http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9606/pannenberg.html

Jiminey Christmas! It's like this guy read my old posts and said, "here, stupid, let me try." OK, actually he wrote this article seven years ago. Heh. God bless him.

Look!

My crippled attempt.

Wolfhart Pannenberg's version

At this point, every time the Church makes a concession to the demands of secularists, she sacrifices every unique appeal she has to the outsider. The more secular the Church becomes, the less unique, the less special, the less INTERESTING she becomes to "unbiased onlookers." If the Church allows married priests, or women priests, or abandons clerics, or builds ugly churches, or stops talking about the Devil, it will be the victory of Ghandi and secularism. The Church will risk drowning in a sea of sameness. She will lose vocations and adherents and become empty.

The absolutely worst way to respond to the challenge of secularism is to adapt to secular standards in language, thought, and way of life. If members of a secularist society turn to religion at all, they do so because they are looking for something other than what that culture already provides. It is counterproductive to offer them religion in a secular mode that is carefully trimmed in order not to offend their secular sensibilities. In this connection, it seems that mainline churches in America have yet to internalize the message of Dean Kelley in his book of a quarter century ago, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing. What people look for in religion is a plausible alternative, or at least a complement, to life in a secularist society. Religion that is "more of the same" is not likely to be very interesting.

There's more. It's an absolutely fabulous article! God bless.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 07, 2003

Answers

I don't know why you bought Mahatma Gandhi upon this. He was a good man. Even though we was a hindu, he openly stated that he loved christ, and he has also said that he did not like christians because they pretend to be christians but ignore his commands. Also, he showed the way of non-violence to the world, even christians and is respected around the world. Even though he was not a christian, there is no doubt that God loved him, and still does. It is for his love of human beings, simplicity, honesty and non-violence the whold world calls him Mahatma Gandhi - which means Gandhi the great. One example would be, when an English man kicked him out of a train with the boots, he lost a teeth and still, all he did was smile at the man and asked him if he was okay. His love for human beings is so great that modern christians should be ashamed of themselves. In many ways he followed the way of St Francis, from honesty to poverty. It was due to his love to all human beings, he was killed by a religious fanatic. Christians, hindus and muslims across the world respect him. What has anything about him got to do with the catholic church, except make modern christians ashamed of how a non-christian lived the way God wants us to live?

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 07, 2003.

"Ghandi and the Secularists will win."

Oh, yeah, because god knows we've got to be carefull of a man who spent his whole life working for peace, non-violence, and equality. That sneaky bastard.

Get a clue, man.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 07, 2003.

Guys, don't be goofy. I'm not criticizing Ghandi. The above came from a larger body of notes that you can read here: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BBGw

Here's the context for the above:

"The secular project is not an attack on religion but a direct competition with it. It does not say "religion is wrong" but rather that "secularism can give the world everything that religion can and do it in more exciting and varied ways."

The symbol of this project is Ghandi. Ghandi is a darling to secularists because he was the Most Christian Non-Christian. Further, he was a religious pluralist.

It is a little bit strange, but Ghandi is, right now, the Church's strongest enemy in the fight against secularism. His saintliness appears to starry-eyed youngesters to make Christianity non-unique and unimportant.

I believe that the charge of the new evanglization is to reclaim this distinctiveness--to proclaim DOMINUS IESUS in a way that no other way of living can compete with. Our greatest ally in this battle is the Church Triumphant. Let the saints show this weary world a holiness which it has forgotten; an indefatigable flow of "God guide me, save me, move me!" with the enthusiasm that makes Ghandi's coolness look like secular lethargy."

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.

In case I haven't yet made myself perfectly clear--YES Ghandi was saintly, and short of committing the sin of presumption, I'd wager he's with the Lord now.

My criticism is not with the person of Ghandi but with the way his memory was turned into a secularist icon for the relative worthlessness of Christianity.

Ghandi was saintly, but he still didn't offer something that Christianity offers: Christianity.

Geez, looking at the stuff you guys wrote, seems like you're just LOOKING for someone to proverbially beat up. Maybe if people tried to understand things BEFORE passing judgement so quickly, more people would be in the Church.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.

The Church has never taught that pagans can do nothing good or say nothing wise or thought-provoking...beginning with the Old testament's praise of pagan kings and leaders who respected or helped the Choosen people. Early Christians respected Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle as well as some poets. Paul even quotes a poet in his speech in Athens! So sure, some non-Christians can teach us things about truth and goodness.

But the point of revelation is not that we have the monopoly on truth, but that God has actually revealed himself in time and space to the Jews and through Christ to the whole human race. Heaven is silent no more and the gulf has been bridged in a marvelous way completely beyond all human expectations or hopes.

Ghandi said some nice things. Other pagans have said nice things. But their words can't make men holy or saintly any more than they could raise the dead or heal the sick! Christianity is not simply another opinion among many or another effort of men to be wise. It is the gift of heaven to humanity. Christ builds HIS Church through the Holy Spirit - making mere men "earthen vessels" do extraordinary things...

This is why playing games with the zeitgheist is always dangerous. It sells the Gospel short, relying on mere men and their confused minds and weak wills rather than on grace and the miracles it can really work in the lives of all.

The Church has never and never will drown in a sea of sameness because the Holy Spirit raises up continually a wonderful array of gifts and givers...look at all the new lay movements - all of them preaching the unity of faith and morals, yet each serving the Church and humanity in their own particular way. Globalism however makes all pagans the same! Their world view, values, clothing style, materialism, hedonism...it's all the same, the same tricks, the same play book, the same excuses, the same problems and passions...

Hell, not Heaven is that sea of sameness.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 09, 2003.

Great article!! Jesus said, "For if salt looses its saltiness, how then will it again become salty." (My paraphrase). We are called to be "salt and light." Salt purifies, preserves. It does not water itself down and make itself "palatable" as secularism does.

Thanks for explaining the "Ghandi" thing. That makes perfect sense.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 09, 2003.

"In case I haven't yet made myself perfectly clear--YES Ghandi was saintly, and short of committing the sin of presumption, I'd wager he's with the Lord now."

Do you in any way see a contradiction of the above with error condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors?

