all her members become corrupt to the marrow, She will never corrupt. Here I agree with you 100%!!!! :)

Why are traditionalists afraid of the Church becoming corrupt? It is not a fear of the Church becoming corrupt, because, as we have just agreed the Church itself can never be so. It is a fear of the loss of souls, that because of Modernism (heresy) being taught, even at high levels, many well-meaning souls will be led into the belief of these heresies. Another quote from Pascendi: Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt.

If you accept the Church up until the 1960's there's no reason beyond foolishness to believe that it all of a sudden became corrupt. I accept the Church now, with my whole heart and soul, with all I have. I don't think all was hunky-dory up until the 1960's. Modernism was creeping in way before then. Now it is just a full-fledged open warfare assault. I mourn for the loss of souls that may ensue. And I pray that I, nor my children, may become infected by this Modernism. At times, I find myself accepting things, that when I research and read a bit more, I find out that that idea was pushed by the Modernists. It is so scary, because the lies are enveloped in the truth, therefore, so easy for one to be led astray. From the First Vatican Council: The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.

And I reject all three of your proposals. I am Catholic! I love Holy Mother Church! I accept the Supreme Pontiff and pray for him daily. I reject those things contrary to doctrine and dogma. But I am also sad, that those things once condemned, are now so acceptable. I pray for a complete restoration of faith among the clergy and faithful, including, of course, myself, since I am in much need of the mercy of God.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Hi Isabel can you remember which quotes are yours ;-)? Fair enough point though, when I get time Ill let you know which ones belong to you.

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

Isabel,

what is so wrong with modernism? I fail to understand your fear(?) of it. Surely the Church (whether Catholic or Protestant)needs to aline itself with contemporary society, otherewise it will be view as archaic and irrelivant. Just an observation

Olivia

-- Olivia Wallis (bond_007babe@hotmail.com), March 25, 2003.

Ah, Olivia, but we cannot serve two masters. We cannot keep up with the world and still serve God, because the world is moving ever faster away from God. Our Church doctrine is infallible, it is unchanging. It cannot change to meet current 'world' standards. And if there is an attempt to change it to meet current standards, then let those be anathema. They have just served the devil by doing so. Modernists desire nothing more than to distort the truth, to the loss of faith, and ultimately the ruin of the Church. We know by the promise of God that the Church will endure until the end of time, but He never promised in what capacity, He never promised roses and sunshine. There is much being put to the test, I only hope to pass it.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

But the Church isn't changing to "meet" social standards, rather to combat it and provide guidance to those who find themselves confused.

-- Olivia Wallis (bond_007babe@hotmail.com), March 25, 2003.

Read the full text of Pascendi, the link of which I have provided above, and you will see how much of that is accepted in the Church today by many people. The way to combat confusion, is to hold fast to our faith and traditions.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

"what is so wrong with modernism? I fail to understand your fear (?) of it. Surely the Church (whether Catholic or Protestant)needs to aline itself with contemporary society, otherewise it will be view as archaic and irrelivant. Just an observation"

Wow, Olivia. Hey, you all see that?

This time I would like to see all those besides the faithful servant- of-God Isabel here answer this question for Olivia. I have to hand it to Olivia for asking an honest question.

I want to see you people answer this question for Olivia, in light of Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pope Saint Pius X. You guys did read that one, right?

I'm off to work. I expect some results when I get home. =)

Hey Isabel, lol, let's let them do the work of explaining this to Olivia. This I gotta see.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 25, 2003.

You know, Emerald, I had been told long ago about how the Catholic monarchy was the best form of government. But I never could fully accept it, being the Patriot that I am. I still consider myself a 'patriot', but reading Pascendi is what finally fully convinced me of the Catholic monarchy being the way to go.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

King Louis 9th of France was the ideal of a Holy Monarch. It is too bad that those who followed did not have that same faith. Perhaps the revolution would have been avoided. The Masons could have been stopped and V2 could not have happened. Wishful thinking.

-- Ed Richards (loztr@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

> "The Masons could have been stopped and V2 could not have happened."

Ask Ed to provide proof for this. He has none. Ed has also claimed that V2 is a result of Protestants and Communists. Let's keep track here: Masons, Protestants, and Communists. That's quite a bunch to try and appease with V2, considering all those groups are as much against each other, then for each other.

Ed "proof" is how the faith is doing the West, but the faith is thriving in the 3rd world. It arrogance to think that only the West matters, when there are far more Catholics in the 3rd world.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

"And I reject all three of your proposals. I am Catholic! I love Holy Mother Church! I accept the Supreme Pontiff and pray for him daily. I reject those things contrary to doctrine and dogma."

