Dear Emerald, to continue our mini-conversation from the “gay bishop” thread, at the risk of it being buried now, I’ve been away, so I’ll bring it up fresh. Yes, it was I, indeed, not an imposter. I’m sorry I came across as accusatory, I reacted quickly to the sentence you proposed; “They’ve [episcopaleans] always been lost, it isn’t like they were in any way part of the Mystical Body in the first place”. I responded by telling you that you displayed ignorance and prejudice. I felt you came across with an immature “theyr’e not part of the body, and we are, na na na na na na” attitude. And quite frankly, it made me sick.

Consequently, I was lumped into ‘people of modern society and of secular humanism’. I’m trying to separate something here, there is a difference between standing on truth without capitulating and harboring narrow-minded prejudice against those who haven’t experienced the revelation of full truth that we Catholics have, yet. Those who know me know I’m a watch-dog in my parish, and have fought good fights right up to the bishop’s office to get things cleaned up, and with the Lord on my side {or rather, me being on His side} we have been very successful.

My point is dear Em, the battles we’ve waged {and believe me I don’t go looking for them, they've called me} have been against those who’ve called themselves Catholic, but have blatantly abused their leadership positions in the Church, and have needed to be strongly admonished, and even banished from their jobs. We’ve seen this happen, with a high price of pain and persecution.

You know, we can be very aware of the laws and obey them to a ‘tee’, and yet at close examination of our hearts- harbor evil attitudes, negative ways of thinking about non-catholics. We need to stand vigilant over our hearts and attitudes. It’s easy, as Catholics, to adopt a spirit of pride. That’s what I mean by ‘wearing a Catholic plaque’. I don’t mean it literally. I mean those spiritual phylacteries that can easily be worn to show off our membership in an elite religious group. This is not what Jesus means in His prayer for us in John 17.

He desires unity in His body, He and blessed Mother ache for it. Matter of fact, He won’t come back UNTIL we are unified. Now in no way am I proposing capitulation to the Truth {Lord, to whom can we go?}, there’s no turning back once we’ve tasted the Bread of Life. As I said, our job is to be before Him always, {in our hearts at least, and at best before Him in the Blessed Sacrament}, giving Him full permission to show us our sin, and to keep an attitude of aiming people to Him, and at best to His Church and all she has to offer us that helps us remain in Him, and to pray for them, and stand in their place pleading to the Lord for His mercy. Now how can we have that attitude of intercession/compassion if we think “they’re not in the body anyway..na na na na na na….”!!! ok,ok, interpretation mine…. Maybe I received it a little skewed, you probably didn’t mean it that way.

You go and have a wonderful day, and may it be filled with our Lady’s presence. May your own spirit, mind, thoughts, emotions, and body, be filled with the Holy Spirit, and ‘assumed’ by the Heavenly kingdom itself. I intend to.

One more thing.. Dave Bowerman indeed is a good man, worthy of an open heart and ear. Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 15, 2003

Answers

maranatha!

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 15, 2003.

Hi Theresa; I see your post, but I have to run to work. When I get home, ok?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 15, 2003.

Emerald,

Here's a tip. Don't post some 20 page nonsensical analysis and rebuttal, just say "thank you" and promise to think about her post to you.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 15, 2003.

Theresa,

I believe that it was yesterday or the day before that I saw a post from "Emerald," in which he stated that he was leaving the forum. Since I have been advocating (even begging and bombarding heaven with prayers) for that to happen, I got down on my knees and shouted, "Deo gratias" when I read his post.

It has been a struggle of about 1.5 years to get him to either rejoin us as a Catholic or to leave this poor Catholic forum in peace. You are apparently unaware of the improper things he has been saying here for all these many months. It seems as though you have just now learned of his improper beliefs concerning non-Catholics (e.g., that none of them will be saved), not realizing that this has been one of several major bones of contention (between Catholics and "Emerald") for over a year.

And so, Theresa, I would request -- no, I would plead -- that you withdraw your invitation to "Emerald" to come back and get into yet another debate in which his position (so pleasing to the devil) will get still more "air time" here. If he has left a valid e-mail address, though, you can surely argue with him privately. I hurry to say, though, that no one has the authority to keep either of you from posting here. I only ask this of you as a favor, realizing that you may choose to carry on as planned.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 15, 2003.

The second post from John is a imposter.

-- Ty (Ty@Msft.com), August 16, 2003.

In all honesty Theresa I think you might be reading in an aspect of what might look like gloating or elitism... whatever the right name for it would be. At least know that I understand what you are getting at.

I can honestly tell you I don't feel that way or think that way at all about non-Catholics; honest to God, it really is an effort to maintain Catholic Truth so that when the thirst for truth finally strikes our non-Catholic friends, that we have pearls of great price left unblemished and ready to offer these good people.

Of the pearls to protect, one of the areas of concern is in protecting the doctrines surrounding the Mystical Body of Christ, and to take care not in the least way to break the fidelity between Christ and His bride the Church. We have to maintain the truth that the Mystical Body of Christ is in fact the Catholic Church itself. Pontiffs have come out and said this outright.

As for the whole tone and feel of it, for starters, look at this snip from the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis Chirsti, On the Mystical Body of Christ:

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ— which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church[12]—we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ"—an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.

14. That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church."[13] If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ."[14] But it is not enough that the body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body."[15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.

Google that encyclical when you have some time; it's easy to find, so if you have a little time, read it and see if that helps any as to what I'm getting at. I'll post up some of the other encyclicals relating to the nature of The Mystical Body of Christ sometime.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 16, 2003.

...and all this time I thought Emmerald was a female. Gosh !!!

(Well, with a name like Emmerald...)

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), August 16, 2003.

Well, you can lead a horse to water, but can't make them drink.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 16, 2003.

Frank,

I think that horse drinks much more than water.....

-- Ty (Ty@Msft.com), August 16, 2003.

Theresa, this phrase caught my eye and I was wondering if you could expound on it from your perspective:

"...He won’t come back UNTIL we are unified."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 16, 2003.

