Okay I use to post on here a lot my name is Alicia. I am 19 yrs. old and I have been Catholic my whole life. I just want to understand it more. Tomorrow I am having a discussion with some friends about the religion. See was talking to my friends on a message board "Forum thing" and they started talking about how Catholics are bad and what not. I told them since it was late we could talk about this tomorrow. I was really needed some help when I talk to them. So if anyone will be online tomorrow night I would love it if you could help me with my responses to what they say. Any help will be good. Thank you for your time

Alicia

-- Alicia (AliciaStar11@yahoo.com), September 04, 2003

Answers

alicia, why dont you direct your friends to this sight and let em try to criticize us here... only, tell them to be polite or we bite back.

-- Paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 04, 2003.

Hi Cron Excalibur .

Sometimes the battles come to us just out of the blue. If we just stand there and do nothing, bad things begin to happen. That's why we do the battling for others. "Battling" in this case is really about teaching, not fighting.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 04, 2003.

Alicia,

I'm 21, and I can tell you in earnest that it was hours and hours of research and University education that led me towards the Church, not away from it. If your friends are anything like the kind of people I see on the Internet, their ideas are probably just old kiddie copies of 19th century criticisms that they bought from bitter high school teachers, MTV, smarmish US politics, misquoted (or misunderstood) Scripture, etc.

Please understand that the wall of opposition to the Catholic Church is absolutely huge, imprenetrable, but also (in my experience) simply ignorant. They have an image of the Church that is outdated even by atheist standards.

I've said nothing of substance (yet), but if you still talk to them and have questions about Catholicism, people here and I are willing and happy to help so far as we can.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 04, 2003.

Alicia,

I am a traditional catholic and always willing to help anyone with questions, since I have been there myself. I know my faith well and very willing to help you or anyonelse. Contact me at anytime, anyday to meet you on this chatline or privately by email address above. Most important piece of advice at this time is "beware of sheep in wolves clothing" I have heard and read dozens of them on this and other chat lines. Other people are innocent and have been deceived in the faith by the wolves. Looking forward to hearing from you Alicia.

dutchee

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 04, 2003.

By "traditional catholic" I trust you mean that you follow the leadership of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Nothing in Catholicism is more "traditional" or more essential than that. Anyone who refuses to be in submission to the Pope should not call himself "traditional", and really should not call himself "Catholic".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 04, 2003.

Boniface VIII, ex cathedra in the Bull Unam Sanctum:

"Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Traditional Catholics would never deny this. However, many attempt to make them look like they do because traditional Catholics refuse to believe any differently than Catholics have always believed.

It's a false accusation at worst, or at best, a kind of complacency of the will or the intellect.

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

So-called "traditionalists" would never deny this verbally, because doing so would clearly reveal the underlying cause of their errors. However, they do so de facto when they set themselves up as the final authority concerning the relationship of current Church teaching to prior Church teaching. The Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church teaching in union with him, and they ALONE, have divine assurance of right interpretation and teaching of Christian doctrine. To accept their teaching is to accept truth; to oppose their teaching is to accept untruth. It's as simple as that. Jesus Himself said so (Luke 10:16).

The statement of Boniface VIII is absolute. Note that it says "ENTIRELY subject". It does not say "subject, subject to my personal understanding and approval". The Holy Father and Magisterium are quite competent to discern what is and is not consistent with the teaching of the Church throughout the centuries. Indeed, they are the ONLY ones competent to do so. And the gross incompetence of self- described "traditionalists" who try to set up their own version of Catholic doctrine in blatant opposition to the divinely ordained authority of the Church, is sadly evident in everything they write.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 04, 2003.

Note that it says "ENTIRELY subject".

So, you don't think we should have invaded Iraq either, right?

"However, they do so de facto when they set themselves up as the final authority concerning the relationship of current Church teaching to prior Church teaching."

My observation is that on the whole (particular individuals on particular subjects aside), they don't do this at all, and that the claim that they do do so is usually specious.

On the flipside, a case could easily be made for instance that the charasmatic movement has been committing this very action, especially when you pepper the counter-accusation with the verbal condiment "Self-Styled".

"So-called "traditionalists" would never deny this verbally, because doing so would clearly reveal the underlying cause of their errors."

What is absolutely necessary here in order to make the cases is to layout the specific, exact error(s) of the so-called traditionalists. But wait, that's not all... there's more! To nail the case home, you would then have to say that any errors, if found, actually make the case that the post-conciliar way of thinking/believing is actually supported but the uncovering of "traditionalist errors". The two cases are not interchangable, logically speaking. They are two distinct arguments; success in one does not necessarily lend credence to the other.

I don't know who dutchee is and I don't know what angle dutchee is chiming in from, but if ever and whenever dutchee says anything that's perrennially Catholic as in ever ancient, ever new, I'll do what I can to back this person up.

The objective is to know the Catholicism that the Saints knew. This seems like safety.

Perhaps I can sum it up like this: "I'll be damned if I go to Hell..." j/k!

Blessed be the name of God, that I am as a thorn in your side, Paul. You have to admit, it could get pretty dull in here answering questions all day about annulments and... and that other thing.

lol! God bless.

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

Shalom Alicia,

Sounds like you have encountered some “friends” who hold anti- Catholic views. To begin with, we find such attitudes non-Christian for they already have judged the Church without knowing her heart, not to mention understanding where she is coming from. We have heard many different attacks on the Church have learned to take on the Protestant attacks of our faith via Scripture (as many here seem to do as well) and we’ll be happy to help any way we can. Though we do wish to warn you that most Protestants don’t usually read the Catechism, so we don’t recommend quoting it; however there are footnotes within the Catechism that can help because these are passages in which our Church based her teachings on. Sometimes you will find she gives a council instead and these can often (but not always) be found on the Net through a search engine (Google is usually quite good). Lastly we have an Apologetics site where we placed on-line some of the arguments we’ve used which you can find at: http://www.angelfire.com/ny/Yeshuaslight/Mysteries.html

You can also find a defense for many Catholic holidays at: http://www.angelfire.com/ny/Yeshuaslight/YomTov.html where we show the one-to-one correlation we see between our Catholic holidays and the ones called for in the Bible. For example, the holiday Easter falls on the day Jewish festival of HaOmer, which by no strange coincidence has deep Messianic undertones.

If you accept our offer from our website, please note there links to different sites at the bottom of each page, but they are not our own and we presently have no control over what is posted there.

Lastly, where is this Message Board? Is it open for anyone to join? If so then maybe some of us could stop by and help you out. Let us know if that’s possible.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), September 04, 2003.

Paul, you are right. Your opponents are wrong.

For a Catholic, it is utterly sufficient to say what you stated:
"The Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church teaching in union with him, and they ALONE, have divine assurance of right interpretation and teaching of Christian doctrine. To accept their teaching is to accept truth; to oppose their teaching is to accept untruth. It's as simple as that. ... The Holy Father and Magisterium are quite competent to discern what is and is not consistent with the teaching of the Church throughout the centuries. Indeed, they are the ONLY ones competent to do so."

Contrary to what you were told (as we have all been told about 37 times), it is not necessary (much less "absolutely necessary") to go beyond that. Specifically, it is not necessary for you or me to "lay out the specific, exact error(s) of the so-called traditionalists." [Pointing out that they contradict the pope is enough.] Likewise, it is not necessary for you or me to "make [a] case that the post-conciliar way of thinking/believing is actually supported." [Pointing out that we accept the Pope's teaching is enough.]

God bless you.
John
PS: To flush down a red herring for the umpteenth time ... When the pope expressed an opinion concerning Iraq, he was not exercising his magisterium (teaching authority). What he stated was not a Catholic doctrine nor a binding discipline, but rather a prudential judgment. It plays no part in this discussion.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 04, 2003.

Paul,

Just thought you might like to know, one thing you said before really made an impression on me. When someone says something like:

The objective is to know the Catholicism that the Saints knew. This seems like safety

it seems on the surface to make sense, but I more fully understand your point that to try and live in the Church 1000 years ago is to turn our backs on 1000 years of further interpretation and fullness of the Truth. Thanks for that Paul, don't know why it seems so important, but I think about that more often than one would think.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 04, 2003.

Except this minor point, Frank, and that's that the greater part of these saints I'm alluding to lived not much more than a hundred years ago. Some less than that... not that it matters, though.

In view of the big picture of a 2,000 year history, they're virtually contemporaries. But why would that matter anyways?

"it seems on the surface to make sense, but I more fully understand your point that to try and live in the Church 1000 years ago is to turn our backs on 1000 years of further interpretation and fullness of the Truth."

That's unfortunate, because the rules of the universe and the laws of God, and the condition of men, and the way of salvation, have not changed one whit in all of those 2,000 years.

Do what you must, however. Obviously I'm going to take the position ad infinitum that to have a view that there's such a thing as 1000 years of further interpretation and fullness of the Truth is the fruit of modernism, but I'm pretty sure that you'll deny it.

I kind of imagine this scene where a soul goes up to judgement and Saint Peter asks

"Time period sir?"

"Huh?"

"Time period please. Which century did you live in sir?"

"Oh! Oh, sorry. Um, 19th your Holiness."

Saint Peter flips through the book of life and heads to the chapter entitled Special Conditions, Doctrines & Understandings; Loopholes: Per Century and then proceeds to grade souls on a curve.

I doubt it. In fact, I know that's not how it works; we are called to the same type and method of sanctity that all Saints of the Holy Faith were called to. It isn't a matter of knowledge as much as it is abandonment to the Will of God.

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

"When the pope expressed an opinion concerning Iraq, he was not exercising his magisterium (teaching authority). What he stated was not a Catholic doctrine nor a binding discipline, but rather a prudential judgment. It plays no part in this discussion."

Prudential judgment of the Roman Pontiff would fall highly into the category of what must be submitted to. Very highly so.

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

Emerald,

I didn't direct this to you for a reason. This is why:

That's unfortunate, because the rules of the universe and the laws of God, and the condition of men, and the way of salvation, have not changed one whit in all of those 2,000 years

Yes and no. Yes, in that this is a true statement, no in that our UNDERSTANDING of the above has certainly changed! Since you are unwilling to see this, there's no point in further discussion, is there?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 04, 2003.

I guess so that you can understand your Faith better?

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

Hey this is Alicia again. All I said to their comments were that they were uneducated about Catholics. Just wanted to post on here a comment my friend said and another friends response....