Condemned Error: that 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863

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

Anyone who carefully reads what the pope wrote would see no contradiction at all.
JFG

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

Am I missing something, or is does that 'error' seem to be rather essential to our most ancient faith? Emerald, what about the Fatima Ejaculation,

"Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy."

Sounds like entertaining good hope to me. Or did Jesus not say, "I have not come to condemn the world." Is there anyone we should hope be in Hell aside from Lucifer and his demons?

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

"...those most in need of thy mercy."

They ain't dead yet, the ones that are pleaded for:

"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death".

At any rate though, the whole consideration somewhat reminds me of that scene from The Holy Grail... "bring out yer dead!!!"

"But, he ain't dead yet!" (Whack)

We are praying for those who are still alive, those who still have hope of choosing God, choosing life. Death is permanent. All the saints know that death is the point of no return. It's judgment day, and judgment is final. No more chances. Fini. Caput. Lights out. Last chance. No refunds. No returns. Over. The end.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 13, 2003.

One last chance to fix the italics please? Thanks.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), September 13, 2003.

Gandhi cannot be excused by invincible ignorance. He was approached by Christian missionaries several times and far from being converted actually converted many of them to something approaching Hinduism. Also there was no baptism of desire here. He died with the name of a Pagan god on his lips. I'll wager that Gandhi is in Hell and that is where he would want to be! Here's a story from an Indian epic to illustrate why. The righteous king Yudhishthira dies, while on his way to the Himalayas to live a hermit's life, accompanied by his faithful dog. Because of his rigorous adherence to the laws of his warrior caste, Indra himself, the king of the gods, comes down in his chariot to escort Yudhishthira to heaven. Yudhishthira gets into the chariot and his dog is about to follow, but Indra says, "sorry no dogs in heaven." Yudhishthira gets out of the chariot, preferring to stay with his faithful dog. ... Well, the dog turns out to be Yudhishthira's divine father in disguise, and there's a lot more to the story (e.g., when Yudhishthira reaches heaven he finds his brothers and their joint wife are in Hell, so he decides he would prefer to be there with them.), but the point is hopefully clear enough ... Picture Gandhi about to enter the Christian Heaven thanks to Skoobouy's and Mother Teresa's prayers. But then he asks St. Peter, "where is my wife? where are my children? where are my parents? where are my countrymen? I want to be with them." God in His justice and mercy would certainly grant that prayer.

-- __ (__@__.__), September 13, 2003.

Jmj

From "Mr. or Mrs. Unknown": "Gandhi cannot be excused by invincible ignorance. He was approached by Christian missionaries several times and far from being converted actually converted many of them to something approaching Hinduism."

Unlike "Unknown," I am not going to make the mistake of arguing that the soul of Gandhi is in heaven, hell, or purgatory. However, I don't have any trouble saying that "Unknown" doesn't understand the concept of "invincible ignorance." One cannot argue that, just because a non-Catholic/non-Christian like Gandhi was made aware of the basic tenets of Catholicism/Christianity, that person is no longer "invincibly ignorant."

I will quote from Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 14) and the new Catechism:
"... they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." [The doctrine was stated in another form by Bl. Pope Pius IX in 1854 and 1863.]
EWTN's David Gregson writes: "Only invincible ignorance of the nature of the Catholic Church as the 'universal instrument of salvation' can excuse a person from visible membership in her. Ignorance which is invincible is a lack of knowledge for which one is not responsible through negligence."

Notice that the Council quote contains the word "knowing" and the Gregson word contains the word "knowledge." However, the Church has made it clear that this "knowing" is not mere "sensory knowledge" or "book knowledge" -- i.e., what a "Gandhi" has heard about (from missionaries, friends, etc.) or read about (in a Catholic publication). No. It is a deeper "knowing" -- something that is experienced as being convincingly true. Thus if someone hears/reads, and also becomes convinced of the fact, that "the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ," that person is no longer invincibly ignorant. But while he still remains unconvinced, he is still invincibly ignorant. And that clearly is the case for billions of people on this poor planet. They don't yet "know" any better, even though they may have heard about Jesus and the existence of his Catholic Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

That's interesting, John. So's this:

It's exactly the same thing that the WomenPriests organization says... scroll down and see item #2 in the link to their site below.

They quote Pius IX correctly, and them call him in error, based on reference to the same Lumen Gentium quote. They don't want to say that there's no salvation outside the Church, either.

Something to ponder.

"One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and declared her most blessed: the queens and concubines, and they praised her. Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?"

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

I thought you might like this, John, from Canticles, in the same chapter as the above:

"I went down into the garden of nuts, to see the fruits of the valleys..."

Ahh, California...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Jmj

Well, Birdbrain, I couldn't care less what you think is "interesting."
You have confirmed that I used to give you far too much credit for intelligence. [You recently said that you graduated from TAC. No way. Not smart enough. Besides, I think that you twice told me that you dropped out. If that's what you told me, then you recently lied.]

This, from you, is the latest load of steaming horse manure:
"That's interesting, John. So's this: It's exactly the same thing that the WomenPriests organization says..."

In the first place, you forgot to stop and think that you were slipping into a fundamental logical fallacy. I could probably find some neo-Nazi or some Wiccan who has said/written a bunch of things that agree with things you believe. But I would never pretend that, because of that overlapping agreement, you are like (or as wrong as) neo-Nazis and Wiccans. Likewise, I am nothing at all like "WomenPriests," and no person with half a brain and a smidgen of character would try to paint me as being like them. But you have made yourself into nothing but a lowlife.

In the second place, "WomenPriests" quotes a passage from Bl. Pius IX that is NOT what I had in mind. I even gave the years, "1854 and 1863," for what the pope said that is echoed in Vatican II -- but you stupidly pointed to "WomenPriests" criticizing something the pope wrote in 1864.

In 1854, Bl. Pius stated: "We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation, that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge. We must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?"

In 1863, Bl. Pius stated, in an encyclical: "It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life. For God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin."

It is papal statements like these, from 150 years ago, that have led me to know that you are a heretic on the subject of salvation, you ignoramus.

Betake thyself to thy own rotten schismo-heretical forum, Mr. Currently-Useless-and-Obnoxious, and stop polluting this once beautiful place with your errors. And keep your hypocrisy -- your biblical quotations -- to yourself.

