SSPX is off the board to the right. Ultra liberal are off the board to the left.

Most of us fall somewhere in between.

Are we all Christians? Yes.

We argue about our METHODS of worship, not our intent.

I'm tired of arguing.

God Bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 02, 2003

Answers

I'm tired of arguing.

You brought it up.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 02, 2003.

Jake writes:

"You brought it up."

LOL!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003.

We argue about our METHODS of worship, not our intent.

Actually, the intent is lined up in the cross hairs, dead center. I say the new intent is the Citadel of Man.

I'm tired of arguing.

Often, but not always, this happens when truth is within reach.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.

Richard John Neuhaus brought up a very useful point in his latest edition of First Things: he mentioned that the Church is divided into 3 groups, not 2 and that the political Left/Right description is not accurate because both the liberals and the SSPX claim that the Vatican Council II was a radical break from all that went on before, rather than the flourishing and organic development of the truth...

So he divides the Church into those who are "continuants" and those who are "discontinuants" - the Pope and those who are faithful to his magisterium (i.e. who actually read and follow what he teaches) are "continuants" - this would include all the modern lay movements, and a majority of bishops and orders. But those who claim that Vatican II was either a rupture and rebellion from truth (SSPX) or who claim it was a revolution and breakaway from the "bad old days" (liberals), make up the fringe "discontinuants".

Personally, I think he's put into words what I've always felt in my heart: the SSPX and pro-sexual promiscuity crowd are mirror images of each other not opposites. Both lack faith, and both miss the forest for the trees. Both use language which is more heat than light, more passion than sylogism and more "post hoc ergo propter hoc" than logic.

Neither obey the Pope in principle. The one claims to obey past popes against the current occupant, while the other claims to obey "future popes" more to their liking... Both give alarming examples of doubt in the action and effectiveness of the Holy Spirit working in the souls of men.

Pace John Placette... you are right that methods (or better, "rubrics") are not as essential as intent... however, based on OT and NT and Church understanding of the economy of salvation in which God has chosen certain signs and things to be used by men in the proper worship of Him... intent alone is not enough.

It's a matter of Big T and little t "traditio", and local customs as opposed to proper Rites authorized by the authority of the Church which does have the authorization to bind or loosen...

The sacraments do have intrinsic grace - regardless of the virtue of the minister and regardless of the excellence of the liturgy, singing, architecture, and props. That's why there are 7 major rites in the Catholic Church, only one of which (Latin) has ever celebrated sacraments along the Tridentine lines.... if you focus on the rubrics to the exclusion of the divine Mystery, you really sell yourself short.

Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist properly offered, no matter what language is used or what high or low liturgy you put on. Worship him. Console Him. Accompany Him. Let Him know you are willing to not just die for him, but above all....LIVE FOR HIM.

He is hidden in this world - He's disguised in that co-worker who annoys us. He's crying out in that young woman who always looks stressed on the Metro. He is entombed in that arrogant SOB we despise for his pride and vanity... How shall I serve Him and His Kingdom by letting someone's poor Latin or off key singing distract me?

Just a thought.

Pax vobiscum fraters mihi

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.

Hi Joe,

Great post! BTW, are you from Washington, DC? You mentioned the "Metro."

God bless!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003.

Hey Mateo,

Yep, best in the world! (Although my wife says Moscow's is a close second, and by far more beautiful).

If you're ever in the area look me up. On sunny day's it'd be great to have a frisbee game on the Mall.

Peace

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.

Joe, You said it with knowledge, compassion and grace. AMEN,MY BROTHER! God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 02, 2003.

It seems Richard John Neuhaus is describing nothing more than a hegelian process.

Personally, I think he's put into words what I've always felt in my heart: the SSPX and pro-sexual promiscuity crowd are mirror images of each other not opposites.

Who hasn't thought of this? Take the SSPX out of it and look at just those who think the post-conciliar Church is a departure from the Catholicism of ages. Without being armed with an organizational title, an entry in the Acta and a couple letters, how would you answer them?

I mean, what exactly is it that you would wish to sell them?

Both lack faith, and both miss the forest for the trees.

Some do, but I don't think I have. If so, I would like someone to lay it out. I would also like someone to show me how I lack faith.

Both use language which is more heat than light, more passion than [syllogism] and more "post hoc ergo propter hoc" than logic.

I don't know about that; I've been trying to get someone to lay out the exact operative principles behind the proper assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, complete with supporting evidence, but nobody seems to want to do it or is even able to lay it out. That's where the crux of the matter is for real and justifiable traditionalists holding the line... case in point:

Neither obey the Pope in principle.

Like I said, not confining traditionalism to the SSPX... what is it that is not "being obeyed"? Like what?

The one claims to obey past popes against the current occupant...

Again, what is being ordered and not being obeyed? Forget the progressives; who really cares what they think anyways.

Both give alarming examples of doubt in the action and effectiveness of the Holy Spirit working in the souls of men.

I never did this to my recollection. I don't see traditionalist doubting the "effectiveness of the Holy Spirit". This sounds like a kind of something that's just thrown out there that really doesn't apply.

I don't think any of this really points out how general traditionalists, who see elements of Vatican II as breaking in part from the Catholicism of the ages, are disobeying anything that requires absolute assent.

Why would anyone care anyways? After all, there's salvation outside the Church now in some "mysterious relationship".

So what difference does it make?

Whip out Pascal's wager... the wager weighs in on the traditionlist side. That's the minimalist's approach though... not something I would be satisfied with, but hey, why isn't it good enough for people to get started in the direction of real understanding?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.

We are what you once were.

We believe what you once believed.

We worship as you once worshipped.

If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

If you were right then, we are right now.

(Author unknown.)

This sums it all up .

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Ed writes: "Author unknown."

I believe the author is Jewish! LOL!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 03, 2003.

In my limited experience with "traditionalists" their "arguments" are more heat than light because like certain protestants they hunt for "proof texts" taken out of context and used in place of arguments.

They also ommit any mention of fundamental facts of the Church, such as its system of "rites".

Come on now, you know as well as I that 99% of all "traditionalists" are members of the Latin Rite. Most of the ones I've spoken with ignore the other 6 major rites in the Catholic Church.