My friend Lyndz wrote this to me: ...i don't believe catholics are a cult but they are not Christians, Latosha's right they are different religions....maybe you haven't been to a Christian church but it is no where near a catholic one....and not to bash catholics or anything but some of the things they believe are ridiculous and stupid, they believe in some things that aren't even in the Bible. We are aware they belive in Jesus, but you don't even have to be part of any religion to believe in Jesus....In reality God hates religion, and would rather us not be religious, but when you talk about religion Catholic and Christian aren't the same if they were then wouldn't they be called the same thing and believe in ALL the same things? The religions are different i don't know why you would think they are the same.

Then her friend said this: geez... religion=overall grouping based on specific (but somewhat general) dogma sect=branch of a religion, separate from other sects by more detailed beliefs/disagreements

christianity=religion catholicism=sect...*not* another religion

any church you go to will generally/usually be a sect of some sort...of course going to blah blah sect of a church one place is going to be different from going to blah blah catholic church...they are different sects...

does anyone understand this? *shakes head* some people make me sad...

-- Alicia (Aliciastar11@yahoo.com), September 05, 2003.

Hey this is Alicia again. All I said to their comments were that they were uneducated about Catholics.

good call, the only problem is that nearly every protestant ive ever met thinks that they know more about catholicism than even the pope. its ridiculous, especially when they try to tell you what you believe...

now for your friends... ...i don't believe catholics are a cult but they are not Christians, Latosha's right they are different religions....

Latoshas wrong, actually, Catholicism is what is referred to as a Denomination, meaning it is a part of the different traditions which, according to websters english dictionary, recognize the divinity of Christ. one might just as easily say that whatever church these two ascribe to isnt christian by virtue of the fact that they DONT support catholic beliefs, but by literary definition they would be wrong as well.

maybe you haven't been to a Christian church but it is no where near a catholic one....

here your friend is quite astute, although not in the way she thinks. i was forced into attending a 'christian' church for several years by one of my parents, a church which seemed founded on bashing catholicism. the problem with that church is that they are the same thing, only so watered down that none of the passion and mystery of Christ's complexity remain... only a hulk so simple that any child can understand it and *CLAIM* to believe it with little or no work. so yes, they are different, protestantism is generally so watered down it makes me sick.

and not to bash catholics or anything but some of the things they believe are ridiculous and stupid, they believe in some things that aren't even in the Bible.

yes, but heres the kicker... we dont believe in anything that isnt at least REFERENCED in the Bible, and we certainly dont believe anything that is contradicted in the Bible (unless of course you jump through hoops and parse verses to suit your needs, which the Bible does warn us against). None of our beliefs is ridiculous or stupid, but modernism being brought on by non denominational types spews this belief that as long as you have a personal relationship with Jesus itll all be okay, regardless of morality or personal belief.

We practice morality on a much higher scale, with well formed dogma of belief. religion isnt about finding a church that fits you, its about fitting yourself to the church that God gave us.

In reality God hates religion, and would rather us not be religious,

oh, yes, God, who commanded us to follow him, told peter that he was the rock on which the church would be built, told us to trust the church as the pillar of truth, DOES NOT WANT US TO BE RELIGIOUS?????

TELL ME HOW SHE CAN SAY THAT CATHOLICS BELIEVE UNBIBLICAL THINGS AND THEN TURN AND SLING SUCH HORSE MANURE ALL OVER THE PLACE????

The religions are different i don't know why you would think they are the same.

you might tell her that you think this because you at least have education on the principle of christianity by literal definition, and that you follow the Bible more closely than she does so if anyone is not christian it is her.

your other friend, on the other hand, seems to at least understand that catholicism is christianity, although the word sect is wholly innaccurate. DENOMINATION is the word, sect more refers to a branching within a church such as the jesuits being a sect, along with the holy cross and the knights of columbus. they all share the same doctrine, but prefer different paths to its attainment.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 05, 2003.

My statement (last time): When the pope expressed an opinion concerning Iraq, he was not exercising his magisterium (teaching authority). What he stated was not a Catholic doctrine nor a binding discipline, but rather a prudential judgment. It plays no part in this discussion.

Objection: Prudential judgment of the Roman Pontiff would fall highly into the category of what must be submitted to. Very highly so.

My rebuttal: Absolutely wrong. Prudential judgments, being non-doctrinal and non-disciplinary, do not require assent, but only respect. [How ironic was the objection to what I wrote, since it came from one who won't even assent to various doctrinal statements (the very things to which assent is due)!]

Hello, "little paul."
I like almost all of what you told Alicia. However, I have to agree with "big Paul," who says that Catholicism is not a "denomination" -- and that "denominationalism" is a phenomenon of protestantism only. It is a term used to refer to the splintering of the non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christian world.

Also, I believe that the Church uses the word "sect" in a special way, not referring to something within Catholicism, but only outside it (such as anti-Catholic Fundamentalism, Mormonism, and JW-ism). Here are two small parts of the 1999 papal address called "Ecclesia in America":

"49. ... Although the Second Vatican Council refers to all those who are baptized and believe in Christ as 'brothers and sisters in the Lord,' it is necessary to distinguish clearly between Christian communities, with which ecumenical relations can be established, and sects, cults, and other pseudo-religious movements ..."
"The challenge of the sects --
73. The proselytizing activity of the sects and new religious groups in many parts of America is a grave hindrance to the work of evangelization. The word 'proselytism' has a negative meaning when it indicates a way of winning followers which does not respect the freedom of those to whom a specific kind of religious propaganda is directed. The Catholic Church in America is critical of proselytism by the sects and, for this reason, rejects methods of this kind in her own evangelizing work."

God bless you.
John

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

Shalom Alicia,

You said:

>>>"Hey this is Alicia again. All I said to their comments were that they were uneducated about Catholics.">>>

Uneducated isn't always the case, but under educated usually is, that is they have only a fragmented knowledge of our faith learned from "ex-Catholics" whose suffered from a poor understanding themselves. Thus the adage rings true "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

>>>My friend Lyndz wrote this to me: ...I don't believe Catholics are a cult but they are not Christians, >>>

Why if we believe in Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus Christ) that He died for our sins, and rose from the dead, that we are made clean by the blood and are baptized into this death, what exactly are we considered? Not to mention our Creed recited every Mass happens to be the fundamental beliefs they themselves hold, or should hold.

>>>Latosha's right they are different religions.... maybe you haven't been to a Christian church but it is no where near a catholic one.... and not to bash Catholics or anything but some of the things they believe are ridiculous and stupid, they believe in some things that aren't even in the Bible.>>>

When we usually come across this claim that we do not follow the Bible, we often ask them if they remove the blood from their meats, as this happens to be binding upon ALL believers (Acts 15.27-29). However, Catholics are no longer bound to it because the Magisterial Authority is given the right to "loosen and bind" by popes. This particular law was dealt with at the Council of Florence (the Bull "Cantate Domino", February 4, 1441). And since Protestants do not have this doctrine of infallibility (through the Holy See) in their by laws, then it would seem reasonable to believe the edicts of that first Jerusalem Council are still be biding on them? It is in the Bible.

>>>In reality God hates religion, and would rather us not be religious, but when you talk about religion Catholic and Christian aren't the same if they were then wouldn't they be called the same thing and believe in ALL the same things?>>>

This would be true only if they have a head shepherd and the Eucharist to maintain this unity within. The disunity of the Protestants sects that can only come together in their hate and distrust of us proves this very aptly.

>>>Does anyone understand this? *shakes head* some people make me sad... >>>

Maybe the parable of the seeds Matt.13.1-23 can put some light on this.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@anglefire.com), September 05, 2003.

john,

of course i agree with you, that catholicism is the true form of christianity, but i was trying to describe what the other meant by calling it a sect... but big paul is right, catholicism is more a universal form of christianity than a denomination constitutes.

on the sect part, i fully concede the point, and stand corrected. i was using sect in the literal sense to apply to orders, however looking it up in a religious dictionary shows the term to apply quite differently. i stand corrected and appologize for any confusion caused.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 05, 2003.

Thank you, paul. No need to apologize!
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 06, 2003.

Dear Moderator, Please do not delete my response to Alicia. I believe that is DISCRIMINATION. I have freedom of speech to participate on this chatline, just as the COWARD who wants me offline deliberately did not identify him or herself. Apparently this person is attempting to kill the messenger because he/she doesn't like the message. Sinister?????

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 09, 2003.

Dear Dutchee,

We do indeed DISCRIMINATE between legitimate discussions of Catholic topics - vs. - subversive attempts to undermine the divinely ordained authority of God's Holy Catholic Church by schismatic special interest groups. The book you recommended is blatantly in the latter category, and the terminology you use in describing Holy Mother Church ("the counterfeit church"; "the phony catholic church") reveals that you are likewise in that category. Therefore your post was clearly in violation of the rules of the forum, and has been deleted.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

"...and the terminology you use in describing Holy Mother Church ("the counterfeit church"; "the phony catholic church")"

I take that if someone calls me or any one of my traditionalist Catholic friends a nonCatholic protestant, then, in keeping with the above statement, that you will delete their posts in the future.

In the postconciliar world, have you ever noticed that... it's only the lay people that do the censuring? I have never in my life been told by anyone in the magisterium to cease and desist anything. I have never once read a document of the Church that told me or my kin that my brand of Catholicism, if you want to call it that, has been officially censored. I have never once in my life received a demand letter from any ecclesial office. Not en masse, either; there has been no official en masse anything of the type above.

This barage of complaints that people are not loyal to the Holy Father and the magisterium only ever come from one place:

Lay people.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

And Emerald, I suppose you've never once read where Lefebvre was excommunicated, as were those who followed in his schism. Just didn't make the ol' reading list.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 09, 2003.

Dear Emerald: Thank you for supporting the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Obviously this greenspun chatline is biased in favor of those looking to destroy the Church of all time.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 09, 2003.

So what you're saying, Frank, is that you want me to stop consecrating four bishops every day without permission?

Sure... you got it. I'll stop consecrating bishops immediately.

But fair is fair. Could you cut down a bit on the deacons?

Look, Frank, you know full well that action was not at all a condemnation of traditional Catholicism.

Here's what you want to be able to say: "The Pope excommunicated Lefebvre for the consecration of 4 bishops without his permission. Therefore, the things that traditional Catholics talk about are all condemned by Rome."

Problem is, that's not a logical, valid conclusion. I can outwit any attempts to pin me down not because I'm shifty, but because the accusations are false. It's really that simple.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

Dear Frank: Personally, I follow the one, true, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ 2000 years ago...the Church of all time. I do not, however, follow the church of Paul.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 09, 2003.

The Pope is the visible head of "the one, true, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ 2000 years ago". If you don't follow him, you don't follow the Church. "Where Peter is, there is the Church". Note - this quote from St. Ambrose is PRE-conciliar, and fully expresses the TRUE tradition of the Church. Failing to follow it is anti-traditional.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

Changing the 'understanding' of dogma is also anti-traditional. It is Modernism. Did you read Pascendi yet?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 09, 2003.