May God forgive you and help you revert to Catholicism.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

I didn't drop out.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Clearly you must be interpreting that passage of Pope Pius IX incorrectly, because the same pontiff laid out the following to be clearly in opposition in the Syllabus of Errors:

15. [It is an error that] Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. [It is an error that] Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. [It is an error that] Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. [It is an error that] Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.— Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

Obviously, these bad woman-priest-wannabees at that site linked to above didn't like this none. They used quotes from the Vatican II, as does everyone else, to try to make it look like Pope Pius IX was in error and the Vatican II was a correction of it... a new understanding of things.

They're wrong, obviously. But it certainly does fit with their agenda, and they are treating some of the documents of Vatican II as if they were a counter-syllabus, a phrase that was even used by Cardinal Ratzinger himself to refer to the Vatican Council.

The quote you took from Pius IX is certainly true of anybody who has not not died and gone to judgment yet. In view of the fact that Pius IX so clearly shows the opposite in his Syllabus of Errors, it only makes sense to conclude that people are twisting this statement of his (the one you quoted) to mean what they wish it to mean.

Throw in clear ex-cathedra statements from ages past, and other clear expressions such as the Athenasian Creed, and a whole boat-load of the words of Saints throughout the ages, and it seals the case in.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

For the record, I don't mean to imply that you, John Gecik, are like one of those feminist woman priest wannabees, or partake in their agenda in any way whatsoever.

I know that you don't and wouldn't.

The point is, that they are using the same or similiar modes of argumentation... and they are! They are; it's clear.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Let me take one of the quotes from Pius IX and show how it is subject to misinterpretation by those who, well, have something to gain by misinterpreting it. Let's say, those womenpriest people above.

First off, to pull this single text, or only a couple similiar texts, as the below words of Pius IX is a violation of the same thing traditionalists are accused of; namely that traditional Catholics pull up a few texts here and there to make a point. Cafeteria Catholicism is the claim. That's fair to point out, I think. But here it is:

In 1854, Bl. Pius stated: "We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation, that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge. We must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?"

Alright, first:

"We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation, that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge."

A clear re-affirmation of always-held, defined Catholic doctrine. If one contradicts this, they are holders of a heresy. There's no wiggle room in this statement. It's clear, absolutely manifest: there is no salvation outside the Church.

Next part:

"We must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord."

Not guilty for what? Not guilty for "ignorance of the true religion". True! Problem is, as fallen men and women, they are guilty of all sorts of other sins. Everybody sins, everyone is guilty; salvation is an absolute gift of God and is merited by no- one, as by orginal and actual sins, we all deserve damnation. We have no claim on Heaven.

There is absolutely no indication in this statement whatsoever that these people in question attain the Beatific Vision.

He doesn't say that; it's just not there.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Birdbrain, you stated:
"Clearly you must be interpreting that passage of Pope Pius IX incorrectly, because the same pontiff laid out the following to be clearly in opposition in the Syllabus of Errors ..."

The fact is that I am not "interpreting" any passage. I am just humbly assenting to the authentic interpretation of the passage by all the popes of my lifetime. Likewise I humbly assent to their authentic interpretation of the Syllabus. As a result, I understand all of what Bl. Pius meant in all these passages, whereas you, Birdbrain, don't understand anything at all. Why? Because, instead of looking to the popes for help, you do your own private, unreliable, half-buttocked, heretical interpretation. Your interpretations are a mass of vacuum-cleaner-bag contents in which I have no interest and upon which I won't comment further. Too bad you don't realize how ridiculous, frenetic, and out-of-control your twisted brain is -- so well symbolized by your need to post four frantic messages.

When you come back to your senses (and to Catholicism) some day, then maybe one of us orthodox Catholics can explain to you what Bl. Pius IX meant in these various quoted passages. Until then, it's better to let you sit in your intellectual pigsty, because I won't "cast pearls before swine."

May God help you.
John

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

?

"...half-buttocked..."??

Is that the same as "half-donkeyed"? I shall remember that one. Funny!

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 15, 2003.

Another thread,

Same topic,

Same schism,

Same fate.

Same Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twcoents.cam), September 15, 2003.

"Is that the same as "half-donkeyed"? I shall remember that one. Funny!"

Thanks, Rod. Yes ... same as "half-donkeyed."

I'm glad you laughed, because I was trying to inject some comic relief into these tense battles, which I hate so much.

JFG

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

"The fact is that I am not "interpreting" any passage. I am just humbly assenting to the authentic interpretation of the passage by all the popes of my lifetime. Likewise I humbly assent to their authentic interpretation of the Syllabus."

That's funny... so do I.

Just out of curiousity, has your style ever worked? I mean, has there ever been a case where, let's say, you lash out like that on someone and they say something like this:

"Oh, John, clearly thou hast cometh to my aid in my folly. Whereas in and until now, in my paltry and heinous shadow of an existence, I couldst not discernest friend from foe, nor up from down, I can see the truth now at it's essence... nay, at it's very foundation, for LO! thou hast graciously set aside a portion of your precious time to verbally and assault me and ridicule me, in thy unfathomable mercy, in all true charity and good humor. So wrong was I... yet, having been buffeted thus, and smote forthwith, I can see! My master, I see, I see! I don't hear a lack; I hear the sound of abundance!!!

...and then, they get holy? Saved?

lol.

Pssst! John... there's no salvation outside the Church.

It's Catholic doctrine.

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

Another thread: true.

Same topic: Catholicism?

Same schism: Actually... this would fall under doctrine/heresy.

Same fate: Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell. So true.

Same Frank.

But John, seriously, see it:

"We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation, that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge."

A clear re-affirmation of always-held, defined Catholic doctrine. If one contradicts this, they are holders of a heresy. There's no wiggle room in this statement. It's clear, absolutely manifest: there is no salvation outside the Church.

No interpretation is necessary here... what's to interpret? He said it. Rome has spoken. For the umpteenth time on the same topic.

But this... look:

"We must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord."

You're saying that this means that people can be saved outside the Church. That requires you to retool the text above. That's kind of like interpreting it. You're doing the interpretation, not me.

Even your self-styled interpretation was really what Pius IX intended, the context is not at all one of dogmatic definition. Whereas, we already have dogmatic definitions proving otherwise.