If you posit that the Church is composed of only one rite (tridentine Latin) and that therefore rubrics for this rite were valid in the 1500's, the of course, the burden of proof would fall on those who wish to make any change....

But if you realize that liturgical rites are not sacrosanct and insuperable - and neither is language (Hebrew, then Greek, then Latin, then the modern languages...), and you read the actual history of Papal and Council authority with respect to the "way" which the sacraments are imparted and the "way" that catechism etc. were lived... you get a whole new set of facts which makes "traditionalists" not so "traditional"!

Look, I happen to like Gregorian chant. But I've heard very reverent and beautiful English hymns sung at Charismatic Catholic masses. It's not the language or musical style that's intriniscally vital, but its effect: people being reverent, being focused on the divine mystery, praying as they sing....

Ditto with the "bells and smells". I've been in Papal Masses with all the bells and whistles - the incense, the choir, etc. great. But I've also had the same moving sensation at simpler masses...

To what degree are we making the "show" aspects the core as opposed to the spiritual/intellectual aspects?

Tridentine Masses are beautiful. Nuns wearing habits are great. But guess what guys? The Church in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America gathered in the Vatican in 1962 to ask themselves why it was possible that the Church with all these props and nice things was still loosing the culture war to Communism and atheistic western materialism... why were we losing vast swaths of lay leaders in the fields of science, psychology, communications, art, education, etc.?

How is it possible that with the Tridentine Mass being sung on altars throughout the world, and Catholics apparently nodding obediently in the pews, that Europe could have suffered 2 world wars, and be on the verge of another (in 1962)?

Obviously rite and language and uniform was not to blame - neither was dogma or doctrine. The Church realized that it was just not energizing and taking advantage of the forces of the laity as best it could...

Look I hate these stupid discussions about re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic... when the ship itself is sinking you don't squabble about smells and bells. But Liberals and "traditionalists" are all about appearances and feelings (I feel good at clown masses...I feel good at Tridentinte Masses... I feel good with Sr Mary Ellen Battleaxe wearing civi's....I feel good to see Sr Mary Joseph wearing that habit... I feel good hearing the guitar and tamboreen....i feeeeeeeeel good hearing Gregorian chant (which is never translated)....

FEELINGS! Meanwhile what is the Liberal Left doing to stop abortion? zippo. What is the "traditionalist Right" doing to convert the rich and powerful? zippo. They're unwittingly drawing themselves into culturally ineffective ghettos.

That being said, of course, those who are prone to schism at least don't scandalize children and lead them into sins of the flesh... (sins of the spirit are another thing altogether). I don't doubt that when given the choice between Fr Joe weak-wristed liberal and Fr John hard-nose conservative, you'd do better with Fr John.

But the point of Christ's Kingdom is to conquer the world - to make disciples of "all the nations" - all cultures, all levels, all professions... everyone taught "all his commands"....

And you're just not gonna get there by focusing on the bark or leaves rather than the forest and its purpose!

Sorry if this sounds strident. It's just that we're fighting a WAR precisely because the Church fumbled the ball for the last 40 years with stupid controversies between Liberals and "traditionalists" neither of whom want to read Vatican II and take the scary step of faith into the holiness that is demanded of Catholic laity: counter- cultural leadership.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Well, I see and understood everything you said Joe. I used look at traditionalists the same way until I became one; what's more, in becoming a traditionalist there is not one thing that someone can pin me down on to show that I have in any way departed from the Catholic Church; not one.

But it isn't about the smells and bells, and it is absolutely not about feelings. It's completely about doctrine and the the lost understanding of the gut essence of Catholicism. There's quite a few perceptions of Catholic reality that are lost, the non-fat ones, and even more reduced-fat Catholic truths that are pushed around as the fullness of the Faith.

Other rites are suffering the same losses. I've been to the Ruthenian Rite a number of times. The beautiful elements are certainly not lost, and it is quite an experience. But guess what? They are experiencing the same losses of doctrinal understanding. Just because many have their liturgies in tact is not at all an confirmation that their doctrinal understanding is intact... that's what I've discovered.

It is absolutely not about the smells and bells, about a particular rite, or about feelings. It's about doctrinal degredation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 03, 2003.

Here's what I mean:

...the Church fumbled the ball for the last 40 years with stupid controversies between Liberals and "traditionalists" neither of whom want to read Vatican II and take the scary step of faith into the holiness that is demanded of Catholic laity: counter- cultural leadership.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that counter-cultural leadership is the essence of holiness? Because I that's been my chief gripe on this forum all along; it has been my number-one all out complaint. That's not how souls are saved and it doesn't have much to do with holiness. But it is, imho, the essence of the modernist thrust in the Church. The corresponding lost Catholic element of holiness is diametrically opposed to leadership... it is service, not leadership. While the counter-cultural part makes sense, one would do better than leadership to don the hairshirt mentality and fall back on the Eucharist as the sole source of salvation that it is. The efforts of man, which are inadequate for salvation, are all to often wrapped into the formulation of "Catholic success". They have little to offer for the success of the agenda of the Kingdom of God, because it aint here. It's there. God does the saving, not us, and when we participate we do so as servants and not leaders.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 03, 2003.

Look Emerald, I don't mean to be snide or rude. We're friends.

You are right that the Left is weak on doctrine and history. This ignorance makes them defenseless against the Zeitgheist of sexual promiscuity and hypocritical moral relativism (hypocritical because it's "tactical" not strategic relativism).

And you may be right in noting that the chief problem of Vatican II was that those churchmen who left the council and returned to their churches did not implement it - instead they followed the culture's spin and lead and thus led an entire (North American and European) block into wishy-washiness...

That's all true. But did the Traditionalists save the day by rescuing - Like Karol Wojtyla - the actual texts and teaching of the council and energizing the laity to evangelize? no.

Not that I blame "them" - most Traditionalists are victims of scandal, blind-sided parents whose trust (and children) were betrayed by namby-pamby moral and intellectual light-weights.

But the problem was not Vatican II - but the Liberal's lies. And the solution is not rejection of Vatican II but only of those lies while simultaneously implementing the sane teachings.