Here's a tip. Don't post some 20 page nonsensical analysis and rebuttal, just say "thank you" and promise to think about her post to you.

I have a request for you, Frank.

Tell me what it is that you would like me to understand.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 16, 2003.

While you're at it Frank, perhaps you could pursuade one Mr. JF Gecik to quit the incessant lie that I am not a Catholic. Here it is again:

"It has been a struggle of about 1.5 years to get him to either rejoin us as a Catholic or to leave this poor Catholic forum in peace."

This would be most fitting, as it seems that in some bizarre twist, I am actually the one being taken to task for not being willing to admit people into the Mystical Body of Christ who as of yet reject Catholicism.

I might point out, as a sidenote, that John is [in]correct that it has been 1.5 years, as [I] have only been assisiting the Tridentine Mass [so called] "exclusively" for approximately 0.792 years.

"It seems as though you have just now learned of his improper beliefs concerning non-Catholics (e.g., that none of them will be saved)..."

Misrepresentation. The proper statement is that if they do not come into the Catholic Church before death, that salvation is not possible.

Such is Catholic truth and defined dogma. If John says otherwise he finds himself in contradiction to repeated declarations of pontiffs throughout the ages. The best one-shot shoot down of Gecik's rejection of the doctrine of the Catholic Church is the Athenasian Creed, which states the following:

"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."

That's the first sentence. Here's the last:

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

Google the entire creed, and read it. Seek and you shall find!

John, I think you just lost your wish to have me gone. Perhaps it really is God's will for me to stick around and defend Catholic doctrine. Who really knows, huh? lol. Who can be sure.

Perhaps your best bet is the moderator. If you can show him that I am anti-Catholic, maybe he'll ban me. I can assure you that I can show him that I am in fact Catholic and anything but anti- Catholic.

Whether he sees this or not is beyond my control, and if I get banned, it proves that... I'm banned. That's all.

In the meantime, I have heard how oh-so-reliable is the great firewall of orthodoxy, ETWN. Perhaps the Nuvo-orthodox could explain this highly disturbing bombshell on their site:

Read it and weep.

Look, what we have here is cafeteria Catholicism. People want to reject the Athenasian Creed and hundreds of similiar documents clearly defining what the Roman Catholic Church professes and believes, throughout the ages.

The one I find most humorous is how John didn't think the Pope was correct when he told us not toa attack Iraq. Hell, I myself thought the Pope needed to be obeyed here.

Very interesting. If anyone wants absurdities and contradictions, I could hang around and point them out.

Or not; just as good. It's not like I'm going to convince anyone, let alone the hard-hearted. Pray for everyone, I guess. Nothing else works.

Statements about the relativity of truth in connection to each age, is nothing more than the rejection of Catholic doctrine. Of course, the modern Catholic will claim that the truth never changes, but in the same breath, they "change" the truth.

I can see it whether anyone else does or not, or admits it or not.

If you want to pursue this question, it's actually a question about the City of God vs. The City of Man; the things of this world vs. the things of the next; the things of the visible realm vs. the hidden reality beyond the flesh.

Happy to pursue it if you wish; happy to let it go if you wish.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 16, 2003.

Emerald,

I have a request for you, Frank.

Tell me what it is that you would like me to understand.

O.k. She was thinking about her previous comments to you and felt stongly enough about them to try to explain herself to you. I'd hoped you'd say you appreciated it and respond in kind rather than with your usual spiel of repeating the same couple of quotes in a long, rambling non-answer. What I'd hoped you'd do is respond as another person somewhere.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 16, 2003.

Once again, Satan (like a ventriloquist) craftily, cunningly, and FALSELY speaks through his dummy. The same lies are told, the same deceits attempted.

Moderator, please get out your "pruning shears" and clean up this forum, at long last.
You can see that the possessed one even knows that you should send him packing -- the only way that there is hope for him to receive an exorcism. It appears that he still has a little bit of free will left, and he seems to be trying to protect the forum from his possessor.

God bless you.
John

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

"People want to reject the Athenasian Creed and hundreds of similiar documents clearly defining what the Roman Catholic Church professes and believes, throughout the ages".

Yes, the Athansian Creed does reflect "what the Catholic Church professes and believes throughout the ages", namely the defined dogma that "salvation is only through the Catholic Church". However, this work also necessarily expresses the inadequately simplistic interpretations which theologians of that early time ascribed to this unchangeable dogma. Today the same dogma is still stated in the same words, and is just as true as it was then. But today it is understood and interpreted with the benefit of 1,400 years of additional scholarship and experience. Today we appreciate what this dogma means, far more fully than 4th century theologians possibly could have; and if the world endures for another thousand years, the Holy Catholic Church of the year 3000 will understand and interpret this very same dogma more fully and perfectly than we possibly can today. The Holy Spirit continues to guide and teach the Church throughout the ages.

If you wish to go no further in your own understanding of divine truth than the primitive interpretations of ages past, that is your right. But please don't expect that a holy, living, seeking, learning, growing, Spirit-guided Church will become bogged down alongside you. The Church will simply move forward toward the promised land, while you will be left behind, sitting with Athansius and discussing theology on a 4th century level. Rather like a college graduate sitting down with a 4th grader and discussing a topic at his relatively primitive level of understanding. Not that there is anything wrong with what he knows! There is just much more that could be known by additional study.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 16, 2003.

Lord, please bog me down, in thy mercy, that I may be...

"...left behind, sitting with Athansius and discussing theology on a 4th century level."

Please grant me this grace.

Seriously.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 17, 2003.

I'm so sorry Theresa, perhaps Frank is correct in that I'm not really addressing your concerns in a way which is most conducive.

First off, let me state that I can certainly understand your reaction to what I've said about relationships between those inside and outside the Church.

The truth of the matter is that it isn't really the "na na" attitude that plagues me, but something even more disconcerting than that. My main problem is worse than that. As a Catholic, and knowing what I know, and knowing what my responsibilities are, I fail right and left to doing what I know I'm supposed to be doing, which is this:

Praying and sacrificing for the salvation of souls.

