During this Good Friday & Holy Saturday, please take 15 minutes or so to meditate on the Passion of Our Blessed Lord.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 18, 2003

Answers

Trying again.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 18, 2003.

Hi, Jake

Thanks!

God bless your family

-- David (David@excite.com), April 18, 2003.

Thank you, David, and a Blessed Easter to you & your family.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 19, 2003.

Thanks for the excellent Barbet meditation page, Jake-1. I have bookmarked it. [Ah, if only all your posts were genuinely Catholic like this, with no mixture of schism, I'd be your biggest fan. {_8^D)]

Happy Easter to you, Jake -- and to you too, David S.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 20, 2003.

Thanks for the excellent Barbet meditation page, Jake-1. I have bookmarked it.

You're most welcome.

[Ah, if only all your posts were genuinely Catholic like this, with no mixture of schism, I'd be your biggest fan. {_8^D)]

If only you could get past your insatable need to mock, accuse, and condemn, I might hold more human hope for Novus Ordos, but that's going to require Divine intervention, I'm afraid.

May our risen Lord "intervene" with you, and have a blessed Easter.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

Jmj

Jake-1, your comment was very self-revelatory. You wrote: "If only you could get past your insatiable need to mock, accuse, and condemn ..."

Any person who reads my message to you with an objective eye can see that I was teasing you, while meaning what I said at the same time. I even used a "smiley-face," which you reproduced in quoting me.
No objective person would find any "mock[ery]," any "accus[ation," or any "condemn[ation]" in my words. Moreover, I don't have the slightest "need" to do any of those things to anyone, much less an "insatiable need".

The only way that you could have wrongly perceived those three things in my message is if you have a guilty conscience. The fact that you experience guilt (at least subsconsciously) is a great sign, because it means that your conscience is not dead. It helps me to continue to be hopeful for your reversion to Catholicism.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 21, 2003.

I don't have the slightest "need" to do any of those things to anyone, much less an "insatiable need".

Your past words directed at myself & others weave quite a different picture.

guilty conscience

Not here. At least, not in the way you would like to hope I feel guilt, namely for discovering and putting into practice as best I can my Catholic Faith.

It helps me to continue to be hopeful for your reversion to Catholicism.

If by "Catholicism" you mean its new-fashioned substitute, you have no reason whatsoever to hold out "hope" for my regression into that pitiable existence as long as I continue to live.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Jake.

ME: I don't have the slightest "need" to do any of those things to anyone, much less an "insatiable need".
YOU: Your past words directed at myself & others weave quite a different picture.
ME AGAIN: That's incorrect. None of my "past words" reveal a "need" (much less an "insatiable need"). Rather they reveal my willingness to do my duty to protect the Church and the truth. I have no "need." Quite the contrary. I have a responsibility -- one that is always extremely burdensome and that never gives me any pleasure to fulfill -- a responsibility, in service to God, (1) not to let people be misled by you and others and (2) to remind you that you are sinning.

ME: guilty conscience
YOU: Not here. At least, not in the way you would like to hope I feel guilt, namely for discovering and putting into practice as best I can my Catholic Faith.
ME AGAIN: I thought you'd realize that I was speaking about your repressed guilty conscience, which reveals itself against your will (e.g., when you wrongly said that I had "mocked" and "accused" and "condemned" you). Your sensitive conscience was letting you know that you deserved those things, even though I didn't really do them.

ME: It helps me to continue to be hopeful for your reversion to Catholicism.
YOU: If by "Catholicism" you mean its new-fashioned substitute, you have no reason whatsoever to hold out "hope" for my regression into that pitiable existence as long as I continue to live.
ME AGAIN: I meant "hopeful for your reversion to" the Catholic Church founded by Jesus, the faith into which I was born in 1951, the faith that you have deserted (lacking the humility to submit to the Vicar of Christ and to accept some Catholic doctrines).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

stop the arguing you guys. this is a precious time now of an 'Emmaus' season, the Lord is risen, as we walk along and prepare for Pentecost, share what the Lord is doing in your lives, what's He doing, what's He moving, what's He revealing? help each other out. Life's too short for all this bickering. T

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), April 23, 2003.

You: None of my "past words" reveal a "need" (much less an "insatiable need"). Rather they reveal my willingness to do my duty

"Satan must be loving this wretched trash, worthy only of a porta- john."

"The Three Stooges of schismatic traditionalis" [sic]

"Not genuine Catholics"

"dolts"

"evil-doer"

"ex-Catholic"

"more damaging to real Catholics than people like Jimmy Swaggart are."

"Protestant anti-Catholic bigot"

"May God bless you and punish JakeMSN."

me: I guess you're right. No condemnation there!

I have a responsibility

extremely burdensome

never gives me any pleasure to fulfill

me: Funny, you realy, really seem to be enjoying yourself.

I thought you'd realize that I was speaking about your repressed guilty conscience

Add me to your list of patients, then. I've noticed you like to diagnose mental illness. The only symptom is disagreeing with you, and the only cure: a Novus Ordo doctrinal lobotomy! Thanks, Doc. I'll pass.

you wrongly said that I had "mocked" and "accused" and "condemned" you. Your sensitive conscience was letting you know that you deserved those things, even though I didn't really do them.

I'll leave that to the judgement of the others here.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

Jake-1,

I'm very sad that you think that you can persist in your pro-schismatic posts. How terribly you offend almighty God by defying the Vicar of Christ! You truly endanger your souls and you mislead any unsuspecting young Catholics who come here.

There is real work to be done here at the forum by real Catholics -- apologetics, conversation about the (im)morality of people's actions, matters of spirituality, etc.. Genuine Catholics like me cannot bother to waste even one more minute beating a dead horse (or, rather, a dead herd) -- i.e., the tired old grey mares of schismatic traditionalism that you keep riding into the corral of this forum."

Moderator, please take action to purge the site of these schismatics. Thank you.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Once again John; read carefully... Censorship just because you don't agree, is a no no.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Americans ought to know a bit about the law before they try to use it against people.
The First Amendment prohibition of censorship does not apply to private forums like this one. [It looks "public," but is not, being privately owned and governed.]
Therefore, those who flagrantly and repeatedly break the rules here can and should be banned. That includes you, Ed R (and your colleagues, of course).

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 24, 2003.

Which rule was broken?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 24, 2003.