This is because Jesus Christ did not found a church composed of people who were to be very pious souls whose lives were to revolve around the Temple worship (the best liturgy in the world up to then).

The early Church DID go often to the Temple and they did live a very tight knit community life for a while... but after the persecutions of the world and Pentecost, and the conversion of us gentiles... they began to convert the pagan culture.

It wasn't either/or. Either pious or apostolic. No. That's simplistic and just plain wrong. It's aut aut. Both. Ora et labora. Pray and work.

But what is our work? People in ghettos and walled cities work. But they put limits on what Holiness means. They put limits on where the Holy Spirit can lead - and this leads them to stifle anyone who tries to go beyond the confines of comfort and security.

Christ did not in fact preach a bunker mentality. (And besides, its a truism that the best defense is a good offense).

In His teaching on Judgement day, Our Lord didn't say being saved was a matter of feeling good about liturgy, acts of piety and living in nice little safe ghettos away from the evil-doers.

Of course it's great to live in a safe neighborhood and attend a parish were everyone is fervent, the homilies are solid, and everyone respectful... but how do you expand such a little Eden? If by Traditionalist methods it'll take centuries. If by Vatican II methods (as opposed to Liberal) you win converts en masse in a coordinated and methodical way, winning the leaders and then the masses.

That's how virtually all the European countries were converted to the Faith and that's how such powerhouses as Korea were ignited...

Jesus founded a Church on the apostles (ones who are sent) and commanding these authoritative teachers to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all his commands, for all time.

Yes, of course this includes having safe families and marriages, gathering with like-minded souls to pray and relax, etc. But it's not reduced to that.

And while watching and praying was essential (lest they fall into temptation) merely watching and praying was not enough.

Thus, the Traditionalists are fine people. I'd take a traditionalist pastor over a liberal any day. To the extent they save people and families in their circle of wagons, I regard them as protecting little reservations for some future break-out...

But Catholicism is not "traditionalism" - just maintaining the status quo or the status quo ante. It's about converting people. We still haven't made disciples of all nations!

And holiness is not the equivalent of piety. Holiness means being reserved for God and His will - in your thoughts, in your imagination, in your use of time, in your use of talents, with respect to others...

SOME INDIVIDUALS of course are called to contemplate and pray. Some people are called to live simple lives and focus on just being good parents and citizens....but the Church qua Church must not seek to merely cope with the culture and stay behind walls...

Our job is to storm the gates! Look - how in the world did Hollywood go pagan? Pagans moved out there, got involved, helped each other out, and viola! took over. Why in the world should we just heave a sigh of disgust and leave them be?

Or Politics. How in the world did the Democrats go pagan? It happened because Catholic Americans became "American Catholics".

Wouldn't good Catholic movies (movies that implicitly and explicitly glorify marriage, fidelity, honor, etc.) help evangelize our world?

But you're not going to convert the world by staying home.

Look at what Christ and his followers called themselves in the beginning: the way, the truth, the life... the Way (meaning this group has a clear moral code) and the Good News (meaning that this group has a clear message of hope)....

Christians were living in a pagan world - and they understood their holiness as a witness of Christ and His Gospel. "Martyrion" is Greek for "witness" not "guy who gets killed".

Pro-Lifer's picketing an Abortion clinic are witnesses - counter- cultural witnesses. So are those who run homes for unwed mothers... so are those who run outreach to heal people enslaved by their passions of lust or sustance abuse...

Apologists who engage culture, science, bioethics, business etc. are witnesses to the truth of the Gospel... holiness isn't piety. Piety is an element of it, but not = to holiness.

Look at all the new church movements - (begining with Catholic Action back in the 1880's) - Catholic lay people are expected to pray and frequent the sacraments and parish activities often... but not AS AN END IN ITSELF. They are to take this inner Catholic culture and share it in their workplace, in their civic lives, in their vacation time, door to door and through their art, music, literature, politics, business....

While you're busy circling the wagons - which is your preogative, I'm putting my trust in the Holy Spirit and riding off to convert the indians.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Why have all these controversies occurred? Why hasn't Russia been converted? Why is communism still rampent in the world, (particularly in China)? Just one reason. The Consecration has never been done! Pope John 23rd had the last chance at it in 1959. He said "This doesn't apply to me". So Pandora opened Vatican 2 and all the problems flew out. Things got a lot worse after that, even so far as to make a pact with Russia,the number one problem in the Church and the world. It was not even whispered at V2. So why call for V2? Nothing good came from it. It cannot be denied, and whatever problems the Church may have had, was accelerated a hundred times over. The numbers are there, if you are willing to look at them. They're not pretty.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

> "The numbers are there, if you are willing to look at them."

Largely in the West Ed, and we have been over this before. You think all that matters is the Western Church, but most Catholics live in the 3rd world, and the faith is flourishing there! Flourishing under Vatican II's new Mass.

Vatican II did not save the Church in the West, but I believe it lessened it's downfall. Could I prove this, no I cannot, but no more than you can prove Vatican II has harmed the Church in the face of evidence, that this harm is not occuring in the 3rd world.

If V2 was not sound, it would cause the fall of the Church everywhere!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Gordon, look at ehe rate of decline before V2 and then look at after V2. If cause and effect are not apparent, they never will be.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

> "Gordon, look at ehe rate of decline before V2 and then look at after V2. If cause and effect are not apparent, they never will be."

Ed, the result of materialism, consumerism, and liberalism in the West, and not because of V2. As matter of fact, all your criticism against V2, is a result of liberals not following V2.

Other religions had NO CHANGES to their religious service also experienced huge declines in the West!!! Thus proving V2 is not the source of the problem.

-- Gordon (gvink@bigfoot.com), April 03, 2003.

A deus ex machina solution?

Look, private revelations are just that - private. You don't have to believe in them to be Catholic. And they don't reveal anything to us that we didn't already know.

So you think because a "consecration" didn't happen the world is the way it is? Sounds like magic.

Yet my friend what is consecration? What does that mean? If you don't have millions of committed and saintly Catholics, ya ain't gonna get rid of Communism because you will not have reached to and converted the communists!