The truth of the matter is that I am hot and cold. Lately I have been cold and dropping the ball.

As for your apology about coming across strong to me, I don't think you should apologize, and if you did, I forgive you across the board. Hell, how many times have I caused pain to people and spoken and acted against truth? More than you probably want to know about.

In all this, though, somehow and in someway I feel compelled to draw a line on truth. We must uphold our Faith at all costs, even at the cost of coming across as hypocrites... even at the cost of actually being hypocrites. Am I a hypocrite? Yes, I am a hypocrite. I regularly tell people to act in ways that I myself do not live up to.

You don't need me. You need your Mother. We all, now more than ever, must hold to the doctrine of the Faith. The enemy of Christ and His Church is on a rampage. Can you see it? I can. It's aweful. This foe is beyond any of us.

Say

Your

Rosary.

Run to the Blessed Virgin.

Not to imply that you aren't doing this, but just to say... keep doing it. Run run run run run run run.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 17, 2003.

ok, ok, I was NOT going to engage at the moment, but Paul's post urged me on.. this will be my last one on this thread, and subject, as I'm convinced Paul {and the catechism of the Cath. Church} in which I've just spent 3 hours, is RIGHT ON, and fully charged by the Holy Spirit.

First off Em, this business of beginning your sentences with "Hell" has got to stop, hey Im no prude, I work in the high school and regularly hear words that just roll off me, but we're adults here and this cursing does NOT reflect the purity we Catholics should be attaining to.

Jesus prays for us in John 17:21, that we would be one. Did you hear that? He PRAYS for us. This prayer will be answered. This unity will happen, is happening. It isn't answered yet.Yes the 4'th century Pius the 12'th stuff is right on, I'm in total agreement. Yes there is a solid Body, the Truth, and we are blessed to be here, in the fullness of it {although I intend to KEEP WALKING INTO THE FULLNESS AS I AM QUITE INCAPABLE OF ABSORBING IT ALL..YET}, didn't Jesus say that.. "I have so much more to tell you but you are not ready for it ....yet....!!!" This is an ongoing process.. for me, AND for us, the Church.

Emerald, without Vision we Perish, ask for vision, or you are sitting there seeing things in your own little black and white world, 'still through a glass', we need to see with God's eyes, in living color. God is getting His Bride ready,it's time to wake up.

In Ephesians 4 St. Paul prays also for the Church, for us to come to full maturity, full stature. This is a process. Yes we have the truth, but it hasn't come to full stature, and we are about that work now.

In 2Kings 6 Elisha prays that their spiritual eyes would be opened and they see the myriads of horses and chariots {God's army assembled}, and in chapt. 7 God causes the enemy to "hear" the horses' footsteps. My point? There is a whole spiritual world going on, we better wake up and tune in, and see "what time it is".

There's a whole lot of catechism I want to quote here but don't have the time, so I'm printing out the numbers, and some snippets, oh do read it. To reject it is to live a half-life, a stunted life, not the abundant life Christ is bringing us.

#818 "However one cannot charge with the sin of seperation those who at present who are born into these communities ...many elements of truth are found outside of the visible confines of the Church {let him who has eyes..see!... my comment}. "they have a right to be called Christians and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church".

#820 ..."the desire to recover the unity {Jesus' prayer} of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit". ... And it goes on to give requirements in order to respond adequately to this call of the Holy Spirit. Are you equipped to respond to this call?

It's a paradox, we hold fast to the truth, we pray and work to maintain,reinforce, and protect unity, to preserve it, .. and yet we are not there YET, - we desire its fullness and realization- till the end of time. That's why the Catholic church, by nature, is evangelistic. I used to hate the word "dialogue", it still sends up a few red flags for me, but I'm coming into a new understanding of it's role. How can we help others understand the fullness of truth, if we don't even want to talk with them. It's not a capitulation, {how can we deny what we've seen}, but it's a finding out what their errors are- not being disrespectful of their personal dignity by making them feel stupid and ignorant, but by simply declaring what the Catholic Church teaches {truth}. Their actual conversion is God's business, we leave that up to the Holy Spirit.

#837 get this!! "..even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but in 'body', not in 'heart'." {those people with the "Catholic plaques" i was talking about }.

#838 .. "those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church". .. Em, we strive for this perfection, we don't just consider them lost.

#848 ..."the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men". {what part of that is hard to get?}

one more thing.. # "We shall know the ultimate meaning of the whole work of creation and of the entire economy of salvation and understand the marvelous ways by which His Providence led everything towards its final end. The last judgement will reveal that God's justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by His creatures and that God's love is stronger than death".

yes, I will indeed continue to pray, pray, pray, in ALL ways the Holy Spirit leads, for He groans in ways to help us pray when we know not how. He even provides for us in our weakness of prayer. How good He is. Hallelujah.

I realize this is a repeated effort of others, but the teaching's good for a repeat. Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 18, 2003.

Jmj

Dear Theresa,
Your effort is a very noble one. What you have stated is perfecly correct and true -- genuine Catholic doctrine. Quoting from the Catechism is most excellent of you. However ...

I fear that you are unaware of the fact that you are trying to "dialog" with someone who does not accept the Catechism as a binding document. He believes that it contains doctrinal errors. Sadly, he even rejects the very paragraphs you quoted, as though they contradict the ancient teaching of the Catholic Church. Of course, he is completely wrong, but there is no one on Earth -- not the Fathers of Vatican II, and not even Pope John Paul II -- who can convince him that he is wrong. (Even the Council and the Pope teach wrongly, you see.) This is what makes your interlocutor a crypto-protestant and why his long-standing and incessant proselytism bars him from eligibility to post here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), August 18, 2003.

Hi everyone,

It looks like the forum has been through some changes since I last looked at it. All of you have been on my mind and in my prayers. (You too, Emerald!)

Emerald: on another thread, you said that I wouldn't stand beside you even if we were saying similar things. I laughed it off, but I wonder if you were actually serious. I hope you weren't.

Look, Emerald, I attend the March for Life in Ottawa every year. I stand there, beside thousands of other people saying similar things. Even though they are Protestants, lapsed Catholics, atheists, and who- knows-what-else, I will stand beside them to demonstrate our common beliefs.