If the understanding of dogma didn't change, we wouldn't know any more about the faith than a handful of uneducated fishermen. Do you really think Peter contributed as much to the UNDERSTANDING of the faith as Aquinas? That Matthew taught us as much as Augustine?? Matthew and Augustine both possessed the same doctrinal truths. But Augustine had the advantage of a few centuries of ongoing revelation of MEANING. Dogma cannot change. But if our understanding of it does not increase over time, we simply remain ignorant. We know "the truth", but don't know much about it. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth. He is doing so. The basic truths - dogmas and doctrines - are in place and immutable. But the truths which can be revealed ABOUT those essential truths are endless.

-- (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

Emerald,

No, it wasn't about "traditional Catholicism", it was about Protastantism, Putting your own desires over the dictates of the Pope and Magesterium. Quoting half a dozen documents out of 2000 years of church history doesn't change the simple fact that the Church moved one way, some people decided not to, disobeyed the Pope, and entered schism. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. The church as led by the Pope and Magesterium remains the source of Christianity, regardless of what any of the protestants say. This is truth.

If you don't follow the dictates of the Pope and Magesterium, you are a Protestant. If you do, you are a Catholic. Simple. All else is sophistry.

You can fool others, you can fool yourself, but you can't fool God. If you believe the same things as people who call the Mass an abomination, then you have declared your position IMO.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 09, 2003.

Dear Frank, Archbishop Lefebvre is not and never was excommunicated. The vatican has never said he was. Cardinals Ratzinger, Stickler, Lara, Cassidy and eminent Canon Lawyers in Rome have said that the Society of Saint Pius X is neither in Schism, nor is it excommunicated. Cardinal Castillo Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law said that "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act, and so no excommunication applies". (as printed in La Republica, Oct. 7, 1988). Count Neri Capponi, a retired professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome's highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura, said that it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission, "He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore this act was not schismatic" and so he is not excommunicated." (Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993). Father Patrick Valdini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schmismatic act by the consecrations of the 4 bishops, because he didn't deny the Pope's primacy. "It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission".....which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did. (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L'Homme Nouveau, Feb. 17, 1988). Frank, see what happens when you don't know your facts. Some major contributors to this chatline do not tell the truth, so I'm giving you the facts myself. Now you decide who tells the truth and who doesn't. "By their fruits, ye shall know them." Pay close attention and above all, think, reason and DISCERN for yourself. Ask God the Holy Ghost to enlighten you with the truth at all times. That is, if you do indeed WANT TO KNOW the truth. It is a gift given to those who want to know the undeniable truth, but it has to be asked for with sincerity and a love for the truth. It appears that Satan, the devil, is alive and well on this chatline. However, God the Holy Ghost will expose the deceivers to you.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 09, 2003.

Dutchee,

The Pope excommunicated him by name, which he has the Authority to do. It doesn't matter what one or one thousand Cardinals think, they do not have the AUTHORITY to declare otherwise. End of story. I swear, reading those sspx websites is like looking at a Jack Chick tract. If you have to LIE to support your position, it's wrong!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 09, 2003.

Comment 1: "I take that if someone calls me or any one of my traditionalist Catholic friends a nonCatholic protestant, then, in keeping with the above statement, that you will delete their posts in the future."

Rebuttal 1: Since neither the writer nor his friends are currently Catholics, there would be no point in deleting the posts just mentioned. It is only the people who oppose the writer of the above and his friends -- i.e., it is only folks like Kiwi, Paul, paul, JFG, and others -- who can accurately be called "traditional Catholics." Only opponents of the writer hold to the entire Apostolic Tradition. [Side not: The term "Traditionalist Catholic" has been applied to people who prefer to attend the 16th-century rite of the Mass, but who do not criticize the newer rite and do not dissent from the Catechism, Vatican II, and the teachings of the current pope. There is no way at all that either of the terms, "traditional Catholic" or "Traditionalist Catholic," can be applied to the writer of the above comment or any of his schismatic (and dissenting or heretical) friends.]

Comment 2: "In the postconciliar world, have you ever noticed that... it's only the lay people that do the censuring?"

Rebuttal: The term "postconciliar world" is useless. The "world" from the day after the Council of Jerusalem in the first century [or the Council of Nicaea in the fourth, if you prefer] until the end of time ... is the "postconciliar [after-the-council] world."

Comment 3: "I have never in my life been told by anyone in the magisterium to cease and desist anything. I have never once read a document of the Church that told me or my kin that my brand of Catholicism, if you want to call it that, has been officially censored. I have never once in my life received a demand letter from any ecclesial office. Not en masse, either; there has been no official en masse anything of the type above."

Rebuttal 3: What has "never" yet happened to the writer is irrelevant. When the people who have a magisterium (a teaching authority) are so few [pope and bishops], and the flock is so large, this kind of "overlooking" of the writer's bad behavior is to be expected. But if the writer and his friends, instead of being the nobodies they are, were prominent and influential theologians spouting out the same claptrap, then those with a magisterium would surely notice them and (we can hope) correct them.

Comment 4: "This barage of complaints that people are not loyal to the Holy Father and the magisterium only ever come from one place: Lay people."

Rebuttal 4: Utter baloney (or bologna, if you prefer). Many fine, orthodox priests utter exactly the same complaints. And even at this forum, Paul is not a layman, but an ordained clergyman, a deacon. Nevertheless, it is wholly appropriate that "lay people" should be the ones to sent out a "barrage of complaints that people [like the writer] are not loyal to the Holy Father." We "lay people" are "in the trenches," the Church Militant, so we have to fight against the errors with which the writer tries to harm this forum.

Comment 5: "I can outwit any attempts to pin me down not because I'm shifty, but because the accusations are false. It's really that simple."

Comment 5: The writer couldn't "outwit" the average kindergartener who trusts the pope. It's really that simple.

God bless you.
John, a traditional Catholic


-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 09, 2003.

Paul,

There are 3 persons in one God......God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. What Jesus said was that the 'Holy Ghost' would guide the Church to All truth. He never said Holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 09, 2003.

Frank,

Prove it.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 09, 2003.

Frank, I reiterate for the ignorant. There was no schism committed. Therefore there was NO excommunication. As far as an SSPX website, I wasn't aware they have one but I intend to check it out.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 09, 2003.

Dutchee,

Ecclisia Dei, link

Here's a quote from it. Piece o cake slim. If you read the whole thing, you can find out the fate of their followers.

Oh, and one other thing, what did that pre-Vat II Pope Eugene say would happen to those who died in a state of excommunication? I can't recall exactly.

Frank

"Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 09, 2003.

This part is also pertinent to people with your affliction:

"The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)"

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 09, 2003.

Frank,

I think by now everyone on this forum knows that this issue can be hashed out until the cows come home, to no benefit at all to anyone on either side. More has been written about it than probably any single event since the Council.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I think all of us have made our positions pretty clear at one point or another over the last couple of years. Can we please stop beating this dead horse? I think we've made great progress in terms of "Old" v. "New" dialogue here of late. Not to say that anyone has backed off their position at all, but that people (with one or two notable exceptions)) are talking to each other in a spirit of fraternal charity despite even the deepest of disagreements. I, for one, would like to see it continue.

Deal with problem posters as you must, but don't ruin a good thing for the sake of making a point.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 09, 2003.

If the understanding of dogma didn't change, we wouldn't know any more about the faith than a handful of uneducated fishermen.

We don't really. It's a shame you think Christ would not leave his apostles with the full truth. Did you not know the Deposit of Faith was completed before Christ ascended into Heaven? That means the Church was left with all truth at that time.

Do you really think Peter contributed as much to the UNDERSTANDING of the faith as Aquinas? That Matthew taught us as much as Augustine??

Yes, I do. Even more so. If Peter had not faithfully guarded and handed down Revelation, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine would have never received it. How can you say they contributed more than the first Pope? Because they wrote books? Like the First Vatican Council said:Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries - but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.

Dogma cannot change.

Exactly.

But if our understanding of it does not increase over time,

You mean change? Read Pascendi.

we simply remain ignorant.

If I'm ever lucky enough to make it to the pearly gates, I'll be sure to tell St. Peter for you that his 'understanding' of doctrine was primitive and ignorant.

But the truths which can be revealed ABOUT those essential truths are endless.

The evolution ('understanding') of dogma has been condemned time and time again. It's a Modernist error. Read Pascendi.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 09, 2003.

Jake,

Dutchee asked me to "prove it", so I did. I think though your previous post to Isabel telling her to quit posting things like "read Pascendi" over and over got deleted by somebody though. This ecumenism of yours is a two-way street, after all.

Isabel,

The REAL "modernist error" occured in AD 600 or so when the mass was changed from the original Greek to Latin, wouldn't you agree?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 09, 2003.

Paul:

"The Pope is the visible head of "the one, true, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ 2000 years ago"."

And how do I not follow Pope John Paul II, Paul? Because _______. Fill in the blank. What do I need to do to gain eternal life, Paul? Tell me. How have I disobeyed the Roman Pontiff? You have got to be specific if you are to make any sense at all.

Here's a handy contradiction:

"If the understanding of dogma didn't change, we wouldn't know any more about the faith than a handful of uneducated fishermen. Do you really think Peter contributed as much to the UNDERSTANDING of the faith as Aquinas? That Matthew taught us as much as Augustine??"

How is this a contradiction? Well, you see, the Charasmatic Movement claims in some respect to sort of get back to the original spirit of things... you know, revitalize the Church with a little of that energy of Pentacost. Hmmm. How come that's the case, but, on the other hand, when you argue your case here, these same fisherman couldn't hold a candle to the holy men of the Church that came after them? They were just a bunch of uneducated fisherman? Which is it? Do you want to progress away from them, or re-aquaint yourself with them? Make up your mind.

Also, read Pascendi. It talks about statements like yours, about treating the Holy Faith as if it were a kind of philosophical progression. It's exactly the case you're making here. It was condemned by Pius X and by Leo XIII. In that sense, you're out of step with the direction of the Church, which is the salvation of souls.

You read all that stuff, didn't you? It's not old; it's only 100 some odd years or so since then. It's not exactly ancient.

Frank:

"Putting your own desires over the dictates of the Pope and Magesterium."

What are my desires, Frank? I've expressed them before. Can you remind me what they are?

"Quoting half a dozen documents out of 2000 years of church history doesn't change the simple fact that the Church moved one way..."

Cut the tape! Cut the tape! Hold it right there. I like the sound of that. That's some truth right there. Read it! lol.