Not even Pentecost led to the automatic conversion of the Jews - that was left to those Christians who were inspired by the Spirit.

Fact is, my friend, God has chosen to work primarily through human agency, and not apart from it. That's why missionaries have to be sent to people and why once converted they need to be served, and protected...

Mary is not going to zap billions of unbelievers and automatically "make catholics out of them". Not gonna happen.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

I recently attended a Byzantine Catholic mass. It was very nice. It was definitely a departure from the rubrics of the Western rite.

A completely different liturgy. God Bless, John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 03, 2003.

Joe that is what faith is all about. If the Blessed Mother said at Fatima that Russia would be converted, yes then Russia would be converted. Private Revelation? Joe 75,000 people saw the miracle. That is not private revelation!

Joe, did you see the Crucifixion,or the Resurrection? You took someone's word for it, right! Faith.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Mary is not going to zap billions of unbelievers and automatically "make catholics out of them". Not gonna happen.

You calling the Blessed Virgin a liar?

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Gordon. One question. Who made those liberals, Cardinals and Archbishops?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

No, I'm calling your belief simplistic and superstitiuous.

No simple act of blessing the whole world is going to suddenly open sinners eyes, make them reject their error and bad habits and march off to baptism or confession...

You misread the revelations and overlooked the sine qua non for all this to happen: all bishops and all Catholics turning back to the sacraments full time, all of us saying the rosary and more than that, TAKING IT TO HEART AND TO HABIT...

God has never forced people to come to him - but your understanding of the effects of the "consecration" implies that billions of people will suddenly and spontaneously start behaving themselves against all laws of human nature.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

3. The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. “The Spirit’s presence and activity”, as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, “affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions” (n. 28).

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

Source: Pope John Paul II, General

This is the current salesman for Catholicism? I wouldn't want him working in my new car salesoom... They'd still be driving their old jalopys.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

> "Gordon. One question. Who made those liberals, Cardinals and Archbishops?"

Ed, our Pope has a history of making conservatives Cardinals and Archbishops. I find it funny that you group conservatives as liberals, because they do not hold your schismatic views. Sorry Ed, but you are outside of God's Church, and by the Papal Bull you posted, you are going to hell. Not what I believe, but what a Pope has said about you.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Gordon, From what I have seen of your powers of deduction and logic, you have a greater problem than me. Jake, Isabel and Regina said as much.

You ask a question of which bishops has he appointed that are liberals. Did all these guys give him a snow job and pull the big con on him? Either he knew that they were liberals or he is not the smartest pope that we have ever had.

Lets start with Cardinal Roger Mahoney, then Cardinal Law , Egan next. Protectors of pedophiles. Good start for a lineup. That is only the American contingent. How about those Dutch, German etc. I'll get you some more later.Oh yes. can't forget Cardinal Kasper. All JP's guys. Look up their batting averages Gordon. You have to do some of the homework, instead of always saying "prove it".

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Ed a bit of advice, dont try to understand what you cant comprehend. We all have many roles to play on this earth, theologian is clearly not the calling for you. Your "concern", (Ill give you the benefit of the doubt) for our Holy Father Pope John Paul II is admirable but misguided.

I cringe for you and the other trads who earnestly and naievely offer soundbites from Pope John Paul. It proves only your own lack of understanding about what the Pope is saying, do you think you somehow have "caught the Pope out" . I shouldnt contiue to be surprised but I am. Well done for that I guess. Set your sights a little lower, youll find life treats you alot kinder.

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.

No simple act of blessing the whole world is going to suddenly open sinners eyes, make them reject their error and bad habits and march off to baptism or confession...

First, it is not a mere blessing, it is a consecration.

Secondly, we have Our Lady's PROMISE that when RUSSIA is consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, they would convert, and there would be a period of peace.

Third, whether that means millions of individuals would convert of the government would convert, I do not know. But the point is, is that we have her PROMISE that it would happen.

Fourth, (which herein lies the problem) is that you are trying to comprehend the ways of God in a human mind. You are bringing God down to the level of man by saying this is not possible. With man, you are right it is not hardly possible. But, with God, all things are possible. I do not doubt the promise of Our Lady. I only wait for her. Our Lady and the Sacred Heart of Jesus appeared to Sister Lucia in the 1930's and told her that many popes would not heed this advice, that they would not consecrate Russia, but *in the end* Russia would be consecrated, convert and Her Immaculate Heart would triumph. The Sacred Heart of Jesus wanted it this way, so that all would see the power of Her Immaculate Heart. She is the one who crushes the head of satan.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

> "Gordon, From what I have seen of your powers of deduction and logic, you have a greater problem than me. Jake, Isabel and Regina said as much."

That's absurd simply because you choose all those, who agree with your schismatic position. Of course they disagree with me, because I believe in obedience to the Pope. I won't bother listing those on the forum who agree with my rational, as you know who they are.

> " Lets start with Cardinal Roger Mahoney"

One at a time Ed, as that makes it easier for you to prove your case. What was the date he was made a Cardinal? Who consecrated him as a Cardinal/Bishop? What was his views at the time and prior to the time of his consecration as a bishop and Cardinal? See what I am getting at, you are saying the Pope is consecrating liberals, so I need the proof on this one Cardinal before I can agree with you.

After we are done with him, and you can convince me of the others.

I suspect that these Cardinals and Bishops became liberals at a later date, after they have already became Cardinals and Archbishops? If that is so, the Pope, if he consecrated them, cannot be guilty of their future wrong doing, as it impossible for him to know the future.

The Pope has a long history of appointing conservatives as Cardinals, and bishops, so Ed, what you are claiming makes no sense.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

One of the rights that has been taken away and usurped by the Government is our freedom to associate or not associate with whomever we choose. Since the implementation of affirmative action no one owning a business can choose whomever they wish to hire without answering to the thought police and the Bolshevik government that has taken away our rights.

Now the heretic bishops of California who pretend to be Catholic but are merely communists in Catholic clothing have sided with their Bolshevik comrades to dare to influence the "Catholic Voting Block" to support one of the very things responsible for our loss of freedom in this country. Cardinal Mahoney will allow abortion doctors who have died to have Catholic funerals and be buried in consecrated ground. He will allow homosexuals to run rampant in his diocese. He fosters heresy and human secularism within every aspect of his administration. He keeps silent about the scourge of abortion in this nation diocese but when it comes to socialist causes like welfare for immigrants and affirmative action he shouts from the roof tops.