HOWEVER: I will not stand behind them. I won't back up every statement they make, or accept their moral standards in a general way. If I were to "lean" on them in such a sense, I would be very likely to fall as soon as they zoom off on some tangental Protestant, lapsed, or atheistic belief.

So, I will agree with you on the necessity of prayer and sacrifice, just as I agree with Christian Soldier on the necessity of reading Scripture. I will disagree with you whenever you disagree with the teachings of the Magisterium.

I like you very much, Emerald, because you are smart and witty and have a lot of the right answers. But just read over the discussion we were involved in: you begin by attacking ("You, Catherine, are a heretic, as is the Pope, and as was St. Thomas.") but you end defensively ("But you can't prove with dogmatic definitions that my speculations are false, so I'm keeping them.").

What can I add to your plea for prayer and sacrifice? Read, read a lot, and read what the Magisterium has taught (not necessarily defined! ;) during the past millenia. Maybe the contradictions you are seeing are more misunderstandings than lies.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), August 18, 2003.

John seems to think you can't make it without him. What do we need the Cone of Silence for if we can interpret tongues? This remains a mystery to me. At any rate:

"I fear that you are unaware of the fact that you are trying to "dialog" with someone who does not accept the Catechism as a binding document."

This is a very revealing statement, insofar as to it is attached the word "dialogue". Is it not the case, my friend John, that all non-Catholics with which the modernist Catholic ecumenist wishes to dialogue with are, in point of fact, people who do not accept the Catechism as a binding document?

So assuming your statement about me is correct, why withhold dialogue from me?

If it really is the case that I don't accept the CCC as a "binding document", then according to your own New Springtime of ecumenical dialogue, isn't it the case that you, Mr. J.F. Gecik, are under charge by Rome to dialogue with me, Emerald?

But in contradiction to Rome, what seems apparent is that John Gecik deliniates his dissenting intentions thusly:

"This is what makes your interlocutor a crypto-protestant and why his long-standing and incessant proselytism bars him from eligibility to post here..."

In other words, John will not dialogue with me, and encourages others not to as well. A stark contradiction to the ecumenism of the New Springtime. No bed of roses to be sure! What great suffering, what great sacrifice is made for the well-being of others.

You may as well state the obvious reality:

Be ye ecumenical with the Muslims, the Jews and the Protestants... but nay, be not ecumenical with traditional Catholics, for they are cut off, cast out and to be burned as chaff. Outside the Church as they are, there is no salvation for these.

Right? Let's not let the stick-in-the-mud traditionalists slow us down in your comings and goings directed by the holy spirit of the age.

Whereas, I openly posit that what is being listened to in certain circles is not the Holy Ghost but the Spirit of the Age. To borrow a concept, a spirit that brings them all into the darkness, and binds them.

To put it in laymen's terms and to borrow a statement from the post conciliar Church and put it to real use, traditional Catholicism is the fullness of the Truth, at least in regards to "the only necessary knowledge", per the phrase found in Litany of the Holy Ghost. Obviously, not all knowledge and understanding can be attained in this life, but only that which is necessary for salvation. That knowledge is found in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

John states:

"This is what makes your interlocutor a crypto-protestant and why his long-standing and incessant proselytism bars him from eligibility to post here."

Based on John's claim that I am a protestant, I demand ecumenical dialogue with him. It is my rightful claim, back by my Pontiff John Paul II himself. If John fails to dialogue with me, I will hold him to be in dissent against Vatican II and the New Springtime of the Church, and against the Holy Roman Pontiff Pope John Paul II.

To Theresa:

"ok, ok, I was NOT going to engage at the moment, but Paul's post urged me on.. this will be my last one on this thread, and subject, as I'm convinced Paul {and the catechism of the Cath. Church} in which I've just spent 3 hours, is RIGHT ON, and fully charged by the Holy Spirit."

A reasonable question here... you won't engage me, or won't engage what the Church has always taught? I could conceivably post excerpts from documents alone, devoid of any of my own words and make the case. Whatever is rightly taught (orthodox) in the CCC is going to be also found in all the works and documents throughout the 2,000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church.

"Jesus prays for us in John 17:21, that we would be one. Did you hear that? He PRAYS for us. This prayer will be answered."

He did; I've heard it and believe it.

"This unity will happen, is happening... it isn't answered yet."

If this is the case, what exactly is the Catholic Church, and what is the Mystical Body of Christ but unity? I thought we already had this unity for coming up on 2,000 years. Now I hear that maybe we haven't had it yet. This is quite interesting.

"Yes the 4'th century Pius the 12'th stuff is right on, I'm in total agreement."

It's right on to be sure. "Stuff" probably isn't the best way to characterize it. I do, however, doubt that you are in agreement with all of it; I would love it if you were, but look, my own priest brother doesn't really either. It pains my heart, but there's nothing I can do about it. All in all, regarding the past pontiffs, few modern Catholics agree with what they say, really. They say they do, give them lip service, but then proceed forward with The Process and end up compromising Catholic Truth.

"Yes there is a solid Body, the Truth, and we are blessed to be here, in the fullness of it {although I intend to KEEP WALKING INTO THE FULLNESS AS I AM QUITE INCAPABLE OF ABSORBING IT ALL..YET}..."

You'll never be in the fullness of all Truth in this world, and in the next, from what I hear from the Saints, it will take all eternity to comprehend it.

"...didn't Jesus say that.. "I have so much more to tell you but you are not ready for it ....yet....!!!" This is an ongoing process.. for me, AND for us, the Church."

Alright, take that word Process and burn it into your memory. You'll pull it out again someday hopefully, and begin to examine it from a new and unique angle. Things may or may not become apparent to individuals in the future as these things all play themselves out. The Process, to cut to the quick, is the method and strategy of all that is anti-Christ. There should be absolutely no reason why the Sensum Fidei shouldn't be picking up these signals loud and clear, but people just aren't cluing in. This Process seeks to involve the mind and the heart and the actions of good people with all things other than what pertains to their eternal salvation. Those things which pertain to eternal salvation are not always easy, not alway pretty. The knowledge we need he have already; we have never been deprived in the Catholics Church of the necessary knowledge.