It's still the case that those priest-wannabees in the above link are using the exact same arguments you are about this and a couple other issues as well... they're all quoting Vatican II documents to trump the good Pope Pius IX's re-affirmation of Church teaching. All this support coming from a non-dogmatic council.

You cannot at all say that this wider, ecumenically minded interpretation, whether from the magisterium or not, is a dogmatic definition which binds the faithful. There's absolute no proof for this; that's why proof has not been forthcoming.

Here again, this mallet of an erroneous concept of how the magisterium works.

If I were to listen to you, I would be trusting your private judgment over that of the Church.

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

Pssst! John... there's no salvation outside the Church.

It's Catholic doctrine

C'mon Emerald, quit posting the same idiocy over and over! This was addressed on another thread no more than a week ago, and you responded on it, so you read it. Why are you starting the same thing over and over? Learn the first time or the second, or tenth, but don't make the 873rd thread on the SAME thing. Can we speed this one up a few weeks?

1. We all know there is no salvation outside the church.

2. Everyone but you knows, and you SHOULD know that the church allows for the possibility that someone in invincible ignorance will be in some fashion be able to "join" the church in some fashion at death so as to not suffer eternal damnation for never having been exposed to Catholicism during life. (piux ix)

"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".

What do you still not understand (in a clear and concise statement, not some rambling 20 page refusal to answer a simple question)? Can you honestly not comprehend this, or are you just trying to get people to leave the Catholic faith?

Frank

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

Why? Because it drives a steak into the heart of Catholicism, that's why.

Go pray about it. You need understanding.

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

Barbeque that baby.

Steak was supposed be "stake".

Frank, go read, go pray. Don't suckle at the Catholicism of others, get it from the Saints. Go actually read the history, the documents of the Church.

Then come back, and tell me that I don't understand it.

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

Pathetic

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

Pathetic it may be, but Catholic.

I could try the common tactic found often in this forum, but it would be dishonest. I goes like this:

Emerald says "Pssst! John... there's no salvation outside the Church. It's Catholic doctrine"

Then Frank says "C'mon Emerald, quit posting the same idiocy over and over!"

Then I could respond, with shock and dismay:

"How dare you, Frank, call my Catholicism idiocy!!!"

And then proceed from there to perpetuate a lie, glossing over the finer details of a rational, orderly discussion.

I think I'll just let you call me pathetic. I makes more sense to me.

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

No Emerald,

The pathetic part is you say the same thing over and over and never listen or change your pre-conceived opinion one iota regardless of what's said to you. This would be o.k. if you analyzed something and refuted it, but ignoring something and repeating yourself is not that, it's just sad. The next day you start up on a NEW thread with the same thing and the same conversation repeats. Over and over and over.

You don't seem to learn anything from this. Let me ask you Emerald, in what way have you increased your Catholic beliefs or learned something new in the year or two you've been here? Is there ANYthing you can point to?

I guess what I think is both frustrating and pathetic is that next week (or sooner) you'll likely be posting the same things AGAIN, and will not learn from them either. What's the good of living if you don't (at least try to) progress in understanding?

Frank

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

I like how you come in from the angle that you understand this completely and that I don't.

I've learned an incredible, incredible amount from being in this forum for the time that I have been in it.

But I will not point to anything in particular.

Frank, how it is that God deals with the ignorant is beyond me. I don't have the wherewithall to even begin to fathom His justice and mercy.

What I can pinpoint quite easily, though, is exactly how it is that people lay waste to Catholic doctrine and the things of Faith. Willfully or unwittingly... doesn't matter.

Very, very unwise to measure one's progress, or to point it out to another, though.

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

"This would be o.k. if you analyzed something and refuted it"

While it never ceases to amaze me, the fact that it amazes me makes more sense than actually thinking someone can be convinced into the Holy Catholic Faith with rational arguments.

These things aren't accomplished by human reason outside of God's grace.

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

__ (__@__.__), you said a part from the epic mahabharata, which is a story, which rivals the greek epics. I love the story a lot, as do many people. Unfortunately there are people who think that it is all true, and it happens in an ancient civilization and with so many people. Gandhi died with the name of a pagan god in his mouth. The word Ram, is both the name of a god in one epic and a general word which simply means god, in the hindi language. At least he openly stated what he saw in christ and that he loved him. It is unfortunate that most hindu people think of jesus as another one of the god- incarnates, but to say that they are going to hell for that is not human. The Indian civlization is very old, and has been around since 3000 bc. While in the middle East God was working, shaping up his people, here people made their own beliefs, still the moral is to be good. When the blessed missionaries came and worked 2000 years before, many were converted and many were not. There are too many people, and many still embrace the old ways of the civilizaiton. The process goes on and will go on, and the path will be difficult because it is not a smooth process to make a person understand about christ.

If I even think that one of my brothers or sisters in this world, whether it be a hindu, muslim, buddhist or whoever would go to hell, I am not a christian and I deserve hell myself. Wishing for them to embrace God is one thing, but wishing for their destruction out of whatever, is not a christian way. God has his own way of salvation to non-christians simply because they are his children as well. To convert one to the faith, a great deal of sincerity and direct blessings from God is necessary. I won't be able to convert one, and not even many of the missionaries will. Only those who have the speciall blessing of God and those who are truly faithful would be able to convert one to the true faith. Otherwise, it is no different than a buddhist approaching me to convert me to buddhism.

St Francis of Assisi greatly wanted to convert the then sultan of the Arabian world (I think it was saladin himself), during the period of the crusade. After approaching the sultan alone and unarmed, the poor saint preached to him with love, not hatred or judgement. He even challenged the sultan, where he would enter a fire pit and if he remained unharmed, the sultan should embrace christianity. Seeing the holiness of the poverello, the sultan was afraid to let him do the task. At last the sultan told him that he wouldn't be able to embrace christianity, which would divide his people. St Francis was greatly disappointed, but returnedd happily because of what little he was able to accomplish, as a true christian, instead of condemning the sultan and his soldiers to hell.

I wouldn't be sure about those who willfully and cruelly torture christians, and those who worship satan, but as for those who still don't know christ, God has his own way to bring his children to him, and if I, one of his children says the others are going to hell because of that, I am condemning myself to hell because the ignorance lies within myself. This is the part where forceful, or bribing/tricky conversion take place, especially by protestants.