Of course, there's a bit of equivocation on the word Church there. Sophistry, if you know what it really is, relies heavily on the ambiguous use of words. Probably without meaning to do so, you've actually been more than a little sophistical in the phrase below:

"If you believe the same things as people who call the Mass an abomination, then you have declared your position IMO."

The ambiguous phrase is in bold. One could mean that someone actually called Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament an abomination, which of course would be blasphemous. Or, one could mean that the liturgy does not express the Eucharist properly, or adequately, or appropriately. The latter would not necessarily be blasphemous.

No traditionalist would say the first. Some will say the second. But you aim to inform all readeres that the traditionalist means the first. This is the use of sophistry. Intentional? well, you can fool others, you can fool yourself, but you can't fool God, so that's a matter between you and Him.

"...then you have declared your position IMO." And if I had, and if I was truly, truly wrong, what is your only option before God? Really? To pray for the salvation of my soul, correct? Then I can't lose, now, could I? Go do it.

John:

"Since neither the writer nor his friends are currently Catholics"

Untrue statement. I am a Catholic, John. Catholic. I'm Catholic. I love saying that, because it's true. I'm a Catholic. CatholicCatholicCatholicCatholic. Catholic. I'm a Catholic.

With Almighty God as my witness, I hereby assent to every doctrine and every single action required of me to be Catholic, sparing not one thing. Unequivocably. If it's Catholic, I'll believe it. I don't even need to understand it, I'll believe, I'll do it. Under pain of death.

How's that? Feel better?

Also, no, you may not borrow the word traditional. I'm quite sure I would never get it back.

"What has "never" yet happened to the writer is irrelevant. When the people who have a magisterium (a teaching authority) are so few [pope and bishops], and the flock is so large, this kind of "overlooking" of the writer's bad behavior is to be expected."

lol, hey, my own brother is one of the magisterium. After I gave him an earful about all these things, he didn't really respond. I think in his heart he knows there's no way to respond because there's been no denial of the Faith, no real denial of any point of obedience.

If you wish, I will actively seek to get the proper papers of condemnation for myself. I'm serious. I could try to get in front of the right people, and say "hey look, you know, this is what I believe as a traditionalist Catholic. Listen up. I would like you to draw up the papers to explain how I am in error, and as such, under censor." Man, that would make for a very comical and revealing experiment. That's the last thing you'd want to see the results of.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch so to speak, we've got some guy on EWTN that says that the Church now teaches that a Jewish person doesn't need to come into the Church because he's doing fine right where he's at. If that's the case, what does silly old Emerald have to worry about?

That guy from EWTN... now that's at heretic. That's the real thing right there. Go get him.

I have a hard time believing that you really care about the dire predicament of my immortal soul, John. Maybe that's a sin on my part, to have these doubts.

Oooh. Check this out:

"But if the writer and his friends, instead of being the nobodies they are..."

I like that; that's a good argument. At any rate:

"...were prominent and influential theologians spouting out the same claptrap, then those with a magisterium would surely notice them and (we can hope) correct them."

You still haven't really identified what this claptrap consists of, exactly. You're dodging me.

I never denied submission to the Roman Pontiff Pope John Paul II. He has not declared any new teachings. You're misunderstanding of the way the magisterium works in concert with the Holy Father and with the Faith itself, with the Deposit of the Faith, gives rise to you believing that I have done so when I have not. It really is truly a case of you and the others being, believe it or not, very self- styled in your own interpretations of real allegiance and of how the magisterium, ordinary and supreme, works.

Isabel recently posted a most brilliant expose comprised not of her words so much as the admonitions of Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. It was like Napalm; so much so that it got deleted. The deleter, whoever that was, knew the power of those admonitions from that document and obviously didn't take too kindly to the words of a Saint posted to discredit errors which occur on this forum in regards to traditional Catholicism.

Once more: traditionalist Catholics have only been condemned by lay people like you.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

After St. Paul was knocked off his horse and became a Catholic, nobody believed him either. It took a couple years for people to finally figure it out...

Eventually, that uneducated fisherman named St. Peter finally figured it out. Guidance of the Holy Ghost, I suppose.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

"Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)"

Picking out a single document and choosing their texts carefully in order to suit their private agenda, the modernists, using their own privated judgement, have erroniously concluded that all traditional Catholics are excommunicated.

Where's the bell? I'm putting another dollar in the collections basket... lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

You... Paul, John, Frank... you're doing the same exact thing! And Rome, Rome itself has claimed that is in fact permissable to attend the an SSPX Mass without committing a sin!

And I've never even been to an SSPX Mass in my entire life! lol! And still, still, I'm on your non-Catholic list in violation of your own ecumenical lipservice. This is hilarious!

In-con-ceivable!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

Dutchee asked me to "prove it", so I did.

No, you didn't.

I think though your previous post to Isabel telling her to quit posting things like "read Pascendi" over and over got deleted by somebody though.

I posted no such thing. Having access to the moderator function, though, you could tell via IP address who did. Care to share who it was?

This ecumenism of yours is a two-way street, after all.

Ecumenism (as you people understand it) is not mine. Nor is it the Church's. It's a pernicious and grave error that's been condemned, anathemized, rejected, cut into tiny little pieces and hung out to dry.

Has the "understanding" of what Pius XI taught evolved over 80 or so years to mean the exact and irreconcilable opposite thing it meant in 1928? That's your premise, isn't it?

1928. That was within 10 years of the births of my parents.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 09, 2003.

Hey, jake. You left the italics on. :)

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 09, 2003.

I'm sorry, did you say something?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 09, 2003.

Obstinate heretic. I am driven to correct you.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

Knock it off, Greenglass.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 09, 2003.

If you don't straighten up, you will suffer in hell for all eternity. Oh, no, wait a minute. I think that's understood differently now.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 09, 2003.

off

Isabel,

I have skimmed parts, and read parts of Pascendi, so what? Is it an infallible document?

Jake,

My comment on Isabel's post was supposed to get you thinking, I didn't actually believe you'd criticize or discipline ANY of your schismatic partners. Of COURSE you didn't write anything like that! I've never seen you do it, and never expect you to, regardless of what they post. My point was you asking me to change my behavior when you are unwilling to change that of your compatriats is kind of a joke.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 09, 2003.

Pascendi doesn't excommunicate modernists

It doesn't have to. Modernists 'excommunicate' themselves, by holding heretical beliefs.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 09, 2003.

Is it an infallible document?

O MY GOODNESS! I can't believe someone actually finally wrote that. That is exactly what I was waiting for someone to say. Thank you Frank!!!!!!! You see how it works now? You condemn others for what you yourself do. How many of the documents of Vatican II are infallible?

Back to the question........

No, it is not. It was written by a Saint Pope, of whom even amazed the Modernists of his time (by quotes of Modernists guilty of this sort of thing) by his keen insight into the way they work, how they do things, their agenda, and their goal.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 09, 2003.

Jmj

Can it be possible, dear Moderator, that it is STILL not yet time for the schismatics and heretics to be banned? Do you not at last see how some of them have even revealed themselves to be a lunatic fringe, laying siege to the forum and causing it to be more and more degraded with each passing day? Why did young student Alicia, who started this thread, have to undergo the cramming of their errors into her innocent ears? Should they not have been banned long ago to preclude such an outrage?

Comment 1: "I am a Catholic ... Catholic. I'm Catholic. I love saying that, because it's true. I'm a Catholic. CatholicCatholicCatholicCatholic. Catholic. I'm a Catholic."

Response 1: No, not Catholic, but protestant -- and definitely with a nursery-school mentality sometimes. As I said last time, the writer "could not outwit even a kindergartener who trusts the pope."

Comment 2: "With Almighty God as my witness, I hereby assent to every doctrine and every single action required of me to be Catholic, sparing not one thing. Unequivocably. If it's Catholic, I'll believe it. I don't even need to understand it, I'll believe, I'll do it. Under pain of death. How's that? Feel better?"

Response 2: This is a lie. Not an "error," but a "lie" (and possibly a mortally sinful oath), because it is a sick attempt to deceive us. The writer does not actually "assent to every doctrine [that we orthodox Catholics know is] required of" him to believe "to be Catholic." However, he words his emphatic "credo" in such a way as to fool us into thinking that he assents to everything. Instead, he assents only to those specific teachings that he wants God to require of him (since he lacks the faith to believe all doctrines). But those to which he assents fall far short of what we know is actually required of him. [His behavior is the essence of protestantism, claiming for oneself a parallel magisterium, a private auto-papacy.]

Comment 2: "... no, you may not borrow the word traditional. I'm quite sure I would never get it back."

Refutation 2: It is not the above protestant writer's privilege to grant or withhold a term ["traditional"] that he does not properly understand and that he relinquished when he abandoned Catholicism.

Comment 3: "lol, hey, my own brother is one of the magisterium. After I gave him an earful about all these things, he didn't really respond. I think in his heart he knows there's no way to respond because there's been no denial of the Faith, no real denial of any point of obedience."

Refutation 3: I thought that "lol" meant "laughing out loud." The writer definitly has nothing to laugh about. His laughter is not genuine, but rather a forced, nervous croak.
His brother is NOT "one of the magisterium." Those who possess a magisterium (a god-given teaching authority) -- [themselves sometimes called, by extension, "the magisterium"] -- are the pope and his brother bishops. Priests and deacons are not part of "the magisterium." In a subordinate way, their bishop may delegate the privilege of teaching, but only what "the magisterium" has already taught to begin with. When the writer speaks to him, his brother doesn't "really respond," either because he too is no longer Catholic or (more likely) because he sees the futility of trying to argue with a protestant fanatic (especially one who is a family member whom he does not want permanently to alienate). Better to let him be healed by God and return to the Church some day, the brother is probably thinking.

Comment 4: "I have a hard time believing that you really care about the dire predicament of my immortal soul, John. Maybe that's a sin on my part, to have these doubts."

Refutation 4: Not a sin, but only stupidity. I helped pay for the writer's college education at one of the best Catholic schools, yet I don't "really care about the dire predicament of" his soul? What a fool! I care about the salvation of every human being who has ever lived or will ever live.

Comment 5: "Your misunderstanding of the way the magisterium works in concert with the Holy Father and with the Faith itself, with the Deposit of the Faith, gives rise to you believing that I have done so when I have not. It really is truly a case of you and the others being, believe it or not, very self-styled in your own interpretations of real allegiance and of how the magisterium, ordinary and supreme, works."