"Emerald, without Vision we Perish, ask for vision, or you are sitting there seeing things in your own little black and white world, 'still through a glass', we need to see with God's eyes, in living color. God is getting His Bride ready,it's time to wake up."

Time to wake up... hmmm. A tiny bit of judgement there, a pinch of an assumption; an edge of elitism, no? You assume I have not a vision of things. Perhaps, and perhaps not. But my own little "black and white world" is nothing more than Catholic Doctrine... for as our Savior said, say yes if you mean yes, and no if you mean no, and all else comes from the Evil One. Actually, it may be that I have seen a thing or two; perhaps, perhaps not.

But this "vision" you speak of? What if it is the Apple in the Garden? That we may be gods. "Vision" is not a Catholic doctrine; it is not a Catholic teaching. However, it does bear a certain similiarity to the realm of the New Age which believes in visualization... the concept that if we can imagine it, if we can perceive it and believe it, we can accomplish it. It presupposes that all good things can arise out of the construct of a unity and harmony among humans; that we, or our innate goodness, can together dream and achieve all things. It is reflected in holding hands at the Pater Noster, and it is reflected in the holding of hands in some cases around the altar during the Consecration. While I was still a young adult, I participated in this once because I was driven by human respect and by the Pride of Life.

You may find eventually that the Enemy will seek at all times and in all places to ape the Creator and His Church for deception's sake; that at times, it is virtually impossible to distinguish Truth from what is a great facade. I have run into this several times myself, and it has struck me into the recognition of my own weakness and into my own need for the guiding hand of the Mother of God and the Holy Ghost. We are no match for the Demon. Don't think I have my eyes closed and have seen nothing of the depths of what lies beyond the world we see; I'm aware enough to know my small stature, and I would assume that everyone else is pretty much as ill-equipped as I am without the grace and the aid of what the Church has always taught and what it has always offered us through the Sacraments.

"In Ephesians 4 St. Paul prays also for the Church, for us to come to full maturity, full stature. This is a process. Yes we have the truth, but it hasn't come to full stature, and we are about that work now."

This interpretation is hot to the touch.

"In 2Kings 6 Elisha prays that their spiritual eyes would be opened and they see the myriads of horses and chariots {God's army assembled}, and in chapt. 7 God causes the enemy to "hear" the horses' footsteps. My point? There is a whole spiritual world going on, we better wake up and tune in, and see "what time it is"."

If you only knew how much I realize this. Again, this is too hot to the touch for me.

In short Theresa, I think you are into a way of thinking that cannot be supported by the perennial teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Much of these ways of thinking, imho, are obtained and disseminated through what is known as the Charasmatic Movement.

However, the truth never changes, and we all die and stand before the judge. We already know what we ought to be doing, and His Kingdom is not of this earth. This earth will die and all things on it will die with it.

No special insight is needed except that perennial insight brandished by the Saints... of which not one was charasmatics. Mystics they were, seers of visions they were, but this is not the same thing.

The other thing is esoteric.

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

Hey Catherine, I see your post... lol! I was involved in the above long-winded post that will brink Frank to the verge of despair, no doubt.

Dang it if I can't say what I'm trying to say effectively. If there's anything that seems offensive in the above post, trust me that I'm trying to say it without any ill intent.

Sorry Theresa and Catherine. God bless you.

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

I saw your post on the other thread about Enya, Theresa, and believe it or not I kind of agree with you on it in a certain respect. It's interesting because that old thread and your comments pertain a lot to this discussion... that is, unless you think I've completely lost it. lol!

Way too longwinded on my part tonight, but I hope to God that you don't take my words as a direct attack on you; please give me the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe sometime I could incorporate into this thread the things of music, New Age and Enya and the like. I have this theory I've been working on for a little while about how what I call The Spirit of the Age speaks through modern art. I really, really do think it pertains to much of what our Church suffers with.

Like you, I do not think in all cases that the origin of such things is Godly at all, but also, I think this spirit boasts, and in doing so reveals things to those who have ears to hear it, and in that sense like you said on the other thread, it requires one to shut it out.

I have no idea if that makes any sense to you at all. I'll try to say what I'm thinking soon... that is, if you already aren't bored to tears and rendered you completely irritated. Ah, I wouldn't hold it against you and can't really blame you. I am the irritator of all eyes and ears. Then again, God makes men what they are. lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2003.

Jmj

Theresa, your interlocutor wrote:
"Is it not the case ... that all non-Catholics with which the modernist Catholic ecumenist wishes to dialogue with are, in point of fact, people who do not accept the Catechism as a binding document? So assuming your statement about me is correct, why withhold dialogue from me?"

In the first place, Theresa, this foolish comment refers to you and me as "modernist Catholic ecumenist[s]", an obvious error and slur that we can "round-file" immediately.

Secondly, the writer's memory is dead, because he forgets that no one is "withhold[ing] dialogue from" him. Proof is found in these words, which I posted to you earlier in this thread:
"Theresa ... [i]f he has left a valid e-mail address, though, you can surely argue with him privately. I hurry to say, though, that no one has the authority to keep either of you from posting here."

Thus, (1) I suggested the possibility of private "dialog" ...
(2) I did not demand that public "dialog" stop ...
(3) I did strongly encourage that public "dialog" be prevented by the moderator -- not because it is "dialog" per se, but because the crypto-protestant has lost eligibility to post messages at forum (due to scores of rules violations).

Your interlocutor continued:
"... isn't it the case that you ... are under charge by Rome to dialogue with me ...?"

No, it is not. We are permitted to "dialog" with protestants, but not required to do so. What is required is for the pope to set up official structures for dialog with non-Catholic bodies, and he has done so. That is why the crypto-protestants who have been hounding this forum can carry on dialog with the appropriate dicastery of the Vatican.