I wonder what God himself told the Roman commander, a pagan, who was not a christian but believed in him in his own method. After 2000 years, a good man says he loves christ, even though he is officially "hindu" and the christian brothers and sisters say that he is going to be in hell. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be known as the children of God. He made peace, by peaceful purposes than violence, and died because of the same reason. The fact that he is a child of God is simply reinforced.

Whoever it be around the world, who is not a christian yet, we don't have the power or authority to say that they would be in hell after they die. We should be happy that our ancestors had the previlage to know God. The missionaries will work hard, and many will not be converted. If God has his own way to save the good among them as we know, who are we to challenge his power and his love for them? I think it is a VERY serious offence to God himself, when a christian especially a catholic says that everyone else is going to hell.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 16, 2003.

Jmj

Frank, you quite properly wrote:
"C'mon Emerald, quit posting the same idiocy over and over! This was addressed on another thread no more than a week ago, and you responded on it, so you read it. Why are you starting the same thing over and over? Learn the first time or the second, or tenth, but don't make the 873rd thread on the SAME thing."

But how does it happen, Frank, that you and the other ex-moderator and Paul just haven't gotten it?
How does it happen that the only people with the power to do something about this "Emerald" fiasco, for the benefit of the forum, continue NOT to do it?
How is it that I have provided the solution twenty times, in public and in private e-mail, but continue to be ignored?

I am really experiencing my Purgatory on Earth by having to come to this beloved forum, day after day, and having to be exposed to the Californian Skull-Full-o'-Mush. And why do I have to be exposed to it? BECAUSE ALL THE MODERATORS HAVE FAILED TO PERMANENTLY BAN THIS SICK GUY, THIS NEFARIOUS HERETIC, THIS OBNOXIOUS DOOFUS!!!

Banning is the only solution for a guy who is either too stupid or (far more likely) too pridefully obstinate to LEARN even from Pope John Paul II -- never mind from us. Yes, this is giving me my Purgatory, but the Purgatory for the Moderators will be even worse, because they have kept inflicting "Emerald" on everyone else. I have asked myself and others a hundred times: Why the political correctness? Am I the only one around here with guts enough to send this evil-doer packing?

People like "Emerald" never change until they are shoved down the basement stairs, out of sight and in a lot of pain. They have to "hit bottom" before they will open their hearts to the graces of conversion and submission. They NEVER learn by being treated with kid gloves or with the kind of deference that one must accord an equal.

DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE UNDERSTAND? This jerk is a HERETIC who is here to draw people away from the Catholic Church. A Moderator must NOT give him this platform, this "open mike" to speak to the unwary. The things that have been taking place here for MONTHS are intrinsically evil (grave matter) acts: "heresy" on the part of the intruder and "enabling" on the part of the Moderator.

GET RID OF "EMERALD" TODAY, FOR HIS OWN SAKE AND FOR THE SAKE OF OUR SOULS!

God bless you.
John

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

John,

As you know, I have turned over the "moderating" reins, and Paul has assumed the position (pun noticed). Anyway, I don't feel comfortable making any "judgement" decisions on this, it's his call to make, and he is the one who should make it. Whatever his decision is, though I withold the right to bellyache about it if I disagree, I will respect it, as respect for his legitimate authority in the forum to MAKE it, and IMO his attempt to do what he feels is the "right thing".

If there's any solace for you, it may be in appreciating the irony that these schismatics always complain about "ecumenism", but it's that same *spirit* of ecumenism and forgivenss that (IMO) causes Paul to allow them to stay!

but the Purgatory for the Moderators will be even worse,

Oh John, I have a long stretch of Purgatory coming, I'm no saint. At this stage of my life I'm just grateful to be here with my family, and eager to meet the Lord.

Frank

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

I read this debate with much interest, and some humor.

I have written on some other threads in this past week. The topic was the same, no salvation outside tahe Catholic Church. My grandparents said that this was a solemn teaching of the Church, and was not open to discussion.

What the heck has happened since those days? I have posted a number of the most irefutable documents on this subject, but they just seem to be brushed aside like water off a duck's back. What has happened to the so called faithful. The past forty years have diluted the faith into many heresies. It is indeed sad, that so many stubborn and lame excuses have taken a stronger and stronger hold of today's Catholics.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 16, 2003.

Unfortunately, while you may have read these documents you obviously didn't understand them. You should try listening to the Pope and Magesterium on matters of faith instead of relying on your grandparents.

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

"Unfortunately, while you may have read these documents you obviously didn't understand them."

That these defined doctrines were somehow obscure or unclear is manifestly absurd. It's a howling absurdity.

People just don't like it.

John says:

"People like "Emerald" never change until they are shoved down the basement stairs, out of sight and in a lot of pain."

This sounds like a very interesting and unique method of procuring the desired ascent to the magisterium you're looking for. But I'm not convinced it's the right thing to do. Sorry to bother you, but could you perhaps point me in the direction of some documents of the Church or writings of the Saints, or, perhaps Sacred Scripture that would support this proposed shoving tactic?

"They have to "hit bottom" before they will open their hearts to the graces of conversion and submission."

Submission to... who? Conversion to what?

Listen, Paul, whatever decision you make, since you are the rightful moderator of the forum, I will abide by it. Perhaps this would make it ultimately clear that submission is not the issue with me and many other traditionalists. It never has been; it's always been about trying to know and think and live what's pleasing to God; no matter how well or badly we go about it. That's being honest.

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

LOL!! I'm sorry, but this thread has made my mouth drop open and my eyeballs hit the floor more than any other thread on this forum in the past. Please John, stop it. You look like a raving lunatic.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 16, 2003.

I've refrained from say this for a long time, but I think I'll say it now.

I've noticed something in the long while I've been here. None of the post-conciliar Catholics in here get along with each other, hardly. It seems like between each person and at least one other person, there's been this at-your-throat mayhem at some point.

Now I have any number of areas of disagreement with my traditional Catholic friends, but funny thing is, we all get along splendidly.

Just an observation. Self-gratuitous on my part, no doubt, but please... allow me this one.