Rebuttal 5: Aha! Maybe there is a glimmer of hope for the writer, because here, instead of keeping up the deception, he admits that he rejects some papal and catechismal teachings. He picks and chooses, like any other heretic.
The first fact is that we orthodox Catholics do NOT have a "misunderstanding of the way the magisterium works." Rather, like the current pope, we understand it perfectly.
The second fact is that the writer has chosen precisely what he wants to believe and to disbelieve -- and then he has invented a specious argument to try like hell to convince himself and others that he has permission to dissent from some teachings.
But let's not give up hope. It's usually only a matter of time before "B.S. artists" like this stop being able to lie to themselves -- provided their consciences don't die first, leaving their souls in a most fearful state.

Comment 6: "Isabel recently posted a most brilliant expose comprised not of her words so much as the admonitions of Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. [etc.]"

Refutation 6: Without a doubt, it was improper personal comments surrounding the papal quotation that got the message deleted. There's no way that a moderator would delete a post that simply contained papal language. But really, it doesn't matter, because none of the writer's clique ever properly understands the true meaning of "Pascendi" -- nor do they properly understand the words of any other Vatican document they are addicted to quoting. Therefore, we are better off not having to go through that deleted quotation, one sentence at a time -- only to have the protestants reject our accurate explanations. Enough time has been wasted already without that further vain effort.

Comment 7: "I've never even been to an SSPX Mass in my entire life! lol! And still, still, I'm on your non-Catholic list in violation of your own ecumenical lipservice."

Refutation 7: The fact that the writer is a non-Catholic has nothing to do with whether or not he has been to an SSPX Mass. Rather, it has to do with his dissent from any number of Catholic doctrines (found in the documents of Vatican II, the new Catechism, and writings of the pope) -- and especially with his heretical beliefs concerning salvation. [His snide reference to "ecumenical lipservice" is still more fodder for a dumpster's belly. Even by definition, there could be no "ecumenism" with someone unless he were to have the guts to admit that he is among Catholicism's "separated brethren."]

God bless everyone.
John, a traditional Catholic.
PS: That was a nice try, Jake, but "no cigar." The only way for your wish to come to fruition is for people in your camp to completely avoid the subjects that divide us. I get the impression that you now have sufficient will power to do what is necessary in that regard, but the others most definitely do not (and now a new "harpy" [Dutchee] has made the scene, complicating things further). These friends of yours bring up some part of what divides us in at least 90% of their posts. That is why I continue to petition the Moderator to put an end to this unfortunate situation. Even though each of you has some valuable things to offer, it would be better for all of you to go your own way, take care of your own separate forum, and leave us in peace to do some productive work here. Either that -- actually, much better than that -- all of you could and should turn your back on the unrealistic path you have been following and "revert" to the genuine Catholicism in which you grew up. But if anyone is foolish enough not to revert and also foolish enough to insist on staying here to fight -- well, he/she is either going to be banned by the moderator, or I am going to be like a bloodhound on his/her tail. You know that I am capable of it. There would be no rest and no enjoyment for such a soul, whom I see as misguided and a danger to Catholics and lurkers. Ceaselessly to harry this person and prick his/her conscience would be my duty. To do less would be a sin of omission on my part.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 09, 2003.

Do this then: tonight, pick your Rosary up and say it with this intention: "Mary, Mother of God, please obtain for jake, for Isabel, for Regina, for Emerald and for others like them, the gift of eternal salvation, as you are the mediatrix of all graces procured by the death of your Son. St. Louis De Monfort said that the requests you place before your Son will not be denied, so we beg you for this procure for us their salvation, and ours as well." Then say your Rosary with as much attention as you have available at the time.

Surely you cannot find fault with this.

Now if we could get everyone to do the same, we could restore all things in Christ.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

Isabel,

Is it an infallible document? O MY GOODNESS! I can't believe someone actually finally wrote that. That is exactly what I was waiting for someone to say. Thank you Frank!!!!!!!

Well thank YOU Isabel! You see what I was going to get into was how you guys were "cafeteria ""Catholics""" in believing you don't have to follow Vatican II (claiming there's nothing defined infallibly or something) yet hold up these encyclicals like the Holy Grail. Pick and choose, pick and choose, but avoid assent to the WILL of the Pope and Magesterium made quite clear in Vatican II and followed by 99.9% of Catholics! You've made my point for me, and I thank you.

So, why don't YOU try reading "Ecclesia Dei", and return to the church. Pope Pius wrote encyclicals for his times, and expected Catholics to obey. Pope John Paul II writes encyclicals for our times, and expects Catholics to obey. You do NOT obey, and so have fallen off the path. For this, I'm sorry, but do hope you'll eventually find your way back.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 09, 2003.

Isabel,

I've got another very basic question for you. Why do you want to call yourself a Catholic? Why NOT just join some sect in keeping with your beliefs? The church has clearly moved on under the direction of the Holy Spirit. I'm as sure that no Pope will ever declare the Novus Ordo incorrect and the Tridentine the only mass as I am that the sun will rise in the morning. This being the case, why do you want to stay in a church that is NEVER going to agree with you? If you won't obey, what's the POINT of trying to stay in the church?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 09, 2003.

She nailed you, Frank. She put you in your own straight jacket.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 09, 2003.

John, My own comments were very, very few when I posted the quotes from Pascendi, and they were far from inappropriate. The quotes I posted had to do with the evolution of dogma, the liturgy and the Church itself, and how they were all condemned. You must not have seen it, because all I posted were small notes saying how this or that was a condemned error. The rest of your post crumbles on its own, as (as usual) you make flagrant accusations with no concrete evidence.

You see what I was going to get into was how you guys were "cafeteria ""Catholics""" in believing you don't have to follow Vatican II (claiming there's nothing defined infallibly or something) yet hold up these encyclicals like the Holy Grail.

The encyclicals you speak of that we use, in no way depart from what was previously taught. That is the key, Frank. In matters of faith and morals and doctrines of the faith, teachings must remain in accord with what has always previously been taught. That is the core of Pascendi. It speaks of religious sentiment, philosophical progression in the matter of the faith, the evolution of dogma, liturgy and the Church, and the seperation of Church and state. These are all condemned.

Pick and choose, pick and choose, but avoid assent to the WILL of the Pope and Magesterium

What is the will of the Pope, Frank? Do you know? Can you read his heart?

So, why don't YOU try reading "Ecclesia Dei",

I have. On more than one occasion. But, in disciplinary matters, it is not within the power of the Pope to excommunicate without an ecclesiastical trial. This was never done. This was disciplinary, not heresy. But even if you say otherwise, then you still have all the other factors to worry about. Like the study of the case by canon lawyers and theologians, some of who work closely with the Pope. Like the permission to knowingly attend a SSPX Mass, (not on accident as some like to claim), donate to the offering plate, and still not incur schism, so long as your intention is to not seperate from Rome, but because of an attachment to the Tridentine Mass and the sound doctrine that they teach.

Pope Pius wrote encyclicals for his times, and expected Catholics to obey. Pope John Paul II writes encyclicals for our times, and expects Catholics to obey.

You see, that is what Pascendi is all about. For us to obey, the teaching must remain in the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.

You do NOT obey,

Tell me how I do not obey.

Why do you want to call yourself a Catholic?

Because I am one.

The church has clearly moved on under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

You see, this statement here, it's Modernism at its best. The Church does not move, it is built on a rock. Changes must always remain true to the Deposit of Faith, "in the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation."

what's the POINT of trying to stay in the church?

Because Outside the Church there is No Salvation.

But, you know. Emerald's right. He has said time and time again, for people to see these things, it's not about the intellect, it's about the will. And I totally agree. I guess I just keep hoping that if you read it (Pascendi) that you will understand. I mean, it's just so clear, how could anyone not see it? If you don't want to see it, you never will. But that's what it boils down to.......the will. Aligning your will with the will of God. Pray an extra Rosary for me, if you can spare the time. Pray sincerely for the grace that whoever is wrong is given the grace necessary for the things of salvation.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 10, 2003.

how could anyone not see it?

Trust me. They see it.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 10, 2003.

Emerald,

Sure.

Isabel,

Pick and choose, pick and choose, but avoid assent to the WILL of the Pope and Magesterium

What is the will of the Pope, Frank? Do you know? Can you read his heart?

Well, Isabel, when the mass is changed after 1400 years, it's not too hard to assume that the Pope and Magesterium have decided the course of the church need correcting. If you don't like the word "changed" you could always say that the old rite was becoming ineffective at teaching Catholic truths to modern man, and the course of the church needed to be corrected. Whatever. No one but a Protestant would say that the Pope and Magesterium didn't want the church using the Novus Ordo, if they didn't, they never wouldn't have instituted it. That you refuse to see this shows YOU are not in line with Church teaching, not that the entire Catholic church is incorrect.

And you never did answer my earlier question, why aren't you trying to go back to having the mass said in Greek, the Latin rite wasn't instituted until almost 600 years after Christ's death?

Emerald's right. He has said time and time again, for people to see these things, it's not about the intellect, it's about the will

Hey, I agree completely. You have the intellect to see that 99+% of Catholic churches throughout the world are using the Novus Ordo but still lack the will to obey the church in accepting this. That though, is not my problem.

Oh, and finally, while I'm willing to argue this on this forum, please don't deceive yourself into thinking this is a big debate within the whole church. There have always been people who've fallen away from the church for one reason or another, some even claim to be Catholic and have their own "Pope". The church does expend effort to bring them back into the fold, but will continue on regardless, and after a few generations the current schismatics won't be remembered any more than last century's "old Catholics".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 10, 2003.

when the mass is changed after 1400 years, it's not too hard to assume that the Pope and Magesterium have decided the course of the church need correcting.

Actually we were talking about the changing meaning of dogma. Not the Mass. It goes much deeper than that. I also have a hard time imagining that something that inspired most of the greatest saints in the history of the Church was all of a sudden inadequate.

If you don't like the word "changed" you could always say that the old rite was becoming ineffective at teaching Catholic truths to modern man, and the course of the church needed to be corrected.

Read Pascendi, all of it this time. :) It talks about the Church changing to suit modern man. (The evolution of the Church.) It says its an error. A Modernist error.

No one but a Protestant would say that the Pope and Magesterium didn't want the church using the Novus Ordo,

Guess I'm not a Protestant then, 'cuz I never said that. It's obvious they do.

That you refuse to see this shows YOU are not in line with Church teaching,

I don't refuse to see it, I see it loud and clear. I also see this and many other things having been condemned by previous pontiffs.

And you never did answer my earlier question, why aren't you trying to go back to having the mass said in Greek, the Latin rite wasn't instituted until almost 600 years after Christ's death?

Again, the reason I didn't answer it was because most of the conversation was concentrated on the evolution of dogma, not the Mass. But if you insist, Latin was chosen as it was the base of most languages and a dead language. Therefore, the meaning of the words can no longer change. All in all, though, as we've had this conversation before, and as I have mentioned many times before, Latin is one of the least of our complaints.