Your interlocutor continued:
"In other words, John will not dialogue with me, and encourages others not to as well. A stark contradiction to the ecumenism of the New Springtime."

This error has already been refuted, earlier in my answer. I'll add to it the fact that I (and many others) have already participated in more than a year of fruitless public "dialog" with these crypto-protestants. What has been happening for many months now, though, is not "dialog" on their part, but harassment, proselytism, and literal deviltry (which is why they must be banned).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 19, 2003.

Here we can see john Gecik at his very best, because he keeps his personal disaffection with opponents neutral and pleads justly for the Church. We admire the effort, and in his post above, must say he is totally successful. The person he names Interlocutor is far past dialoging with Catholics. His bias against the Church is adamant; so much so he won't call her the Church anymore. He renders her secondary now, as opposed to his personal favorite, which is referred to as ''traditional''. He plays this false premise like an accordion for us almost a year now. At least he admits it's a boring pursuit.

He does so despite the fact no one here has ever disparaged the Latin Missal for one minute. We acknowledge the Mass of Trent when it has our bishops' approval in the diocese, alongside the vernacular Mass. We have not been exclusive; it is some elitist wonks in so- called Trad posturing, who act like Pharisees. We are ONE; and welcome them as brethren. But a dialogue? It's not feasible any longer with Emerald. As Shakespeare says: He is a warm friend quickly cooling off.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 19, 2003.

Thanks much for your support, Eugene. I'm happy to see that you have returned to the forum!
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 19, 2003.

Dear Emerald, I’m back to express more thoughts. In pondering, I see John’s point. If we’re not on the same page at ALL, what’s the point of conversing? I would be talking just for the sake of hearing myself talk. If you are ‘stuck’ somewhere and not participating in the Church’s flow and movement, it would seem you would feel a little out of place here. Do you really expect the people here to reject what they’ve seen and know to be true? How would we go backwards, when the Holy Spirit is about birth, new life, going forward, bringing forth the kingdom?

The Holy Spirit’s looking for souls who wake up daily saying ‘what would You have me do today?’, souls who pray constantly in songs, hymns and spiritual {prophetic} songs [Eph. 5], who RECEIVE the gifts {charisms} so generously offered by the Holy Spirit so we may co-operate with Him in preparing His Bride for holiness. The present Roman Catholic Church lives fully from the sanctificatory gifts {Is. 11}, She begs for His vision {Hosea 4:6}, and ponders His revelations. She dares to walk boldly on the water towards Him out of love for Him, pushing every hindrance aside with a burning desire to see Him, trusting that if we walk too quickly He’ll lovingly remind us, and correct us.

For in 1 Timothy 1:7 we are reminded that “God has not given us a spirit of cowardice, but one of power, love, and self control”. You do still read the bible, don’t you?

At any rate, we continue to pray. Theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 19, 2003.

This is absolutely amazing.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2003.

You're not hard to understand, Emerald. You're what's widely known as the back-talker type. If you can't answer substantively, you'll answer anyway. As in: ''This is amazing'' Or, ''This blows my mind.''

Why doesn't it ever occur to you; nobody cares what amazes you or anybody. That's for comic books.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 19, 2003.

He does want to dialogue with me! He really, really does!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2003.

"Dear Emerald, I’m back to express more thoughts. In pondering, I see John’s point. If we’re not on the same page at ALL, what’s the point of conversing?"

Ecumenism, of course.

See? It's working.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2003.

Alright, alright. Let's pick through some substance, if you insist.

Gene has some substance to offer while engaging in dialogue with The Interlocutor, the one with whom dialogue is not feasible. This is intriguing.

"Here we can see john Gecik at his very best, because he keeps his personal disaffection with opponents neutral and pleads justly for the Church."

This remains an open question, and as such, entire threads have been devoted to delving into this issue. Status: Inconclusive.

"We admire the effort, and in his post above, must say he is totally successful."

This is a claim which may, or may not, represent the truth. Status: Inconclusive.

"The person he names Interlocutor is far past dialoging with Catholics."

Hidden premise: Emerald is not a Catholic. Status: False premise.

"His bias against the Church is adamant..."

A claim that The Interlocutor is an enemy of the Church. Status: False. Serious charges need serious evidence; you can provide none. You can provide none, and have provided none, because the claim is a false claim.

"...so much so he won't call her the Church anymore."

A claim. Status: Well, I hate to say it, but this is what's known as a lie. Outright. I have never, ever, ever, ever expressed any such sentiment.

"We are ONE; and welcome them as brethren. But a dialogue? It's not feasible any longer with Emerald."

One might be inclined to question the feasibility of dialogue, in the current usage of the word, with another Catholic.

Others might not be.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2003.

For Mr. Gecik:

"In the first place, Theresa, this foolish comment refers to you and me as "modernist Catholic ecumenist[s]", an obvious error and slur that we can "round-file" immediately."

Good point! Very insightful; because as it stands, you refuse to dialogue with me. As such, I cannot call you an ecumenist.

"Secondly, the writer's memory is dead, because he forgets that no one is "withhold[ing] dialogue from" him. Proof is found in these words, which I posted to you earlier in this thread: "Theresa ... [i]f he has left a valid e-mail address, though, you can surely argue with him privately. I hurry to say, though, that no one has the authority to keep either of you from posting here."

Proof to the contrary is that you refer to me by another name and in the third person.

Claim as to my memory being dead: False. Now where was I... oh yeah:

"...the crypto-protestant has lost eligibility to post messages at forum (due to scores of rules violations)."

Claim of violation by The Interlocator of forum rules: False.

Please provide evidence of said violations.

Claim that The Interlocutor is a protestant: False. Cannot be proven, as the claim in not the truth. But even if it was true, get this:

According to the New Springtime, as a Protestant, I would fall into the classification of Brothers in Christ.

That makes The Interlocutor John F. Gecik's brother in Christ. No matter how you look at it, I am:

Your Brother in Christ.

"That is why the crypto-protestants who have been hounding this forum can carry on dialog with the appropriate dicastery of the Vatican."

