Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged [him]. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put [it] on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And [Pilate] saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify [him], crucify [him]. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify [him]: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led [him] away.

We have no king but Caesar! Why then are they so afraid of the Mel Gibson movie? It is fact, it is history.Those who reject Christ in this world, can have no part with Him in the next.

-- Ed Richards (loztr@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003

Answers

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

Thanks Ed!

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

huh? what in the world are you talking about man? clarify

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.

bet its got something to do with "dung" ;-)

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.

In 20 words or less... If you are not a Catholic, invest in an asbestos suit.. It will come in handy someday.

-- Ed Richards (loz@yahoo.com), April 17, 2003.

Very seldom do we meet a Catholic, man or woman, priest or laymen, who will permit us to say that "Out of the Church there is no salvation for anyone," without requiring us to qualify this statement, as if that were possible with God's immutable Truth. We are told that under certain circumstances people may be saved outside the Church. This is absolute heresy, and it has sadly been adopted by the majority of bishops, priests, religious, and faithful..

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 17, 2003.

http://www.dadi.org/melgibs3.htm

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.

We now know, infallibly, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Pope. The only people on the face of the planet who are submissive to the Pope are Catholics: all pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics are automatically excluded. If there were just one single exception to this definition, then we must conclude one of two things: a) the Pope is not infallible, or b) the person in question is not a human creature . . . go figure.

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

Ed

what if i'm a Catholic but i follow the Catechism? am i doomed ab initio?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.

If you believe the pretzel benders of V2, indeed you may have a problem. They've changed everything that they could get their grubby hands on.

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

Ed

in all seriousness, what is to become of me?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.

That's not up to me, I don't know you. All I can tell you in all seriousness, Is what those popes told me. Eternity is too long to make any mistakes. A beautiful church was turned into a junkyard , in about 2 weeks. I know because I used to go there. Altar gone, rails gone, kneelers gone. But wait, there's more for your money. In it's place we got a "beautiful Table" a "nice bathtub right in where the 5th 6th 7th row used to be. That bunch in the Vatican belong on "Sanford and Son" junkies par excellence.

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 17, 2003.

This document derives its positions from Protestant archi-liturgical theories current in the 1960s, notably those of Edward Sovik, a Protestant who, Rose observes, makes no effort to hide the motives behind his theories: He wants to continue the Reformation and overthrow the idea that men are to worship God. His ideal is the "non- church" where people gather to minister to one another.

Even though Environment and Art is headed for the dustbin of history, the archi-liturgical establishment—represented by such notorious men as Richard Vosko, a priest in the Diocese of Albany, who has become a multi-millionaire by Protestantizing Catholic churches—is still promoting Sovik’s book , which contains the rationale for such innovations as: removing pews and kneelers, removing the tabernacle from a prominent position in the church, removing religious paintings and statues, rearranging chairs around a table in the center of the church, eliminating crucifixes.

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

"That's not up to me, I don't know you."

and if you did, Ed, would it make a difference?

answer the question in the hypothetical. assume that i have confessed all my sinsl; but also assume that i follow the Church's teaching, viz, that Jews, protestants, muslims and all the rest can concievably be saved.

am i doomed by mere definition?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.

Ian, if a person confesses all their sins, but does not believe the doctrine of "Extra Ecclesiam Una Salus", then they have NOT confessed all their sins. If you confess all your sins but do not believe in the Real Presence, have you confessed all your sins? If you go along with some of these heresies of V2, God will judge that. objectively {that's a great cop out thee days} , you might be off the hook, but the pope and bishops won't. They know better than that.

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

That should be Nulla Salus

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

Dear Ed:
You have not changed your old spots; still a bogus archangel descending on the devils of Vatican II --

Are you capable of learning anything? What is this elitist pride that makes you boast of your superior graces? If you abandon the Church of Peter, you are a heretic and/or schismatic.