Wow! So what's the beef? I don't get it. Pope John Paul II has never altered anything previously deemed doctrine or dogma. If you can prove this, then you just disproved Catholicism. The Holy Pontif can never make a doctrinal error, this is one of the many gifts granted to our Church through the Holy Spirit. The Pope is infallible with regard to faith and morals, and outside of faith and morals there is no "dogma or doctrine".

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

I don't get you folks. You easily cast aside the anathema declarations of 3 popes even though you are jeopardizing your soul. Yet you swear by the documents of 4 popes, who NEVER,NEVER, have made one anathema prounouncement in 45 years. Amazing!!!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Ave MARIA IMMACULATA. Dear Friends, "......Any Council called to make drastic changes in the Church is beforehand decreed to be void and annulled." --Pius II, Execrabilis. Easily the V2, stands annulled by the above Decree. In any case , according to the Promises of Our Lord JESUS to the Holy souls like Rev.Fr. Albert Drexel all the wrongs will be set right here on this earth. We may have some Pope who will bring back the Tradition and condemn the Modernist V2 and its managers. A. M. D. G. R. Arul Gnana raj.

While I am not willing to afirm this as a concrete belief there seems to be evidence of it in Bible prophecy. If you look at Apocalypse 12, it speaks of the Virgin Mary (but in a figurative sense the Church) in the Apocalypse 12:1, and Apocalypse 12:2 speaks of a child she delivers who was to "rule with and iron rod." This could be speaking of Jesus Christ, but it also could speak of the "child of the Church" which certainly sounds like Cardinal Siri. He has already "gone to God and His throne."

The woman (the Church) fled into the desert (Apocalypse 12:14)and the serpent attacked by sending a flood out of his mouth (Apocalypse 12:15). Think of the "flood" of documents that followed the second Vatican Council, all those wishy-washy words that could be esily misinterpreted - the endless flood of encyclicals that seem to never say anything concrete, but contain numerous problemmatic statements.

Does anybody have any thoughts on my exegesis?

Something sent to me in my e mail... Ed

-- Ed Richards (loztr@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

II, D.717 Ecumenical Councils do not need to defend the truth. CH:162, 1994 17. Evolution of dogma and doctrine is condemned. St. Pius X, P:12-27 Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve. EDA

Note different teachings. Pius X Evolution of dogma and doctrnes is condemned.

Dogmas and doctrines grow ad evolve. Jhn Paul 2

Who do you believe? Obviously contradictory statements.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Jake,

The Holy Pontif can never make a doctrinal error, this is one of the many gifts granted to our Church through the Holy Spirit. The Pope is infallible with regard to faith and morals, and outside of faith and morals there is no "dogma or doctrine".

Part of this is correct, such as when you say the Pope cannot make a doctrinal error. He cannot, when defining doctrine of the Church, make an error. But all his teachings are not thus protected. Overall, you have a very errant opinion on what papal infallibility means. Have you ever studied it? Well, no better time than the present. I will post a few quotes for you to get you started.

Definition of papal infallibility from the First Vatican Council:

We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

And just to please you, I pulled this short explanation from a pro- Vatican II website:

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals........often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

A Pope, college of bishops, or a council is only *guaranteed* infallibility when defining doctrine. One would hope that when they teach, as well, it would always be in conformity with doctrine, but if it is not, then we should *REJECT*. Not reject the pope or the Church, but reject the errant teaching.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

wickedness of men Holy Church will be in darkness, the Lord will also send darkness that will stop the wicked in their search of wickedness. . . " On November 27, 1902 and May 10, 1904, Our Lord and Our Lady announced the conspiracy to invent the "New Mass": «I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas and under the influence of the enemy of souls a MASS that contains words that are ODIOUS in My sight.» «When the fatal hour arrives when the faith of my priests is put to the test, it will be (these texts) that will be celebrated in this SECOND period... The FIRST period is (the one) of my priesthood which exists since Me. The SECOND is (the one) of the persecution when the ENEMIES of the Faith and of Holy Religion (will impose their formulas) in the book of the second celebration.. These infamous spirits are those who crucified me and are awaiting Tthe kingdom of THE NEW MESSIAH.» Marie-Julie announced the three days of darkness during which the infernal powers will be loosed and will execute all the enemies of God. "The crisis will explode suddenly; the punishments will be shared by all and will succeed one another without interruption... "( January 4, 1884).