You have the intellect to see that 99+% of Catholic churches throughout the world are using the Novus Ordo

And since I have that intellect, I also have the intellect to see that 99% of that 99% denies at least one article of the faith, and/or is disobedient concerning the laws of the Church.

but still lack the will to obey the church in accepting this.

What have not obeyed that requires my obedience? You still have not answered that. I have permission from Rome to attend the Tridentine Rite, Quo Primum was never abrogated as was attested by officials in Rome, and it's not a denial of my faith in any way, shape or form for me to think the Novus Ordo to be inferior to the Tridentine Rite.

That though, is not my problem.

Oh, that it were.

and after a few generations the current schismatics won't be remembered any more than last century's "old Catholics".

But in the end Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph. That's what's important, not that me or any of my friends are remembered, but that the truth prevails and Our Lady crushes the head of the serpent.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 10, 2003.

Isabel,

I'll try and get back to this later, but got very busy today! I DO need to read more encyclicals, I'll agree with that. For instance in looking up a response to you I stumbled upon this from Pope Pius IX:Link

"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."

Now this encyclical was from 1863, definitely before Vat II, and here is the Pope declaring that people who are invincibly ignorant can achieve salvation through divine grace. OTOH, those who *alienate* themselves from the church, are in serious trouble.

So, if I can restate Pius' point, the Jew/Muslim/Hindu who's never heard of Catholicism has a chance at achieving salvation, much MORE so than a schismatic. Would you agree with this?

Oh and here's the next part:

"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector"

So, someone who disobeys the Pope's command is as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Frank

P.S. I learned one other thing. I thought there was just ONE schismatic sect after V2, the "sspx", but found there's also an "sspv" and some brotherhood of St. Michael (or something). Very interesting!

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 10, 2003.

but found there's also an "sspv" and some brotherhood of St. Michael (or something).

SSPV are sedevacantists. I personally would not attend there unless no other Mass was available to me. I would not want my children hearing any sedevacantist ideas during a sermon or something. I have never heard of the Brotherhood of St. Michael.

Well, since this conversation has 'evolved' from the evolution of dogma in general to this particular dogma in question, I'll fly with it. First let's examine this closely. Here is a part of the quote you posted:

"Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."

I found this explanation, which in fact, in the documents of the Council of Trent, justification is fully explained. One cannot be saved without being justified first.

"Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself."

Now mind you, this is saying that while invincible ignorance does not save, it also does not damn in and of itself. Pius IX also continues with this:

"that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man, will, in His infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."

Now after the release of the aforementioned encyclical Pius IX speaks of it in his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847 in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned opinions that invincible ignorance can save. "In our times many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently -- we shudder to say it, certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."

He then continues"

"Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command ... We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ Himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THlS ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH and SALVATION.''

Here is another Pope's thoughts whether God would actually withhold the truth from those desiring it. Pope Paul III (A.D. 1534-1549).

"and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it.

And then, two of the greatest theologians in Church history also wrote of this:

"There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and 'to whomsoever God gives His grace He gives it out of Divine Mercy: and to whomsoever He does not give it, He refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin," St. Augustine. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii art. v.)

"And the ignorance of these things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have, is, without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins, hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost." St. Augustine (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27.)

"Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas)

And this link is a great argument for this case as well. I know nothing of the site, but happened upon it.

From your next quote I found these pieces most pertinent as to your point:

"Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church....." and "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector"

I get your point. But you seem to have this false idea that I willfully oppose the Holy Father. That could not be more true.

As for the first statement, Rome itself has declared that I do not incur schism for my attendance at a Tridentine Mass (it's not even a SSPX one), as long as it is not my intention to seperate myself from Rome. On top of the fact, that Quo Primum was never abrogated, meaning I have the full right to attend this Mass. I do not oppose his authority or statements in all things keeping with the Deposit of Faith.

As for the second statement, I do not refuse to listen to the Church. It is because I have listened to the Church, not just at present, but all that She has taught through all the ages, that I am a Catholic.

All statements from Holy Mother Church, regarding faith and morals, must be in keeping with what has always been taught, in the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.

Good night, for now.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 10, 2003.

Oh, crap. Sorry.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 10, 2003.

BULLETIN
HURRICANE ISABEL ADVISORY NUMBER 20
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
11 PM AST WED SEP 10 2003

...ISABEL STRENGTHENS SOME MORE...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 10, 2003.

Isabel,

Nice parallel quotes. However, in my post I quoted Pius IX that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, so they really didn't add anything. Unfortunately, you didn't really provide your opinion on the main *point* of my posting that which was:

the Jew/Muslim/Hindu who's never heard of Catholicism has a chance at achieving salvation, much MORE so than a schismatic. Would you agree with this? (if you want, to keep in keeping with the quotes you presented, you can assume that the non-Catholic in question is "enlightened" at or around the time of death. As Pius said, God wouldn't let good men suffer eternal punishment through no fault of their own. It's IMO foolish to believe that every living person has heard of Christianity in their lifetime, 1000 years ago much more so than now).

On the second part, I'm glad you understood what I was driving at. Mainly because while you can bar-room lawyer your way around an internet forum, God will see through to your true heart, and judge you accordingly. Someone is NOT just "attending an SSPX mass" if they are in "formal adherence" to Lefebvre's schism. That's why I brought up the part about a traveller going to an sspx mass, they clearly have no intent of following their path. OTOH, if you believe that the church TODAY is no longer following Catholic dogma or is denying an article of faith while the Lefebvrist's aren't, (even worse if you go so far as to say that he wasn't really excommunicated), then IMO you probably ARE in formal adherence to his schism, which would be very sad for you. That's the whole point of this, to help return you to Catholicism.

Oh, sorry about not getting back on other parts of your post, I had a "gateway error" at work yesterday, was going to submit it this morning but someone helpfully logged me off. Can try again later.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 11, 2003.

I am a first time responder to this chat line, although I have been monitoring it since early summer when discovering, interestingly enough, that one of the main contributors to these hotly debated issues on Catholism apparently is a member of the U.S. Department of Defense...perhaps contributing to Poindexter's Echalon Program or Homeland Security's tattle-tale program or Destruction of the Roman Catholic Church program. In any case, I, as a Roman Catholic for nearly half a century believe that all Catholics must respect Pope John Paul II as our Pope, yet reject the church which he heads as "new", "conciliar", "protestant", "ecumenical", etc. They would have you believe that when our Lord Jesus Christ said, "And there shall be one fold and one sheperd" (John 10:16), that he really meant "And there shall be TWO FOLDs and one sheperd." Two folds: 1) The Catholic Church and 2) The Vatican II Church, simultaneously under one shepherd, Pope John Pau II. Okay Paul (Mr. Moderator) are you going to delete me too?

-- (tarses@sbcglobal.net), September 11, 2003.

tarces,

i would almost believe you are an impersonation by one of our local schismatics, but your writings and proofs are so poor i know that one of them wouldnt fake such a post.

there is ONLY ONE fold, and that is the catholic church, post vatican two. it is ONE united church, and you are seperated from it by cutting yourself from loyalty to the vatican. im sure if you read your post your conspiracy theory IN THE VATICAN would appear as ludicrous to you as it does to all of us real catholics here. do you really think GOD would allow satan into His church when he promised that hell would not prevail against it??? do you really think GOD LIED TO US???

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 11, 2003.

believe that all Catholics must respect Pope John Paul II as our Pope, yet reject the church which he heads

Sad, another tax collector. Tarses, hopefully you'll return to Catholicism.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 11, 2003.

Unfortunately for such schismatics, there is only one Catholic Church, the one Jesus said He would be with until the end of time, the one over which Pope John Paul II presides. Therefore, there are only three options: (1) loyalty to the Church of John Paul II and the Apostles; (2) heresy - join a manmade church; (3) schism - form your own church, which is not under John Paul II. But if you choose the third option, please don't call your church "Catholic". That can only cause confusion.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 11, 2003.

Hi, Gene.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 11, 2003.

Dutchee,

We see your horns.

I take it you mean that you and all of Legion sees (or foresees) the trumpets of the Church Triumphant. Good! If you are still alive, you still have time to return to Catholicism before it's too late. Don't blow it.

That's why Satan had no other choice (loser that he is) than to SET UP his own 'ugh' church and call it catholic

Look, while Lefebvre was clearly a misguided soul at the end of his life, that's no reason to call him "Satan". There's only one being who earned that title, and Lefebvre is a small fry in comparison. Actually, he was probably a good man, just lost his way, may God have mercy on his soul!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 11, 2003.

LOL!

You should give up and let your schismatic betters do your work for you. But then a house divided cannot stand, perhaps working against your own cause is in the nature of schismatics.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 11, 2003.

Tomorrow, Frank, I will respond. Got really busy at work and had class tonite and am exhausted. I wasn't trying to dodge your question, I just honestly thought my post would be an answer to it. But I will respond more specifically tomorrow.

tarses, it is best sometimes when trying to prove a point of view, to not use such strong language that will offend, but make a point and back it up with Church teaching.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 11, 2003.

paul, Yesterday, you asked me if I really thought GOD would allow satan into His Church when He promised that Hell would not prevail against it. To best answer this question with fact, allow me to present the following quotes (with sources) from a pre-Vatican II Pope and a post- Vatican II Pope. -Pope Leo XIII predicted that within the See of St. Peter, upon the Chair of Truth, Satan the enemy, "will have raised the throne of abominable impiety." (The Raccolta, 1930). -Pope Paul VI: "The smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God." (Catholic Sentinel, July 7, 1972).

-- (tarses@sbcglobal.net), September 12, 2003.

Paul, To best address your 3 Option menu for Catholics, allow me to present you with the following quotes (with sources): -"If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: Let him be anathema." (De Sacramentis, Canon 13, Council of Trent) -"The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successor of Peter for them to make a new doctrine known, but for them to maintain in a holy way, the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is the deposit of Faith." (The dogmatic Vatican I Council) -Pope Paul VI: "This [Novus Ordo] rite and its related rubics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition." (Papal Discourse, November 19, 1969) -Cardinal Ratzinger: "We were assured that as times changed so must ritual...we were told a million lies and half truths." (The Latin Mass, Special Edition, 1966)

-- (tarses@sbcglobal.net), September 12, 2003.