What of Keating's organization? His organization has no official charge from the Vatican to undertake what it undertakes. Are we to rule him and his organization out as not being an "appropriate dicastery of the Vatican"? You're shifting...

"Your interlocutor continued: "In other words, John will not dialogue with me, and encourages others not to as well. A stark contradiction to the ecumenism of the New Springtime." This error has already been refuted, earlier in my answer."

No it wasn't.

"I'll add to it the fact that I (and many others) have already participated in more than a year of fruitless public "dialog" with these crypto-protestants."

That's because you don't know your stuff well enough. If you did, we would never have been deemed Protestants in the first place. It's just a silly kind of argument without substance; it always has been. And it's always been grossly uncharitable, and very un-ecumenical.

"What has been happening for many months now, though, is not "dialog" on their part, but harassment, proselytism, and literal deviltry (which is why they must be banned)."

Nah, it's just that you don't like certain Catholics, that's all.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2003.

For Theresa:

"If you are ‘stuck’ somewhere and not participating in the Church’s flow and movement, it would seem you would feel a little out of place here."

O.k., let's examine this a bit. First off, the indication that I am stuck. I believe there's a hidden premise here, and perhaps you could clarify a bit for me... what I'm thinking is that you take me to be Left Behind. Is this a fair statement? I'm not cluing in?

But more to the point is this line:

"...and not participating in the Church’s flow and movement..."

Here is the modernism John denies. The Church, quite frankly does not flow and move, but is built upon a Rock and not upon sand which flows and moves.

I think, in order to have me clearly understand you here, that it would be a good idea to lay out exactly the nature of this flow and movement; what it consists of... what's flowing, what's moving, etc., and if possible, to anchor the concept down with the perennial doctrine of Holy Mother Church in order to weigh this movement's legitimacy.

"Do you really expect the people here to reject what they’ve seen and know to be true?"

I don't know what they've seen... can you fill me in? What in particular are you referring to? Seriously, I truly am not sure what phenomena you are pointing to here.

"How would we go backwards, when the Holy Spirit is about birth, new life, going forward, bringing forth the kingdom?"

What, exactly, does forwards and backwards refer to? Where were we, what was it like, and where are we going now, and what will it be like when we get there? Fill me in; I need details, but as it stands it seems nebulous to me. Can you explain?

"The Holy Spirit’s looking for..."

Be very careful with private interpretation here. Gecik's longstanding admonitions against such private interpretation should be well heeded in this case. We can run headlong into error in claiming that the Holy Ghost wants this or wants that without having the Church's perennial mind to guide us.

To find truths concerning the real action of the Holy Ghost, it might be a good idea to google The Litany of the Ghost and start with that; just something that I have found helpful, that's all.

"You do still read the bible, don’t you?"

Since I have become more firmly committed to traditional Catholicism, I have been reading it much more often, yes.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 20, 2003.

Doh!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 20, 2003.

Dear Moderator, are you still not convinced of the necessity to ban "Emerald" -- even after reading the above?
Please help the forum in this way. We do not deserve to be subjected to his crypto-protestant harassment and proselytizing.
JFG

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

Look, Theresa posted a thread to me, and you came in and started accusing me of not being a Catholic.

I mean really, who is doing the harrassing?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 20, 2003.

The rivers of living water are FLOWING out of us, as Jesus said would happen. The water flowed from the ROCK when Moses struck it. The two concepts don't conflict, with God all things are possible.

I'm off to music practice, but in the back of my mind, my heart, I keep this in prayer,with rosary will give it to our Lady, will pray for us at chaplet. I pray for the grace to pray always, at every moment in the Spirit. Is this as crucial as banning someone? I don't know, how easy is it to just ignore, there ARE other threads. there are other issues. Does the conflict have to put a sour taste on the whole forum?

John, let us sacrifice this to the Lord right now, is it time to lay it down and walk away from it? Let the Holy Spirit have His way with all of us. We mustn't give into the 'flesh' and let it consume us, certainly. Let His Peace reign in our hearts.

We have all been given Truth through holy Mother Church. We will all walk into it as we mature and are able to receive it in it's full, and those who will enter the Kingdom will, as my son says, certainly be all Catholic. I just pray for grace for myself that I'm worthy of the Kingdom, and of my brothers and sisters. I pray, St. Bernard pray for all of us, pray for our docility towards the Holy Spirit's movements in our midst.

Can't say if I'll be back on this thread, it's a little eerie right now. Praised be Jesus! We must pray for wisdom and courage for moderator. Theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 20, 2003.

Have to repeat:

We admire the effort, and in his post above,(John Gecik's post) must say he is totally successful."

Your silly reply (amidst the others in your anthology) ''This is a claim which may or may not represent the truth. Status: Inconclusive.''

Not to me. He caught you perfectly. You can inflate your chest all you wish; it's nothing but preening. That's been concluded about you for months. Status, redundant.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 20, 2003.

Is it possible Emerald is addicted to this forum?

-- Lou Grant (Mary@tyler.more), August 20, 2003.

Before you go, Theresa...

"Can't say if I'll be back on this thread, it's a little eerie right now. Praised be Jesus! We must pray for wisdom and courage for moderator."

Take a look at it objectively. You started a thread to me, explaining something you had said to me, and I suppose, looking for some clarification on my part about what I'd said in another place.

So I posted what I thought was pretty mild post, attempting to not only let you know that I understand where you are coming from, but also a good pointer as to where I get certain ideas... in this case, from Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi, On the Mystical Body of Christ. As you can see, this encyclical directly touches upon your concern, being this:

"I’m sorry I came across as accusatory, I reacted quickly to the sentence you proposed; “They’ve [episcopaleans] always been lost, it isn’t like they were in any way part of the Mystical Body in the first place”. I responded by telling you that you displayed ignorance and prejudice. I felt you came across with an immature “theyr’e not part of the body, and we are, na na na na na na” attitude. And quite frankly, it made me sick."

Now I thought this was a fair statement or concern on your part; I didn't take this in any bad way at all. But before I can even explain where I'm coming from on this matter, Gecik feels the need to step in and claim that I'm not a Catholic, but a Protestant.