Every Roman Catholic in his diocese should wag their heads in shame over such a disgraceful, disgusting excuse for a bishop.

"How long oh Lord will you make us suffer under the shame and embarrassment of these scandalous shepherds. Come to our assistance Oh Lord and free us from such evil men."

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Gordon, What made so many of these "conservative cardinals become liberals after they got the job. These were mature men, not impressionable kids. Their philosophy was well formed, long before they became bishops.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Believe me, I know the mindset well Joe, like the back of my hand because I used to have it.

I could say a little or a lot, but for brevity's sake I'll just say that I used to think that way but don't any more. The best way I could illustrate it is through the life of St. Maximillian Kolbe, who as you probably know, loved technology and modern progress and saw a potential in it for the propagation of sound doctrine and the Faith.

In the end though, what made him a Saint was to starve to death in a prison camp to save the life of a Jewish man.

Generally, I tend to predict that as things progress, one can't help but realize that this foe is beyond any of us, so to speak. Defeatism? No; I've fought lots and lots of battles in life before and won some, lost some. Hindsight is 20/20 vision... from what I can see from here, my losses were gains and my gains were losses.

Do you understand what I am getting at?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 03, 2003.

Fr. Malachi Martin also spoke about a shadowy evil character he described as the “Cardinal of Centurycity,” who bears a strange similarity to Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los(t) Angeles. Presently, there is a growing tide of people calling for his resignation due to the Archdioceses cover-up of the Satanic homosexual pedophile crimes against children.

And where does Pope John Paul II stand in all of this? Pope John Paul II has stated that we are definitely in the end times. He says that "the signs are clear"! The Pope has expressed concerns that his successor will be "the final pope" and the "anti-pope". The anti-pope is a person who will betray true Catholicism and Christianity as part of a pact with "Lucifer" and a future world government.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

There is absolutely no doubt about that, Ed. It's been more than John Paul II, it's been quite a few of them going back to Leo XIII and maybe even further. Very, very direct and specific statements identifying our times as the engagement of the final conflict. They are all statements that carry a prophetic character to them... plus, the mystic Saints, especially but not limited to those in the 1800's, carry the selfsame message. I could post what I've accumulated here of quotes and passages from the thoughts of the Saints and pontiffs, but it would leave you scrolling for 4 minutes. The quotes would all just be questioned for authenticity, though, and I doubt they would be taken seriously despite the fact that they are Saints or of lesser designation. People only really believe what they want to believe; and that includes me too. It's just the human style, so I wouldn't be surprised and in some cases wouldn't even blame anyone for ignoring them. On the other hand though, and in opposition to any such recognition of the current state of affairs, the post-conciliar momentum seems to favor a future wide-open charisma, one which I would speculate to be more deceptive than plausible.

As for final conflicts, this is it and we are here. It could take a while to play itself out, but we are entering into the 6th age of the Church and will pass quickly on to the 7th. There will be a restored Christendom, but it will be wrought in pain and be shortlived, and will most definitely not come about by the strategizing hand of man.

All this as it is, I know Joe has the good of the Church at heart in wishing to take up work and arms. I kind of like the idea of the brandishing of a holy sword... but like that scene in braveheart: if you want to use this (shows the sword), first you must learn to use this (indicates the intellect). But instead of the intellect, I would say the this that needs to be learned before the sword of truth would be prayerful self diminution.

I know that sounds a little strange coming from the most blathering ******* on the forum, myself, but rest assured I do believe it is true no matter how badly I might conform to it. I believe that self diminution and laying all before the Almighty will be effective to correct first the state of the Church and then consequently, the state of the world. Joe said something similiar somewhere above, and in that I certainly agree with him. We have a different view about how it comes about.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 04, 2003.

There is nothing as humiliating and humbling than to try to launch a truly effective and helpful apostolate off the ground. When you really start doing something that can immediately help your neighbors and win back souls for Christ, you will come to know many things: the extent of the power of the devil (it's by confronting him that you learn how strong he is, not by fleeing)... the weakness of oneself and utter need for God's grace, and finally the miracles that can come about if despite all evidence of reason, you step out of the safety of your little bark and attempt to walk on waters of impossibility towards our Lord.

You say you fear technology will inevitably be used against us. Well, provided good men like you stay home, you're setting up a self- fulfilling prophecy! The technology that killed St Max was also the technology that wiped out the Nazis... technology is neutral. Men aren't. So the real issue is found in converting the men!

Now then, there's a war to be waged for the conscience of the world, the protection of innocents and the liberation of souls currently enslaved in darkness. Shall we curse the night or do the work needed to light a candle?

Who's with me!?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.

I am DEFINITELY with you, Joe S!!!

I just read this thread for the first time -- top to bottom -- and my admiration for you has increased by yet another "leap and bound." You truly know how to defend the genuine Catholic truth. (I also commend you, Gordon, for making yet another effort to guide Ed R back toward the truth.)

I wish that I could be nothing but upbeat about this thread, but I have to admit that reading it caused moments of sadness, none greater than when I saw these words, in which a decent protestant fellow admitted that he is a fallen-away Catholic:
"Believe me, I know the mindset well, Joe, like the back of my hand because I used to have it. I could say a little or a lot, but for brevity's sake I'll just say that I used to think that way but don't any more."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.

Coming back with an afterthought -- having just posted a message on another thread.

Working on that message helped me to appreciate more fully how you, Joe S, are promoting true and complete Catholicism, while some "traditionalist protestants" choose to follow a truncated Christian life.

In that other message, I had occasion to list the spiritual and corporal works of mercy -- and it occurred to me that the corporal works are being shunted aside as if they were vain attempts (by "Vatican II progressives") to save themselves. Since I have them handy, I will list all the "works" again here:

The Spiritual Works of Mercy (each of which some folks do right here at the forum):
To instruct the ignorant [e.g., schismatic and protestant traditionalists (;-p)]
To counsel the doubtful
To admonish sinners [e.g., schismatic and protestant traditionalists (;-p)]
To bear wrongs patiently
To forgive offenses willingly
To comfort the afflicted
To pray for the living and the dead.