Came across this from blessed julia Jehenny. She seems to be speaking first about period 1900-1950 and then 1950-2000. Could that 3 days of darkness be closer than we think. This Iraq thing could well blossom into WW3.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

LaSalette, France, 1846--Approved

In 1846, twelve years before Lourdes, France, two children, Melanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud, saw a shimmering apparition of a woman weeping. She spoke to them about many things that upset her Son. She warned of a coming famine, but that before the food shortage, many of the young children of the area would die of a serious disease. She said, "If you do not convert, I am unable to hold back the hand of God." Our Blessed Mother, in one famous version of the so- called "secret of LaSalette," revealed that "Lucifer was unleashed in 1864. The Church would be severely attacked and the monster [communism] would be unleashed at the end of the Nineteenth or beginning of the Twentieth Century. Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist, and the Church will be in eclipse. Many chastisements are predicted, the Antichrist will be defeated, fire will purge the earth and consume all the work of men's pride, and all will be renewed." She called upon "the children of light, the few who can see, the true disciples of the living God, the true followers of Christ, the faithful of the last days to come out and fill the world with light, and to fight. For now is the time of all times, the end of all ends."

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

"But all his teachings are not thus protected."

I agree. I did not state otherwise. And I have studied the meaning of "infallibility".

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Ed R. You referred to someone as "blessed julie jehenny."
Actually, there was a woman named "Marie-Julie Jahenny," who claimed to have received private revelations. She is NOT referred to as "blessed," and I don't believe that the Catholic Church has judged her statements as "worthy of belief." Therefore, I recommend against quoting her publicly, as though she were someone upon whom we could rely.

Hello, Isabel. In speaking to Jake H, you wrote:
"Overall, you have a very errant opinion on what papal infallibility means. Have you ever studied it? ... A Pope, college of bishops, or a council is only *guaranteed* infallibility when defining doctrine."

I think that the forms of infallibility should be explained a bit more fully:
1. papal (pope, on his own, formally defines a doctrine)
2. conciliar (ecumenical council formally defines a doctrine, and pope ratifies the definition)
3. universal and ordinary (college of bishops, in their home dioceses around the world, teach [in an informal, ordinary way] a doctrine, in union with pope).

I believe that the great majority of Catholic doctrines fall under form #3. But, very many Catholics have no idea that form #3 of infallibility even exists. They wrongly think that any doctrine not formally defined under form #1 or #2 is eligible for rejection/dissent. Then, when they reject a "form #3 doctrine," they effectively become "protestants."

Isabel, you then stated: "One would hope that when they ['pope, college of bishops, or council'] teach, as well, it would always be in conformity with doctrine, but if it is not, then we should *REJECT*. Not reject the pope or the Church, but reject the errant teaching."

We "should *REJECT*" you say? By all means, we should "reject ... errant teaching." But that raises the question, "How do we know that a teaching is errant?"

None of us is qualified to judge the teaching of a "pope, college of bishops, or council" as "errant." In fact, we are to assume the opposite -- that each of their "teachings" is dependable. We are to loyally submit and give our assent to every "teaching" of a "pope, college of bishops [in union with the pope], or council."

And here, I think, we see the crux of the problem related to "Catholic traditionalism." I see four groups of people involved here:
1. There are many outstanding Catholic "traditionalists" -- for example, folks who are led by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. They believe as they should, and they assist at licit Masses. These people are in full communion with the Church.
2. There are some "schismatic traditionalists" -- people who believe all of the Church's doctrines, but who fail to give the required complete submission to the disciplinary/binding powers of the pope. They assist at illicitly celebrated Masses. These people have excommunicated themselves.
3. There are some "heretical traditionalists". These fall into two sub-groups.
----- a. people who reject one or more of the Church's doctrines, but attend licit Masses of the older rite.
----- b. people who reject one or more or the Church's doctrines and also fail to give due obedience to the pope by assisting at illicitly celebrated Masses.
These people are actually a form of "protestant." Group "a" physically eats away at the Church from inside, and group "b" fires missiles at the Church from outside. These people are not in communion with the Church, though those in group "a" make it appear that they are in communion. [Those in group "a" are very similar to so-called "progressives" that protest Church teaching on contraception, but they just have a different list of doctrines that they protest.]

It appears to me that Frank Someone and Chris Butler are in group #1.
It appears to me that no one who regularly visits the forum is in group #2.
It appears to me that Emerald is in group #3.a.
It appears to me that everyone else is in group #3.b (Ed R, Isabel, Jake-1, Regina).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 28, 2003.