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

You see, it's really quite clear:

In 1854, Bl. Pius stated: "We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation, that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge. [a reaffirmation of defined dogma. no ifs, ands or buts about it.] We must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this [they are not guilty of invincible ignorance, but they are guilty of many other things. we all are. invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns. it's the many other things which deny the Beatific Vision. because without the sacraments there is no way someone can get through this world without committing a mortal sin. common sense there. and without confession or perfect contrition one cannot have their sins absolved. and without the true faith one cannot obtain perfect contrition.] in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?"

In 1863, Bl. Pius stated, in an encyclical: "It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, [mind you, by Divine grace, not by invincible ignorance. it is grace only, a gift from God, that saves us.] attain to eternal life. For God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin."

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 16, 2003.

I should have said *mortal* sins, instead of just *sins*.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 16, 2003.

Or even any sin at all. Also, there's original sin to deal with at the outset.

Even the CCC says this about babies who die without baptism!

Think the Saints would have thought we are heretics for saying this? That this isn't the age old teaching of the Catholic Church which is now being brought into demise?

Think again. Here's the words of St. Leonard of Port Maurice on the matter:

Ungrateful sinner, learn today that if you are damned, it is not God who is to blame, but you and your self-will. To persuade yourself of this, go down even to the depths of the abyss, and there I will bring you one of those wretched damned souls burning in hell, so that he may explain this truth to you. Here is one now: "Tell me, who are you?" "I am a poor idolater, born in an unknown land; I never heard of heaven or hell, nor of what I am suffering now." "Poor wretch! Go away, you are not the one I am looking for." Another one is coming; there he is. "Who are you?" "I am a schismatic from the ends of Tartary; I always lived in an uncivilized state, barely knowing that there is a God." "You are not the one I want; return to hell." Here is another. "And who are you?" "I am a poor heretic from the North. I was born under the Pole and never saw either the light of the sun or the light of faith." "It is not you that I am looking for either, return to Hell." Brothers, my heart is broken upon seeing these wretches who never even knew the True Faith among the damned. Even so, know that the sentence of condemnation was pronounced against them and they were told, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They were damned because they wanted to be. They received so many aids from God to be saved! We do not know what they were, but they know them well, and now they cry out, "O Lord, Thou art just... and Thy judgments are equitable."

Seek and you shall find.

If you don't already have one, develop a relationship of dependence on the Mother of God and frequent the Blessed Sacrament and pray constantly. There's work to do, which is the salvation of souls. It's the work of charity.

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

Yes, we must pray for all souls to find the true faith before they die. Who would not do this? Pray for all souls in our rosary, and emphasize, "Lead all souls to Heaven".

At some of the funeral masses the priest assumes {perhaps for the mourners] that "Bill, or John, or whoever, is now with the Lord". Nothing about Purgatory. Such a disservice to the departed.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 16, 2003.

A good read.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), September 16, 2003.

Yes, yes, several more paragraphs, several more quotes, none of which contradict what I said earlier:

1. We all know there is no salvation outside the church.

2. Everyone but you knows, and you SHOULD know that the church allows for the possibility that someone in invincible ignorance will be in some fashion be able to "join" the church in some fashion at death so as to not suffer eternal damnation for never having been exposed to Catholicism during life.

What's the point of posting on this over and over? No one is adding anything new, and you are filling up Mr. Greenspun's server.

Frank

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

Isabel,

Yes, if you want to say it's because of GRACE, that the invincibly ignorant are saved, fine. The exact same applies to the Catholic, so I didn't think it worth mentioning. All the Saved are saved by grace.

Frank

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

"Everyone but you knows, and you SHOULD know that the church allows for the possibility that someone in invincible ignorance will be in some fashion be able to "join" the church in some fashion at death so as to not suffer eternal damnation for never having been exposed to Catholicism during life."

Not if this way is assumed to be outside of the tenets of our Faith. That would be a denial of our Faith.

That being said, that's not even the issue anymore. The issue at this point is to keep people from heresy of Universalism; it's way beyond a matter of some pigmy at this point.

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

Isabel,

Sorry, was walking away from my computer and I realized I'd better not assume anything. Do you believe that by performing whatever prayers and actions you do you can EARN your way into Heaven, or do you think you will be saved "by the Grace of God"?

Frank

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

invincible ignorance will certainly save a man from sin, in not knowing that of which he is invincibly ignorant, yet it is impossible to suppose that this invincible ignorance on one point will supply the want of all other conditions required. Now, all those we here speak of are in the state of Original Sin, "aliens from God, and children of wrath," being unBaptized; and it is an article of Christian Faith, that, unless Original Sin be washed away by the grace of Baptism, there is no salvation; for Christ Himself expressly declares, "Amen, amen, I say to thee, except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," [John 3: 5]. And, indeed, if even the children of Christian parents, who die without Baptism, cannot go to Heaven, how much less can those who, besides being unBaptized, live and die in ignorance of the true God, of Jesus Christ and His Faith, and, on that account, may be supposed to have also committed many actual sins. Nay, to imagine that heathens, Mahometans, or Jews who live and die in that state can be saved, is to suppose that ignorance will save worshipers of idols, of Mahomet, and blasphemers of Jesus Christ, in the guilt of actual as well as Original Sin; which is putting them upon a better footing than Christians themselves and their children. The fate of all such the Scripture decides as follows: "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven, with the Angel of His power, in a flame of fire, yielding vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His power," [2 Thess. 1: 7]. This is precise, indeed-----a clear and decisive answer

You still keep preaching the "somehow,some,way,etc,etc, people will be saved outside the Church. Then, who needs a Church,pope, sacraments, and on and on. None of this is necessary, is it?

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 17, 2003.

"There is no salvation out of the catholic church. However someway, somehow people will be saved." - The on going debate which goes on and on. The simple question is, HOW and WHEN and WHY. Are catholics saying that non catholics who die, are NOT given a chance to understand God and the truth, and to join him and his church? Are catholics saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to do that? Are catholics saying that God wants those who are created in his own image and are his own children, to perish forever? ARE THEY? Are they claiming that God is unable to do so, to give them a chance? ARE THEY? Are they saying that they should recieve God's unlimited mercy but others should not and would not? ARE THEY? Are they pretending to know what God is capable of doing and not? Are they saying that they know what happens when a person dies? ARE THEY?