The Corporal Works of Mercy:
To feed the hungry
To give drink to the thirsty
To clothe the naked
To care for the sick
To shelter the homeless
To visit the imprisoned
To bury the dead.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Ed R. You stated:
"Pope John Paul II has stated that we are definitely in the end times. He says that 'the signs are clear!' The Pope has expressed concerns that his successor will be 'the final pope' and the 'anti-pope.' The anti-pope is a person who will betray true Catholicism and Christianity as part of a pact with 'Lucifer' and a future world government."

I'm not going to call you a liar, because I think that you actually believe that Pope John Paul II has said such things. However, I believe that, if he had really said/written them, I would know about it. It would have made huge waves in the secular and religious media, would be repeated at every turn, etc..

Therefore, Ed R, I have to disbelieve your allegations unless you can present actual quotations from the pope's spoken or written works, including the names of the documents or "allocutions" and their dates. If you cannot produce these things, then I will ask you (1) to apologize for posting such significant errors, (2) to assure us that you will not do so again, and (3) to contemplate the fact that you were let down by unreliable sources. [You will eventually find that all traditionalist sources, except those 100% in communion with the pope, are unreliable.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.

...but I have to admit that reading it caused moments of sadness, none greater than when I saw these words, in which a decent protestant fellow admitted that he is a fallen-away Catholic...

Because I said "Believe me, I know the mindset well, Joe, like the back of my hand because I used to have it. I could say a little or a lot, but for brevity's sake I'll just say that I used to think that way but don't any more."

So somehow, I'm a fallen away Catholic because I don't really go for a certain mindset about the best way to promote Catholicism...

John, that is so completely gay I won't even address it. lol! Come on, man, what are you talking about?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 05, 2003.

Someone is quoted: You say you fear technology will inevitably be used against us

That's funny in that it is typed on a space age device called a puter, and sent to me, through the even more modern internet. It must be a paralyzing fear... :-)

What "get's us" (me included) is that we are so busy paying for and maintaining our vast technologies, that we have become attached to, that we have little time to reflect on spiritual things. In effect we end up worshiping extremely complex technology because that is what we devote our time to. It is a god of modernism. We love to be work-a-holics and rapidly expanding complicated technology is a fruit of that. It is a matter of excess. It is not a matter of whether or not we can have any technology at all. We can safely have some technology.

Pope John Paul II has stated that we are definitely in the end times. He says that 'the signs are clear!' The Pope has expressed concerns that his successor will be 'the final pope' and the 'anti- pope

This exact same notion was expressed in heretical books recently, condemned by the bishop of Rochester, NY. A visionary named John Leary who writes those Prepare For The Great Tribulation and the Era of Peace booklets was required to remove that very statement from his books. His books are all locutions he began to hear after a trip to Medjugorjie. The bishop of Rochester said you are not allowed to say that the next pope will be an anti-pope.

Sincerely

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 06, 2003.

"What "get's us" (me included) is that we are so busy paying for and maintaining our vast technologies, that we have become attached to, that we have little time to reflect on spiritual things. In effect we end up worshiping extremely complex technology because that is what we devote our time to. It is a god of modernism. We love to be work-a-holics and rapidly expanding complicated technology is a fruit of that. It is a matter of excess. It is not a matter of whether or not we can have any technology at all. We can safely have some technology."

That's exactly right. But somehow, John thinks my agreement with that statement somehow is proof positive that I am a protestant. Figure that one out.

I think it's completely counter-sanctity to be rushing about in some perceived advancement of Catholicism in a way that is isn't much more thatn a mirror image of the ways of and means of common modern society. Like a business. I've run a business, I know how it works. Catholicism doesn't work that way; serving God doesn't consist of that kind of stuff.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 06, 2003.

Emerald is a good guy and a good Catholic.

We disagree on the best way to spread our Faith and our outlook on the present and future. But I don't think we disagree on the fundamentals of the faith per se.

Peace

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.

Emerald,

I know from the Emerald's Questions thread, John deduced that you sounded Protestant. Based on how he wrote it, I think it was a passing thought not a solid idea. You just asked questions that any good Catholic might ask in trying to understand his faith better. Sometimes we are tempted by the opposition to question our Catholic faith. Temptation like that is a sign that you have something that the devil wants to take away, so it is a good sign. If you are never tempted, then beware! cuz the devil has you in holding already for that final hour. Many Protestant complaints sound plausible on the surface and they often attract Catholics by the sheer weight of their lists of accusations from scripture. Not enough Catholics are troubled by these and ask questions in order to get it right. If more were like you we'd be in better shape.

advancement of Catholicism in a way that is isn't much more than a mirror image of the ways of and means of common modern society

It is easy for anyone to get caught up in the hype, the show, the excesses and the opposite, the complacency, the laziness. Regarding abortion we see from Catholics mostly inaction but also some over- zealous, all pumped up for the 2008 election and perhaps forgetting that the underlying problem is the majority today does not believe in God, the correcting of which might be a better apostolate to undertake.

Personally I think those tall hats the bishops wear are a bit much. lol...(just had to say it)

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 06, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, gentlemen.

Emerald, you responded to me last comment by saying: "So somehow, I'm a fallen away Catholic because I don't really go for a certain mindset about the best way to promote Catholicism... John, that is so completely gay I won't even address it. lol! Come on, man, what are you talking about?"

Those words, combined with your subsequent comment to Mike H, has me believing that I misunderstood the thrust of what you were trying to tell Joe S.
It appeared to me that, over the course of a several-message debate with Joe, you were saying that you had adopted a "sole fide" (or at least "sole-fide-with-spiritual-works") approach to salvation, rejecting the need for the corporal works of mercy. So, if you were NOT saying what I suspected, I beg your pardon and withdraw part of my comment.