Live it, learn it; and don't close your eyes, Ed. Where Peter is, is the Catholic Church. Only one Pope is acknowledged in the world today by the Holy Spirit and the faithful. His Holiness John Paul II. As were legitimately his predecessors; back to and including John XXIII & Pius XII. There's an unbroken succession that nobody can deny. If you find fault with a Council, dispute it with others outside the Church, not with loyal Catholics.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 17, 2003.

Nice to hear from you again, Eugene. You were back sooner than I expected.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 17, 2003.

Hi, Elpidio;
I am glad to be back. It would be even better if some things had improved;

But I have a sound philosophy. We aren't supposed to complain in this world. This isn't Paradise. If it were, we wouldn't have to die.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 17, 2003.

Aaahhh, Eugene. Great to see you again! You wrote:

Live it, learn it

Emerald has posted a series of questions on many occasions on this forum that no one following the post-conciliar Church has even attempted to answer. Maybe you will bless us with you answer. Because by answering correctly then one can begin to live it, learn it. The questions go something like this:

"What does it mean for the Holy Spirit to guide the Church? What does doctrine mean? What is the Deposit of the Faith? How does understand the basis for infallibility; when and where does it occur? Why? What is proper assent to the Magisterium of the Church?"

Those who are quickest to call out 'schismatic!' have yet to answer these questions. They ignore them while continuing on the same thread, or they disappear from the thread completely. What do you say? Are you up for the challenge, Eugene? If you are then you would be a first, because John, Gordon, Paul and many others have evaded them so far.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 17, 2003.

Dear Isabel:
You may assail me with a dozen questions in hopes of a surrender. I know how to answer each one; and so could many other members of the forum. You pose ''a series of questions for those following the post-conciliar Church.'' Isn't the Church herself the question? Are you with her or aren't you?

Asking if I or the others are ''up to the challenge'' suggests you are the interrogater. Why are you in the official position now of judging Catholics?

I adhere to all the truth stated in the Creeds. I have never reneged on a Church Council gathered under the protection of the Holy Spirit. My leader in the faith is the successor to Saint Peter.

Why do you think you learned more than I about the Church? Sending me a questionnaire is presumptuous. If all of us informed you, you'd still consider yourself correct and the true Church wrong.

I left here many weeks ago while Ed & Jake (an insufferable snob) were belaboring this forum. They have yet to assimilate one iota of truth; and every day they seem more elitist. They have no intention of ever going away, or conceding this argument. Now you support their presumptions giving me rapid-fire questions. All of you are a waste of time. May God forgive me for seeing you so very clearly. I'm sorry.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 18, 2003.

Gene, try to look at this matter objectively for a minute. Please, just put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. Start with this line of yours:

Asking if I or the others are ''up to the challenge'' suggests you are the interrogater. Why are you in the official position now of judging Catholics?

Since I've been in the forum, all I've ever seen is forumites acting in the official position of judging Catholics... that is, traditional Catholics, as being outside the fold.

You may assail me with a dozen questions in hopes of a surrender. I know how to answer each one; and so could many other members of the forum.

They are quick to answer any/all other manner of questions, and it's supposed to be a question & answer forum, so technically, what's the problem?

You pose ''a series of questions for those following the post- conciliar Church.'' Isn't the Church herself the question? Are you with her or aren't you?

That's what the answers to intend to identify.

I adhere to all the truth stated in the Creeds. I have never reneged on a Church Council gathered under the protection of the Holy Spirit. My leader in the faith is the successor to Saint Peter.

The first line from the Athenasian Creed:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

The last line from the Athenasian Creed:

"This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Why do you think you learned more than I about the Church?

I would say, because her Faith is under continuous assault from all sides. That probably gives here the impetus to obtain a deeper understanding.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 18, 2003.

Eugene - I had thought you were banned from this forum your being a Self Elected Armchair Bishop. There goes the neighborhood once again. I have dicovered a wonderful Christian forum lots of open discussion and open minds.

Just think they are not catholic(s) and still follow Christ in the belief they will see heaven. Imagine that!!

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 18, 2003.