It is so simple. If God gives the soul the worst sinner to repent and join him, would he not give the same oppertunity to a non-catholic who lived a good life?

"Then what is the need for the church, pope, etc." How can people say that the catholic church seizes to exist one a person dies? Doesn't God have the will and the power to give the oppertunity to a soul to return to him or to turn away from him? It is the choice of the soul that puts him/her in hell or near to God. God is not blind nor cruel like many catholics who somehow believe that it is impossible for God to convert someone to the catholic church. He is life and he gives life. Death has no authority over him. He gives the chance to every soul created in his image a chance, to understand the truth and to return to him, unlike those who say "everyone else goes to hell". Perhaps that is the difference between the creator and a creation.

Why is it necessary to dig into complex rules of the church and search further and make pointless debates, while there is this simple point?

If God has the power and will to give a chance to people to turn to him in their lifetime, DOES HE NOT have the will and power to give the same oppertunity as the last chance to someone in the moment of his/her death? Or should he give that chance of repentence to catholics alone? I don't understand how WE came to believe something ridiculous as this. I could expect this from protestants and other sects and heretics, but how did some catholics become so blind? He has the power, he has the love, he has the will and HE decides what to do. If he wishes to give one last chance to me, he will give a last chance to my brothers and sisters across the world, whether good or evil, to be a true catholic, to join him in all his glory, all because he is simply GOD.

Or are they trying to make another heresy by saying that if one dies, he is not given the choice to return to God, or to turn away from him? A soul does not need years of studies or research to be a catholic. They will meet him and they will have the knowledge. Their fate, depends on their own free will, either to join him or to turn away. Isn't the answer simple enough if we truly believe in God? It is HIS choice to give every soul a chance to repent, in their lifetime and at the moment of their death, NOT OUR CHOICE. This reminds me of the story Jesus said about workers questioning the man, about wages given to those who worked more, and worked less.

Do not question the power of God, nor his love, nor his will, nor his authority. There is no salvation out of the catholic church, but the catholic church does not end by one's death. Everyone, catholics and non catholics will be given the chance to repent one final time, where the free will of the man will decide his fate. Why would he give a chance for them to repent? Simply because he is God. I believe that what I am saying is no heresy, but a simple fact.

He is not an angry and avenging God who throws away people in hell furiously. He is the God who is infinitely patient and kind, and loves his children. He came here as a man in search of the lost ones, and he still looks for them, because they are his children as well. What I am afraid of, is not about the fate of good hearted non- catholics, but certain catholics themselves, who will say forever that everyone else is going to hell. They are catholics, so they should know better. For that reason, their act of ignorance is a very serious one.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 17, 2003.

Abraham, you are correct to a certain extent. God does not make people, in order to send them to hell. You and the others are the ones who have no faith in God.

If Jesus started the Catholic Church, it is a Divine organization.

If popes declare ex-cathedra that there is no salvaation outside the Church, they speak for Jesus. Therefore, those who in their heart of hearts want to be saved. He will send the Church to them, and they will become Catholics.

He knew before they were conceived, where their hearts would be, and those who are sincere, even the man on the island, the igloo, the desert, etc, will be given the opportunity to accept the Catholic Church.

Stop this invincible ignorance nonsense, as it is a man made idea.The term was not even known until about 200 years ago. Beware modernism!

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 18, 2003.

Don't be foolish Terry. If you admit the church's teaching hasn't changed, what difference does it matter to you what term they use for it? It's like you're saying "well, we have this tree in the yard that has an orange citrus fruit on it, and we've never named it, but I'll be danged if it's proper to call them "oranges". Who cares? The TRUTH is what's important, not whether we say God's grace saves men or God's grace saves men who are Catholics or possibly (but likely IMO) the invincibly ignorant too.

Even arguing this makes you sound like you prefer "Protesting" to accepting the teachings of the church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 18, 2003.

I hate this.

I wrote this post about secularism, about the new evangelization, and you haters just swarmed it and dumped all of your ideological garbage, like you do EVERY SINGLE POST here.

It's worthless trying to convince you that you're schizmatic, so that you'll realize the harm you've done by teaching erroneous interpretations of old documents that conflict with the living faith.

As G.K. Chesterton wrote, "The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ's."

You're perfect circle is impenetrable; the light of faith will never pierce your darkness. You're mad--you're mad against the Magisterium and against the people of simple faith. The Devil cannot prevail against the Church--the best he can do is convince gullibles like you all that he already has. Error is free to believe that the Church has errored; the demon can believe anything he fancies.

Go read this article by Ian Ker,

Or re-read the article I posted up top, whose author wrote, "As this is not an argument for traditionalism (keeping in mind Jaroslav Pelikan's useful observation that tradition is the living faith of the dead while traditionalism is the dead faith of the living)."

But why do I continue? It's worthless. You're interminable automations. The simple faithful could no sooner reason with you than with a refrigerator. I don't call you stupid--but I do call you mad, because your minds are starved for the humility of the common, and you've become addicted to devotion to Esotericism, your new deity.

And if any of you comes back with a smarmish "yes we're mad, we're mad for Jesus!" let me just say I saw it coming from a mile away, and I can illustrate its falseness like so:

One who loves Jesus will have faith enough to live a great and diverse life, a full, broad life; as Augustine writes, "Love, and do what you will;" and so the life of faith is liberating.

And so I point out, beyond any of your ideas or opinions, that your behavior is none of these things; it is narrow, constrained-- imprisoned in a vault of shrill squeams, "Oh my God, the liberal bishops have destroyed the authentic magisterium, let's convince the world's Catholics that they've been scammed by a conspiracy... and let's pray for thanks that WE'RE TRUE CATHOLICS."

And so you labor at your master plan like drug addicts. A friend of mine told me he had a fish who, one day, continually swam full speed into the glass until its head cracked open and bled. He put it out of its mysery because there was no sea or lake with which to save it.

But simple faith, and trust in the authority of the living Magisterium, is the sea to the traditionalist aquarium.

Of course, not that anything I've written means ANYTHING! I fully expect you people to come on and do what you always do--take my metaphors and parody them for yourselves: "Oh yeah? Well, the liberal bishops [read, loyal to the Pope] are a sea of mush, I say!"