However, Emerald, what I cannot withdraw is my reference to you as a protestant -- though I would dearly like to withdraw it.
Joe S and Mike H, I realize that my saying this seems a bit harsh and unbelievable to you. I must admit that I have fallen behind in my reading of threads, and Emerald may have now proved, on a thread that I have yet to read, that he has reverted to Catholicism. However, over the past year, gentlemen (when you were not frequenting the forum), I have watched Emerald latch on to what is called Traditionalism, then slip into doctrinal error (on "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"), then hint that there are errors in the Catechism, and then hint that our pope sometimes teaches errors.
Therefore, I would ask that you withhold commenting about whether Emerald is a "good Catholic" (as you said, Joe) until you understand his beliefs/disbeliefs better. I do agree with you, though, that Emerald is a "good guy."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), April 07, 2003.

I have watched Emerald latch on to what is called Traditionalism, then slip into doctrinal error (on "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"), then hint that there are errors in the Catechism, and then hint that our pope sometimes teaches errors.

None of these things individualy, nor any combination of them, adds up to Emerald being a "Protestant." That's only a personal judgement (and an imprudent one at that!) and as such is, of course, meaningless.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 07, 2003.

I have watched Emerald latch on to what is called Traditionalism, then slip into doctrinal error (on "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"), then hint that there are errors in the Catechism, and then hint that our pope sometimes teaches errors.

Oooohhhh! Now you know I have to respond to that, as well. That is soooooo not right! Tell me please, one by one, and explain to me how these accusations make one Protestant. Because I guarantee you I can refute each and every one of your claims. Probably not enough to convert you to True Catholicism, but enough to make you stumble! Here, let me start:

**Traditionalism: St. Athanatius - "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

**doctrinal error (on "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"): so for over 1900 years the Church got it wrong, and God all of a sudden decided to enlighten the Church in the 1960's, the same period of the 'enlightenment' of peace, love, drugs, sex and rock-n-roll? He even enlightened the Church so much to the point that infallible statements are totally contradicted by the 'new understanding'?

**errors in the Catechism - just because it is a Catechism, does not make it infallible.

**hint that our pope sometimes teaches errors - the basic teachings of the pope are not necessarily in the realm of the protection of the Holy Spirit.

So, put them all together and what do you get? Well, not a Protestant for one. These points can all be refuted enough to make you allegations very unjust and uncalled for.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 07, 2003.

Because I guarantee you I can refute each and every one of your claims.

Oooohhhh, again! I can't believe that came out that way. Was that prideful, or what? Sorry about that. All I meant to say, is that I believe myself to have researched and studied enough, that I am pretty confident in the fact that I can back my position to a point that there are just going to be issues that cannot be refuted, as hard as one may try. But, that, of course, is by the grace of God that I have found this way, and in no way do I deserve it. I am, though, extremely grateful for it.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 07, 2003.

Invincible ignorance, (to my knowledge), was never even mentioned by a pope, until after Pope St. Pius X. In fact Pope Pius IX, said "Dont even think about it". That is the doctrine of No salvation outside the Church.

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 07, 2003.

You can have a doctrine which is understood better over time as humanity understands more of the implications of such a doctrine...

For example, the Trinity. The earliest Christians called Jesus "Lord" and "Savior" - two titles reserved for Yahweh - but they did not have a philosophical explaination for just exactly how the One God could simultaneously be Father and Son and Holy Spirit....

When they finally did arrive at the theological/metaphysical language which explains this, plenty of people had already staked out heretical positions - and maybe in good faith...who knows?

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" Is true. But some people immediately jump to "therefore" conclusions which are wrong.

It depends on what your definitions are and how you understand them to interconnect: if the Church is "the union of men with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit" then there could plausibly be souls united with God in Christ apart from the world of the apostles and community.

For example: the Good thief. He wasn't baptized by water and he never formed a part of the "community" - but he was saved by Christ.

The Holy Innocents... all those children slain by Herod. No one thinks they're lost in hell or limbo...

The Jewish patriarchs, prophets, St Joseph, Abraham, Noah... none of these people were baptized or members of the "Church" but they are all united to God through the Word and Spirit.

So obviously that Latin phrase may be right if understood correctly, and unstable people (who shoot before looking) can misunderstand it and run off into heresy perhaps out of good will, but basing their "therefore" positions on misunderstandings of the economy of salvation.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 08, 2003.

The term protestant in and of itself not a bad name. (lower case "p"). The followers of Luther were protesting against abuses within the Church.

The followers of the SSPX are, by their actions, protesting against what they see (wrongly, I believe) as abuses within the modern Church.

I don't believe it would take much to negotiate a return to good standing by the SSPX if the followers would fully recognize the authority of the Pope and teaching authority of Vatican II.

If they can not -- I believe, they are making a de facto argument against papal infallibilty.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 08, 2003.

I don't believe it would take much to negotiate a return to good standing by the SSPX if the followers would fully recognize the authority of the Pope and teaching authority of Vatican II.

There has been a great deal written on the negotiation talks between Rome and the Society; some of it credible & some not. Essentially, the SSPX asked for two things since being approached by Rome and asked what it would take for this irregular situation to be solved:

1. that the Old Mass be freed for use by all Catholic priests,

(which should be a no-brainer, since the Old Mass was nevr lawfully supressed anyway), and

2. that the decree of excommunication be lifted

which only seems like a formality since it was Rome who initiated these talks, and would not have done so if it were not seeking to lift it in the first place.

Rome has thus far been unwilling to do either, as far as I know, and so that's where the negotiations stand.

If they can not -- I believe, they are making a de facto argument against papal infallibilty.

How so?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 08, 2003.

John I don't believe it would take much to negotiate a return to good standing by the SSPX if the followers would fully recognize the authority of the Pope and teaching authority of Vatican II.

Hi, John. I hope you can answer my questions. I have posted them to the forum a few times and they went ignored:

How do Trads "disobey" or "resist" Vatican II? What do the teachings of Vatican II require Trads to believe that Catholics as a whole didn't believe before Vatican II got underway?

If they can not -- I believe, they are making a de facto argument against papal infallibilty.

What are the infallible teachings of Vatican II? And please explain what the Pope has said infallibly with regard to Trads.

I'm looking forward to *finally* getting my questions answered. Thanks, John.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 08, 2003.