Then he proceeds to explain how I'm possessed, and that Satan is speaking through me. He suggests that I need excorcism.

Gene somehow visualizes genius in all this.

Seeing as how I had only made reference to a papal encyclical and to the Litany of the Holy Ghost up to that point, I find John's claims to be openly hostile and offensive to the Faith.

These are grave accusations... you just don't go up to other people and tell them someone is possessed and that Satan is speaking through them. This is absolutely preposterous.

If you want to continue this at some point Theresa, let me know, and I will do my level best to be civil and open and honest and try to explain where I am coming from. You don't have to agree with me, and I can't make you agree with me.

However, if you are pursuaded by people who openly make claims that I am possessed and that Satan speaks through me, while all I do is try to understand and uphold the Catholic Faith, what can I say?

I'm looking upthread and I see absolutely nothing that provocative or offensive in my replies to you.

How would you feel, Theresa, if people kept calling you a non- Catholic, an anti-Catholic, a person possessed through whom Satan speaks, a person who hates the Catholic Church?

Think about it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 20, 2003.

We need only review John's post on August 19, 2003.

He clearly refuted Emerald's claim that his need for dialogue with ''modernist ecumenists'' (not with Catholics) was being denied. John sank that little boat with no bubbles at all.

He made indirect reference to crypto-protestants, not to anti-catholics. Nor did he accuse Emerald of being posessed; only of deviltry. He hit that nail on the head.

If I applauded too loudly, I'm sorry.

Emerald resorts to hyperbole after that. He can't offer substance, so he wraps himself in the martyr's palm and recites the litany. Yes; just a poor, misunderstood lamb.

He will cast aspersions at the ''neos'' at will, and laugh at our faith without scruples. But when his shots glance off us, and we laugh back, that's incivility? Poor clown. More & more pathetic as time goes by; but he won't abandon his great mission. He said he would leave. -- WHEN?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 21, 2003.

That's pretty much up to you and John.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 21, 2003.

"In the first place, Theresa, this foolish comment refers to you and me as "modernist Catholic ecumenist[s]", an obvious error and slur that we can "round-file" immediately."

What John does here in typical style is to make a claim, but offers no support for the claim, citing obviousness... that the claim is self-evident.

This tempts me somewhat to go into a full-blown layout of exactly why I think there's the element of modernism on display. I'm sure you'd be dying to see this.

Here's another good example:

"...but because the crypto-protestant has lost eligibility to post messages at forum (due to scores of rules violations)."

But see, there's no layout of how I have violated any forum rule, let alone scores of them. There never has been. Again, we have an unsubstantiated claim.

"We are permitted to "dialog" with protestants, but not required to do so. What is required is for the pope to set up official structures for dialog with non-Catholic bodies, and he has done so. That is why the crypto-protestants who have been hounding this forum can carry on dialog with the appropriate dicastery of the Vatican."

This seems a bit like bait-and-switch. The majority of the dialogue of ecumenism is popularly believed to be an action and an attitude to be taken on by the entire Church and by all the laity. A good example would be such organizations as Catholic Answers. But in the above, John pretends to sweep all aside and reduce the phenomena down to appropriate dicasteries of the Vatican, as if that were all that was intended by the New Springtime of ecumenism. I call it for what it is... it's shifty.

"Your interlocutor continued: "In other words, John will not dialogue with me, and encourages others not to as well. A stark contradiction to the ecumenism of the New Springtime." This error has already been refuted, earlier in my answer."

Here again, he just claims that it has been refuted. He refuted nothing.

Refutation is not an attitude, Gene.

Only the blindest of the blind will buy this one:

"Nor did he accuse Emerald of being posessed..."

John has openly stated several times that he believes that I am possessed by the devil, or that the devil speaks through me. lol! The back-pedaling process has begun! I can't wait to see this one play out.

I do believe at this point, that if I were to come over to your side... yours and Johns, that is, that I would be accepting as part of the package the absolute and complete devastation of the virtue of charity.

So I will never come over to your side. I see hate in it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 21, 2003.

I'm here. only have one minute though. Must admit I need a dictionary to plow through some of the terminology you guys are using. I don't want to lose my simple focus, I think it just boils down to my original post, second paragraph, second sentence. blessings on us all today,Theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 21, 2003.

You see hate? Hatred, is the right word. No matter; we have never been haters; I myself objected to the unconvincing frivolity and cruelty of your posts. This only after humoting you for months; only to have your Amadeus horse-laugh reappear post after post. It became silly, and you personally changed a serious forum into farce. That's why I retired for a time; only to re-enter and still find you boring the whole world with your sophisticated casuistry. You are tireless, Emmy; but above all tiresome!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 21, 2003.

Gene, I must admit to you that "Emerald" is being truthful in saying that I have referred to him as possessed (and things of that kind). However, I hope that everyone knows (and knows that I know) that he is not literally "diabolically possessed" (like little Regan in "The Exorcist"). My language was hyperbolic (for effect) and it was a figure of speech, a dramatic way of saying that ...
(1) he has been doing things that have pleased satan, that, like satan, ...
(2) he has been resisting the holy way of orthodox Catholicism that we have proposed to him countless times, and that, like satan, ...
(3) he has been saying things that are temptations to the weak in faith.
If anyone actually mistook me to be saying that "Emerald" is literally possessed by the devil, then I apologize to him and to the person that was so misled.

As you probably know, Gene, I could take each of the things he has just said (in response to words of mine) and explain how he is wrong. I won't do it, though, partly because it would be useless and partly because of what I am about to say to Theresa.

Hi, Theresa. You wrote:
"John, let us sacrifice this to the Lord right now, is it time to lay it down and walk away from it? Let the Holy Spirit have His way with all of us. We mustn't give into the 'flesh' and let it consume us, certainly. Let His Peace reign in our hearts."

Out of brotherly love for you, I will do it. I will lay it down.

God bless you.
John

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

Then I will too, and offer my apologies to John and Eugene and Theresa for things I've said or done, including any violations that I might not be aware of.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 21, 2003.