Isabel,

Don't feel rushed, remember this is not our JOB to argue this. Answer when it's convenient (I do the same though, LOL). Anyway, I haven't had the heart to redo my earlier post, but will say the mass was changed into Latin in ~ad 300 in the Western church, and was translated into Coptic, Assyrian, etc. in the East at around the same time. There's a great section in the old Catholic Encyclopedia under "rite" on this. With the prominence of Rome, and this being the language of the learned in the West, it remained the language of the West. It was however, translated into the vernacular of the day of the local population, not something that was changed over to as it was a "dead" language with fixed form. That's just what it is NOW. My point being if you really want to get back to what the *original* church practiced like, you'd likely be better off finding an old Eastern Greek rite somewhere. That's one of the problems I have with people who claim to be "traditionalists", btw. I could understand someone wanting to go back to the ORIGINAL mass, but if you are willing to accept SOME changes in the church's rite like there are in the Tridentine (from the prior Roman rite even) then you obviously accept the church's authority TO change the rite. This being the case I can't see how you can deny its authority to change it again to the Novus Ordo or even back to its original Greek if they wanted. Whatever will best meet the needs of the flock.

I also don't know why anyone would get fixated on a rite that occured AFTER changes to it had already been made. It seems to me more of an attempt to go back to the "good old days" than a scholarly or faithful attempt to return to the original form of mass. Why would the "mass in the middle" be the one to say is "the one" (and don't bother quoting quo primum, JPII could write exactly the same about the current mass if he wanted to) it still wouldn't be an impediment to the next Pope switching the rite of mass to what the Magesterium thought was most efficacious to the faith.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 12, 2003.

Dear tarses -

To respond to the quotes you offered ...

"If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: Let him be anathema." (De Sacramentis, Canon 13, Council of Trent)

A: This quote refers to deviations in rites and rituals by local churches from the CURRENT rites of the universal Church. It does not and cannot refer to approved changes promulgated for and by the universal Church. Rites are subject to change. Doctrines are not. And nothing that any Pope or any Council says can alter that reality.

"The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successor of Peter for them to make a new doctrine known, but for them to maintain in a holy way, the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is the deposit of Faith." (The dogmatic Vatican I Council) -Pope Paul VI

A: Absolutely. That's what I just said - doctrine cannot change.

"This [Novus Ordo] rite and its related rubics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition." (Papal Discourse, November 19, 1969) -Cardinal Ratzinger

A: Absolutely. That's what I just said - rites and rubrics are not dogmatic, and are subject to change by the same Church which created them.

"We were assured that as times changed so must ritual...we were told a million lies and half truths." (The Latin Mass, Special Edition, 1966)

A: A quote from a schismatic publication has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

"A quote from a schismatic publication has no bearing on the truth of the matter."

Are you talking about the magazine The Latin Mass; A Journal of Catholic Culture?

I hope you really know what you're talking about here.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

Yes, I am speaking of "The Latin Mass; A Journal of Traditionalist Culture". I have received complimentary copies from well-meaning disciples of its schismatic philosophy on several occasions, and have never had to read more than a half page before realizing it was not something that belonged in a Catholic home. Now I refuse to accept copies when offered, or take them and dispose of them where they will do no harm.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

That's pretty funny... look at who's one of the contributing editors. Ronald McArthur, founder of Thomas Aquinas College.

You know. The college John says is orthodox.

Hmmm...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

In few, I know a few more faces on the inside of that cover, left side.

Maybe there's more to these things than boisterous claims of schism and whatnot.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

I have received complimentary copies from well-meaning disciples of its schismatic philosophy on several occasions,

Paul,

The Latin Mass magazine is a publication of the Fraternity of St. Peter, a fully "approved" organization of priests who offer (almost, for now, but not for long) excclusively the Traditional Latin Mass. It was created by Pope John Paul II in 1988. So, if you have a problem with its "schismatic philosophy", perhaps you should address your complaints to the Chairman of the Board.

He might be interested to know that you think a publication from a priestly fraternity established and repeatedly praisedby him is something you think is

not something that belonged in a Catholic home

Be sure to let us know what he said, mmkay?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 12, 2003.

Jake,

I wouldn't say it's a schismatic magazine, but McLucas' does seem to be in error in that he sees *abuses* of the novus ordo as fault in the mass itself IMO. Pretty crummy logic for an editor. But then he isn't writing a magazine to present the benefits of the Church, his magazine presents articles promoting the Latin mass, which he attempts to do.

To put it another way, if you go to a Ford salesman, and Chevy puts out a better car, is the Ford dealer going to tell you that, or tell you the great points of HIS car? Food for thought, if you read his magazine you will only hear articles on what you believe already, so you won't learn much or challenge yourself.

I'd bet if you looked you could find a similar magazine stressing the benefits of the Novus Ordo, but you probably would say IT was anti-Catholic LOL! It is however, probably the magazine you SHOULD read so that you don't end up dying a gentile and tax collector like the late Lefebvre.

Nope, I put this stuff at the same level as The Wanderer or the Wall St. Journal, and NY Times. Interesting, but at the end of the day what's REALLY true is coming from the Vatican, not him.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 13, 2003.

he isn't writing a magazine to present the benefits of the Church, his magazine presents articles promoting the Latin mass, which he attempts to do.

Hence the name...

Food for thought, if you read his magazine you will only hear articles on what you believe already, so you won't learn much or challenge yourself.

Based on this logic, can I assume that you plan to subscribe?

I'd bet if you looked you could find a similar magazine stressing the benefits of the Novus Ordo

I'm not so sure. Even if I did find a magazine making that (rather ambitious) claim, I wouldn't read it any more than any of you would read the publications I get. If you ever want to "educate yourself," though, let me know and I'll send you a crate of back issues.

but you probably would say IT was anti-Catholic LOL! It is however, probably the magazine you SHOULD read

You read mine & I'll read yours. Then we'll compare notes. Deal?

so that you don't end up dying a gentile and tax collector like the late Lefebvre.

Ahh...the old sure-fire subject-changer!

Nope, I put this stuff at the same level as The Wanderer or the Wall St. Journal, and NY Times.

3 very useful publications, if you hae a birdcage in the house.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 13, 2003.

Jake,

his magazine presents articles promoting the Latin mass, which he attempts to do.

Hence the name...

Was there ANY point to writing this line other than wasting 1 second of my life reading it?

Food for thought, if you read his magazine you will only hear articles on what you believe already, so you won't learn much or challenge yourself.

Based on this logic, can I assume that you plan to subscribe?

As I have noted numerous times on these threads, I usually attend a LICIT Tridentine mass, so there would be no point. As you are the one in at least danger of schism, you have the more pressing need to get in line with the Pope and Magesterium and should read publications to return your thinking and faith in line with the church.

I wouldn't read it any more than any of you would read the publications I get.

If your publications encourage schism or disobedience, they shouldn't be read by ANYONE, even you! Why not just break open a crate of pornography and save your soul some time?

You read mine & I'll read yours. Then we'll compare notes. Deal?

Again, it wouldn't be in my best interest to separate myself from the will of the Magesterium like you have. Why would I want to jeopardize my soul more than my ordinary sinful nature does without them?

so that you don't end up dying a gentile and tax collector like the late Lefebvre.

Ahh...the old sure-fire subject-changer!

Not a subject changer, but a grim warning! One that you have repeatedly failed to hear. Good men can go bad, and they can end up in eternal punishment. Much as we disagree, I wouldn't want that for you!

3 very useful publications, if you hae a birdcage in the house

All publications are useful if you have BIRDS in your house. Why would the cage itself need paper?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 13, 2003.

Was there ANY point to writing this line other than wasting 1 second of my life reading it?

Think of the 30 or so seconds you spent reading & responding! In any case, if you want to read and post to some inane, technologically challenged internet forum, you can hardly blame me for wasting your time. No one's forcing you to be here against your will. If economy of time is what you're after, you should probably just not participate here at all; or at the very minimum simply ignore my posts.

Shoot! There goes the better part of another minute!

As I have noted numerous times on these threads, I usually attend a LICIT Tridentine mass,

So does Emerald, but you call him a schismatic. As I've stated numerous times on these threads, licitness / obedience are not the issues with you people.

If your publications encourage schism or disobedience, they shouldn't be read by ANYONE, even you!

I agree 100%. Good thing they don't!

Why would I want to jeopardize my soul more than my ordinary sinful nature does without them?

Ditto. See? We are more alike than you think.

Good men can go bad, and they can end up in eternal punishment. Much as we disagree, I wouldn't want that for you!

Nor I for you. Let's pray for each other.

All publications are useful if you have BIRDS in your house. Why would the cage itself need paper?

ba-DUM-bum.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 13, 2003.

Paul, It appears to me that all publications which you disagree with are automatically labeled as schismatic. For sake of arguement, is the book "Oecumensisme vu par un Macon de Tradition", whose author Yves Marsauden said: "One may say that ecumenism is the legitimate son of Freemasonry" (pgs 119-120) considered by you to be schismatic? If not, then why? (By the way, Baron Yves Marsauden was a very close friend of Angelo Roncalli.)

-- (tarses@sbcglobal.net), September 14, 2003.

tarses,

What could you possibly know about "all the publications I disagree with"?? I only mentioned ONE, and that one openly attacks the authority of the Pope. Do you know the definition of "schismatic"?

I am unfamiliar with the other book you mentioned.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Here's an eyeopener! During the Council, there was a young bishop who sided with the progressivist 'pereti' and worked closely with and was a follower of the purveyors of the New Theology, such as Lubac, Congar and Rahner. This young bishop was passionate for the novel concepts of interreligious dialogue, pan-religious ecumenism, religious liberty and "dialogue with the world". He regarded these themes not as the contradictions of traditional Catholic teaching that they were, but rather as an "enrichment of faith". In 1972, he wrote the book 'Sources of Renewal', in which he outlined the major points of the Council, and how it must be implemented in his diocese. He saw Vatical II as a New Pentecost, the greatest grace of his life, a guiding light for his religious faith, a focal point for all his teachings. He was a blend of the old and the new, displaying Marian and Eucharistic devotion simultaneously with a fervent commitment to the most radical aspects of the Council. The name of this Vatican II enthusiast was Karol Wojtyla, the Cardinal Archbishop of Crakow (John Paul II). He helped write 'Gaudium et spes and Dignitatis Humanae. Gaudium et spes, which was heavily influenced by the thought of the pantheist Teilhard de Chardin, contains the Church's new attitude toward the world. 'Dignitatis Humanae' conflicts with traditional Catholic doctrine, claiming for the first time that members of false religions have a "right" to practice their false religion in public. By contrast, Saint Pius X saw his first duty as Pope to preserve the integrity of the Faith, and to protect the flock from poisonous teaching. John Paul II, in his first major address as Pope, DOES NOT speak of his duty to preserve the purity of doctrine against the many errors of the day. Rather he sees his primary task to further the new teachings of Vatican II. (as taken from the recent issue of Catholic Family News, subtitled, 'A Man of the Left'.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 16, 2003.