"This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Faithfully and firmly?? Doesn't sound like too many Catholics are going to be saved. I know Protestants who hold to essential Catholic truths a lot more faithfully and firmly than many self-proclaimed Catholics do.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 18, 2003.

Thank you all, friends for setting me straight. I was not banned, Monsieur B. I was repeatedly deleted (unjustly) over and over for speaking my mind. Finally I left demanding apologies for the arbitrary deletions (others who stirred the pot were never stopped. These are our ''trads'', who operate here with impugnity).

I now come back because the previous, ''impartial'' moderator is finished here.

I never self-elected myself. I am probably too confident for the likes of you; please pardon me for it.

The *trads* (a misnomer) don't own this forum; and I am opposed to what they stand for, therefore I'll confront them if I'm able. I hope it will encourage others here to follow suit.

Not for spite. I wish for all of us to be faithful to our Holy Mother Church, and not to separate agendas. --Agendas that daily include disparaging our Holy Father in a Catholic forum.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 18, 2003.

Friends,
I can come back later to let you know my insight on the creeds. Right now, a comment:

''I have dicovered a wonderful Christian forum lots of open discussion and open minds. Just think they are not catholic(s) and still follow Christ in the belief they will see heaven. Imagine that!!''--By Mr. Bouchard.

I like open forums, Sir. That's why I feel entitled to add my private opinions. Would you limit it to those you find agreeable? Besides; I didn't say ''trads'' can't follow their consciences, and Christ. I just make the counter-argument to their elitism and self-regard. With MY faith in the Church, the tabernacle of Jesus Christ and servant of the Holy Spirit.

Many trads would argue this Church has lost the Holy Spirit. That is schism, plain and simple. Or, that we must return to the past or be damned. That is pessimism caused by fear & lack of faith in the promises of Christ.

Let me add that OPEN minds are receptive to the truth. Why don't you open your mind; instead of calling me a ''self-elected armchair bishop''--? That shallow remark is meant to be demeaning. I am grateful for it. It reminds me how awful my pontifications can be when I trust in myself, and not in the Holy Spirit. My sins are always before my eyes; and so I'll now ask all of those friends in the Catholic forum to pray for me.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 18, 2003.

Children, Children, Put aside your Catechisms for just a moment, shut down your computers and get some fresh air. Go out to your neighbors and share my love, and peace and forgiveness and compassion and then and only then will you understand what it is to follow me. My gift to you is simple and pure. What you are doing to it is the very thing I came to rail against. The Pharasees were very good at following all the rules they made in their church, but they didn't know me. The Catechism in the wrong hands is a worrysome thing. Give it a rest.

-- Jesus (I AM@the_almighty.com), April 19, 2003.

Do what he tells you

-- Mary MOG (madonna@the_almighty.com), April 19, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Isabel.

You told Eugene: "Emerald has posted a series of questions on many occasions on this forum that no one following the post-conciliar Church has even attempted to answer."

Your first mistake: There is no such thing as "the post-conciliar Church." There is only the Catholic Church, the one to which Gene and I belong, the one from which you and Emerald and Jake-1 and Regina and Ed R have departed via schism.
Your second mistake: The answers to Emerald's questions can be found on the forum, but just not in direct reply to him. You and he can find them if you look hard enough. Better yet, check the Catechism of the Catholic Church and "Lumen gentium" of Vatican II to find the fullest and most accurate answers. No need to get them from us.

Isabel, you also wrote: "Are you up for the challenge, Eugene? If you are then you would be a first, because John, Gordon, Paul and many others have evaded them so far."

You are wrong, Isabel. I have not evaded them. I simply reject them and have no respect for them, for two reasons:
(1) I left a series of questions for Emerald on or about New Year's Day, but he lacked the courage to answer them, lest he reveal that he is a heretic.
(2) The only purpose of Emerald's questions is to elicit replies upon which he (as an schismatic or protestant "pope") can pass judgment. I cede him no right to do this, as he is incapable of judging answers correctly.

[PM, this is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. It's truly sickening and without let-up.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmai.com), April 19, 2003.