Jake and Regina, The only infallible statement since Vatican One that I can find is the statement on the assumption of Mary.

Question -- What constitutes the infallibility of the teaching Magesterium? It seems the canon lawyers remain in debate on the infallibility of the teachings from Vatican II.

If the teachings of Vatican II were not binding, would marriages conducted by a Deacon (since the diaconate was reinstituted by Vatican II) be considered valid?

If the only two SSPX issues are the Tridentine mass and the excommunications. Why can't this be solved?

If it helps someone spiritually to attend a Tridentine (or a charismatic mass), it should be acceptable. If the church can fully accept other liturgies (such as Byzantine),why not accept (or continue to accept) the Tridentine mass? My argument is that intent should be more important than form.

Unfortunately, there seems to be posturing on both sides. The Vatican went to the extreme on the excommunications -- nothing more extreme. SSPX has gone to the extreme in some of their statements.

Right now the SSPX remains "excluded"

Regina, by Trad, do you mean "orthodox catholics" or SSPX followers?

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 08, 2003.

If the teachings of Vatican II were not binding, would marriages conducted by a Deacon (since the diaconate was reinstituted by Vatican II) be considered valid?

Infallability and sacramental validity are two distinct issues. Nonetheless, my own take on your question is this; assuming the other conditions for validity (matter, form, and intent) are fulfilled, yes. The marriage is valid.

If the only two SSPX issues are the Tridentine mass and the excommunications. Why can't this be solved?

Good question. Here is what the SSPX Superior General had to say on the subject recently.

If the church can fully accept other liturgies (such as Byzantine),why not accept (or continue to accept) the Tridentine mass?

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!! Give that man a ceegar.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 08, 2003.

Jake, You and I agree on something. Prayers are answered!! God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 08, 2003.

WORST PARISH

1. All in Chula Vista "No reverence, no tradition."

2. Founders' Chapel, University of San Diego "Really do not care for sermons based upon the latest movie, TV program, latest bar joke, parishioner's confession, etc. Instead of the clergy sinking to the level of some parishioners, they should try to embrace them and bring them up to their level of religious insight."

3. Blessed Sacrament, College Area St. John of the Cross, Lemon Grove Tie: "Both have schools but neither one avails itself of the opportunity to reach the parents as well as the children in teaching fundamental Catholicism from the pulpit...."

4. Mission San Diego del Alcalá "Most priests and monsignors are filled with doubletalk and afraid to address real issues."

5. St. Luke, El Cajon "More like a nightclub floor show of soft-boiled pap followed by applause(!) for the priest."

6. Most Precious Blood, Chula Vista "No explanations of the Liturgy of the Word. Only the social (welfare) programs of the diocese and parish are covered. Many [sermons] based on newspapers."

7. Any one of them "They don't preach Catholicism."

8. St. Mary Star of the Sea, Oceanside "I haven't heard a decent Catholic-oriented sermon in years except at St. Mary Star of the Sea [Oceanside] from Father Zanetti."

9. St. Joseph Cathedral, San Diego "Why can't these priests at least teach and refer to the daily lives of the saints at daily Mass (a few thoughts). There is never any uplifting positive message on love, not even on Sunday. We long for examples of holiness! Lazy in my estimation is the answer. Not inspired and they just don't care. We do not need psychology sermons."

10. Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Rancho Penasquitos

For this sort of pap we should be obedient to our local bishop?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 08, 2003.

St. John of the Cross, Lemon Grove... I attended grade school there.

Mission San Diego del Alcalá... I got married there.

Just some trivia for you Ed. I know all those places. I go to the Tridentine Mass at Holy Cross every Sunday now.

Cool symbol jake; keep using it. Nothing else seems to be working... lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 08, 2003.

Joe, you wrote:

You can have a doctrine which is understood better over time

This I can agree with only so far as man's understanding improves by study, prayer, etc. But the meaning of the dogma never changes, not can it change, or infallibility would mean nothing. But I believe before doctrine is defined that it is the 'job' of the Pope to engage in much theological study and much prayer to word this doctrine correctly. And the Holy Ghost guides him properly, especially when defining doctrine, thus we cannot think that it means anything other than what it says.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" Is true. But some people immediately jump to "therefore" conclusions which are wrong.

I agree that it's true, but what 'therfore' conclusions are you speaking of, because I can link you to more than one infallible statement concerning this. It has been defined three times.

if the Church is "the union of men with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit" then there could plausibly be souls united with God in Christ apart from the world of the apostles and community.

Not according to three declarations of this dogma. St. Augustine and St. Ignatius warned against believing this way.

the Good thief. He wasn't baptized by water and he never formed a part of the "community" - but he was saved by Christ.

But the Sacrament of Baptism was not mandated until after the Resurrection when Christ said to the Apostles, "All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth. Going, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

The Holy Innocents... all those children slain by Herod. No one thinks they're lost in hell or limbo...

Again, the New Law and, hence, the sacrament had not been instituted yet. At this time all were bound by the old law.

The Jewish patriarchs, prophets, St Joseph, Abraham, Noah...

Again, all these people were bound by the old law of God. None were bound by the new law until the death and resurrection of Christ. Because it is by His Passion that He opened up the gates of Heaven, and after His Resurrection He instructed His apostles to go out and teach all nations.

So obviously that Latin phrase may be right if understood correctly,

Exactly. It is dogma. A definition. The definition explains the doctrine.

and unstable people (who shoot before looking) can misunderstand it and run off into heresy perhaps out of good will, but basing their "therefore" positions on misunderstandings of the economy of salvation.

Please study. And you will see that the new understanding did not come about until the last hundred years or so. Not long before Pascendi was written. It is the watering down of doctrine that prompted Pope St. Pius X to write this wonderful encyclical.

With prayers.......

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 08, 2003.

Cool symbol jake; keep using it. Nothing else seems to be working... lol!

Thanks. It's taken from the Jubilee medal of St. Benedict, one of the most highly indulgenced sacramentals in the Church. The letters stand for "Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti," or "Cross of our Holy Father Benedict." I've always been drawn to Benedictine spirituality.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 08, 2003.

Weapon of choice

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 08, 2003.