I have been reading the questions and answers about "Traditional Catholics" on this list and have to say I am disappointed with what I have read.

First of all, I am a "Traditional Roman Catholic". I believe the way the Church taught before the changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council. The Church needed no renewal or didn't have to be changed in any way. "The Church needed no airing out." Our Traditional Church made hundreds of thousands of Saints. However, just because I hold fast to tradition doesn’t mean that I am not loyal to Pope John Paul II. I believe he is trying to reform the Church back to its formal glory before "Rosemary's Baby" Paul VI let the church fall into the clutches of Satan. I don't believe the changes after Vatican II were of divine origin. I believe this was a satanic attack on our church to destroy our faith and to protestantize our Mass. If this is not the case, why did Pope Paul VI invite 6 Protestant ministers to help create the Novos Ordo Mass? The Novos Ordo Mass is said in English (vernacular) instead of Latin or some other language depending what Country you are in. Before the changes, when the Mass was said in Latin, you could be anywhere in the world, go to mass and know what was going on in the Mass. This was one way the church was universal. By the way, the word Catholic means universal.

Priest turned around backwards is not Catholic! It has Martin Luther written all over it!! Although I believe this is a valid consecration of the body and blood of our Lord, I feel this is not reverent to God and it almost makes one think that the congregation is worshiping the Priest instead of Jesus Christ.

The results of Vatican II were horrible. Thousands of religious left there Holy Orders and Nuns threw away their habits. When the nuns left, we lost all of our teachers and nurses.

Another result is Communion in the hand. What terrible respect we show our Lord than handling his precious body with our filthy unconsecrated hands. This is another Protestant practice. I see women going up to the tabernacle after Mass and getting hosts out, wrapping them in a napkin and dropping them down into their purses. Maybe someday I will get the opportunity to tell these women at Church exactly what I think of them.

The lack of knowledge about our faith is a serious problem facing young Catholics today. They could never stand up to Protestants to defend our faith. Most no nothing about sacramentals, the sacraments themselves, the lives of the Saints, or anything about Traditional Catholic Teaching.

After the aftermath of Vatican II, many Priests called for the destruction of our beautiful alters, statues, and artwork that adorned our churches. I guess they are ashamed to be Catholic. Guitars were brought in to replace organs and I have been to Catholic churches where they have women running around in costumes carrying streamers and dancing to folk music. This is an abomination. This type of activity would never have been tolerated before Vatican II.

In 1984 Cardinal Ratzinger said publicly that Vatican II had a negative impact for the Catholic Church.

The changes made after Vatican II go against 2000 years of Church Tradition and nobody had the right to change it. Pope PIUS V's QUO PRIMUM RELATIVE TO THE TRIDENTINE MASS made it the Mass of all time and that was written in the front of all missals pre-vatican II along with the message that if anyone attempted to change this Mass, they would suffer the wrath of Saints Peter and Paul. No Pope can excommunicate Bishop Lefevre or anyone else from holing fast to their tradition. If anyone is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, it is those who have caused all these problems within our Church and have caused millions of souls to be dammed in hell for all eternity.

-- Mick Bailey (bailem@mail.wvnet.edu), September 17, 2003.

let me paraphrase your oh so long post mick,

"i think i am a catholic. oh, i think that the pope and the magisterium are wrong, and have been for nearly fifty years. God has definately abandoned the church and broken His covenant that satan should not prevail against it. the new mass is a perversion of the old one, i know, i interpreted it that way. the vatican cannot be trusted for guidance"(end paraphrase)

so tell me, which branch of protestantism are you from? i havent heard such atrocious claims from any non protestants around here.

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

mick,

before "Rosemary's Baby" Paul VI let the church fall into the clutches of Satan.

You are NOT a Traditional Catholic, or any other kind of Catholic if you believe the Church is in the clutches of Satan. Catholics have Christ's assurance that the church will prevail.

The Novos Ordo Mass is said in English (vernacular) instead of Latin or some other language depending what Country you are in. Before the changes, when the Mass was said in Latin, you could be anywhere in the world, go to mass and know what was going on in the Mass. This was one way the church was universal.

As was written a few days ago, possibly on this thread, when the mass was translated INTO Latin, it was because it was the vernacular of Rome, the mass was aslo translated into several other local languages at the time. It only became the universal language much later. So really, returning the mass to the vernacular is much MORE traditional than retaining Latin (at least if by tradition you mean "original").

Priest turned around backwards is not Catholic! It has Martin Luther written all over it!! Although I believe this is a valid consecration of the body and blood of our Lord, I feel this is not reverent to God and it almost makes one think that the congregation is worshiping the Priest instead of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for sharing your feelings. They aren't binding on the Church as far as replacing the rite of mass though, are they? They aren't binding on anyone though, are they?

The results of Vatican II were horrible. Thousands of religious left there Holy Orders and Nuns threw away their habits

They were actually doing that before Vatican II, which is one of the things they were trying to turn around. There was a very large INCREASE in seminarians early in the century compared to the 1800s, and then a progressive decline that hasn't stopped. Actually, more than 80% of the loss of seminarians occured before Vatican II. To use your logic, the Tridentine mass is responsible for the loss of the majority of our clergy.

Another result is Communion in the hand. What terrible respect we show our Lord than handling his precious body with our filthy unconsecrated hands. This is another Protestant practice. I see women going up to the tabernacle after Mass and getting hosts out, wrapping them in a napkin and dropping them down into their purses. Maybe someday I will get the opportunity to tell these women at Church exactly what I think of them.

Actually, if you'll read the history of the OLD church, and not just that starting in AD 600, you'll see that in some areas it was common for people to take home whole sections of consecrated host for use later in the week. Again, what you think is Tradition is really the Modernism of the Middle Ages. And it's not your place to "tell off" people for their practices. For example, I know of a gentlemen with base of tongue cancer that can't swallow the host without water, and so brings a bottle to mass with him. I could just see you screaming at him for how evil he was! Hopefully you'll think twice about accusing someone before at least asking them about it. If you ask someone and they are commiting an error or willful disrespect, then get the priest to correct her.

The lack of knowledge about our faith is a serious problem facing young Catholics today

Cant' argue with that. Heck, 500 years ago people didn't even have Bibles to read! And since the Tridentine mass doesn't cover nearly as much of the Bible as the Novus Ordo, there were probably sections of the Bible people never heard at all.

After the aftermath of Vatican II, many Priests called for the destruction of our beautiful alters, statues, and artwork that adorned our churches

I don't argue with that either, there's been a lot of churches just gutted, and that's a travesty. OTOH, this is the first major change in rite in the church in over a thousand years! You can't expect there not to be some major shifts going on. If you stick around another 50 years or so, you'll see things straightened out.

I have been to Catholic churches where they have women running around in costumes carrying streamers and dancing to folk music. This is an abomination.

Not an abomination, just probably not licit. Sort of like an sspx mass. Again, if you stick around, this stuff will disappear.

The changes made after Vatican II go against 2000 years of Church Tradition and nobody had the right to change it. Pope PIUS V's QUO PRIMUM RELATIVE TO THE TRIDENTINE MASS made it the Mass of all time and that was written in the front of all missals pre-vatican II along with the message that if anyone attempted to change this Mass, they would suffer the wrath of Saints Peter and Paul.

Vatican II does not go against Tradition. Quo Primum never said the church could not replace the rite of mass.

No Pope can excommunicate Bishop Lefevre or anyone else from holing fast to their tradition.

The Pope CAN excommunicate an errant archbishop for other things though, and if you read Ecclesia Dei, he did. You claim to be a "traditionalist", what happens to people who die in a state of excommunication?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 17, 2003.

QUO PRIMUM

A BULL OF POPE ST. PIUS V

Pius Bishop Servant of the Servants of God For a Perpetual Memorial of the Matter Upon Our elevation to the Apostolic throne, We gladly turned Our mind and energies, and directed all Our thoughts, to the matter of preserving incorrupt the public worship of the Church; and We have striven, with God's help, by every means in Our power to achieve that purpose. Whereas amongst other decrees of the holy Council of Trent, We were charged with revision and re-issue of the sacred books, to wit, the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary; and whereas We have with God's consent published a Catechism for the instruction of the faithful and thoroughly revised the Breviary for the due performance of the Divine Office, We next, in order that the Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony, as is right and proper (considering that it is altogether fitting that there should be in the Church only one appropriate manner of Psalmody and one sole rite of celebrating Mass), deemed it necessary to give Our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, namely the re-editing of the Missal with the least possible delay. We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they, having at every stage of their work and with the utmost care collated the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and reliable (original or amended) codices from elsewhere, and having also consulted the writing of ancient and approved authors who have bequeathed to us records relating to the said sacred rites, thus restored the Missal itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this production had been subjected to close scrutiny and further amended We, after mature consideration, ordered that the final result be forthwith printed and published in Rome, so that all may enjoy the fruit of this labor; that priests may know what prayers to use, and what rites and ceremonies they are to observe henceforward in the celebration of Masses. Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See's institution and confirmation of the Church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity. We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein. We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or possessed of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal. Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid, established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than 200 years. Consequently it is Our will, and by the same authority We decree, that one month after publication of this Our constitution and Missal, priests of the Roman Curia shall be obliged to sing or to read the Mass in accordance therewith; others south of the Alps, after three months; those who live beyond the Alps, after six months or as soon as the Missal becomes available for purchase. Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for non- observance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a fine of 100 gold ducats payable by that very fact to the Apostolic Treasury. In the case of those resident in other parts of the world, it shall be automatic excommunication and other penalties at Our discretion; and by Our Apostolic authority and the tenor of these presents, We also decree that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to take delivery of such books without Our approval and consent, or without express permission of the Apostolic Commissary in the said parts appointed by Us for that purpose. Each of the said printers must receive from the aforementioned Commissary a standard Missal to serve as an exemplar and agree faithfully therewith, varying in no wise from the first impression printed in Rome. But, since it would be difficult for this present Constitution to be transmitted to all parts of the world and to come to the notice of all concerned simultaneously, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of Apostles, at those of the Apostolic Chancery, and at the end of the Campo dei Fiori; moreover, We direct that printed copies of the same, signed by a notary public and authenticated with the seal of an ecclesiastical dignitary, shall possess the same unqualified and indubitable validity everywhere and in every country that would attend the display there of Our present text. Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. Given at St. Peter's, Rome, in the year of Our Lord's Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

-- The Traditionalist (bailem@mail.wvnet.edu), September 19, 2003.