So many diverse posts, and so many topics, written by normal Catholics, all spoiled in the SAME INSANE WAY by the SAME PEOPLE.

Please, moderator, for the sake of this forum, and for the love of God, put these threads out of their misery and DELETE TRADITIONALIST POSTS, even if it means deleting the thread.

I don't know you people, but I am horribly angry with you for vandalising my thread with your crap. CUT IT OUT. And may God bless you and bring you happiness.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

You still don'ta get it Frank. The subtle difference goes over your head.

Invincible ignorance makes the Church unnecessary.

Trusting God to reach the heart of the truly sincere, and make them Catholic before they die is what the Church is about.

Look it up and try to find invincible ignorance anywhere, before 200 years ago.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 18, 2003.

Terry,

The words "Papal infallibility" didn't exist either. But both ideas have ancient roots which honest study can reveal. In any case, your little dare is offensive. Find another argument, or bind your typing fingers.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

Terry,

Invincible ignorance makes the Church unnecessary

See, if you can say something like that, it shows you've already left the church. NO Catholic would say that!

Skoobouy/Paul,

If you do decide to delete future post on this topic at some point, I'd be happy to help with the weeding. I don't know if I'm very objective though, if there's one thing that really irritates me it's ex-Catholics who want to try and pull down the church. I can't say my behavior has been very civil lately. That, and I'll be on vacation next week. YEAH! You know I've made it 6 months and am still alive! Not everyone can say that.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 18, 2003.

Skoobuoy, You are a very touchy lad indeed. When one has no place to run and hide, they talk about going back to the catacombs. That is about the only time they do, otherwise the Church began with Vatican 2.

I have heard that you are a seminarian in Belgum or Holland or somewhere. Beware Skoobuoy. They were the hotbeds of liberalism even before it reached this side of the pond. Schilleebx, and those other guys. Watch out.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 18, 2003.

Why was the term invisible ignorance not heard 200 years ago? Was the concept that the earth was round known 1000 years ago? Why would God, who commanded his chosen to kill their enemies and gave cruel methods of punishment to people change all the laws years later? Would these people who call themselves catholics say that baptism given to children is evil because the early baptisms were given to adults and in a different manner? Questions like these are plenty.

God is the supreme head of the church, who acts through the human head. He does not reveal everything in a second. Otherwise he could have told everything during he lived. He didn't even bother to correct the superstitions and the ignorance of the people of that time. He has his ways. Why would St Mary identify herself as the immaculate conception, only after the vatican counsil which acknowledged it?

To say that the teachings of the church is in anyway not catholic is heresy itself, and it is impossible to happen.

I do not feel jealousy nor hatred that if, someone who was born catholic but lived the life of a devil, is given one last chance to repent at the moment of his death, someone who lived as a non catholic but had a good heart and a desire to be with the truth, unlike protestant sects and heretics among catholics. Just because one is born a catholic and baptized does not mean he is better than someone who is not. Did God not see more faith in the Roman commander than even among all of Israel?

If he wishes to give anyone a chance to return to him at the moment of his death, who are we to question that? Is it impossible to purify someone like that, at the moment of his death? God has his ways, which are unknown to us. None of you would hesitate giving one of your children a last chance, especially if he is dying and would pray for his soul, regardless of the life he lived. Are you saying that God does not have more mercy and passion for his children who are lost?

No, there are saying that church teachings could be wrong. They are saying that God, the head of the church who guides the human head, could be wrong. They were once catholics, so their mistake is serious, especially if they cause others to fall with them.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 18, 2003.

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Abraham... This is the ex cathedra doctrine of the Catholic Church. It does not matter what your "feelings" are, or what you think God would do. Yoy either believe Cantate Domino, or you are not Catholic.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 18, 2003.

Hey skoobouy.

Like the others, I consider your rage nothing more than the sum of the frustration that comes with being unable to refute the fact that our Faith is being laid to waste in our age.

Look, when you get out there as a priest, do me a favor. Don't hack the Holy Faith to shreds. Alright? Alright.

Thank YOU.

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

"Look, when you get out there as a priest, do me a favor. Don't hack the Holy Faith to shreds. Alright? Alright."

Emerald, this is about as charitable as saying something like:

"Look, when you get married, do me a favor. Don't cheat on your wife. Alright? Alright."

or

"Look, when you become a parent, do me a favor. Don't molest your children. Alright? Alright."

There's no dignity in saying things like this. What is the goal of such a statement ("hacking the Holy Faith to shreds")? What's the premise? Do you expect failure?

Skoobouy, your vocation is gift. Keep fighting the good fight. Oh, and do me a favor: be a great priest. :-)

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 18, 2003.

I knew I could draw you out eventually. Just kidding, really. =)

No, I do not believe the comparison is valid.

Show me his argument. What's his argument, Mateo? Is it just feels of frustration, or is there substance to it?

Can he back up his claims? Perhaps he should have you do it for him. I'm all over that.

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

Skoobouy's premise:

"In case I haven't yet made myself perfectly clear--YES Ghandi was saintly, and short of committing the sin of presumption, I'd wager he's with the Lord now."

Holy Roman Pontiff Pope Pius IX's rebuttal:

Condemned Error: that 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863

Good luck. Watch your step, and... please use the handrail.

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

Emerald,

The point is it doesn't matter what ANYONE says, someone who has left the Catholic church to believe a lie isn't going to be persuaded to come back unless they internally see the light. Nothing anyone writes here is going to bring you back, imo.

You and your schismatic friends remind me of Mormans. They are very convinced they are right, quote things ad nauseum, and... Don't obey the Pope, and are not Catholic. I've never heard a Morman say "o.k., that makes sense, I'll return to the church", at this point I despair of seeing any of you do it either. What's the difference between you two? They are convinced they are right, but don't have the Pope or the Magesterium's support, YOU think the exact same. No difference but the building.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 18, 2003.

And yet you are entirely impotent to lay out the case as to why it is you think I'm in schism, or a heretic.

What's on your reading list? Do you have one? I would like to add to it.

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

"No, I do not believe the comparison is valid"

The comparison is valid. In all cases, the assumption is an utter failure to live one's vocation faithfully.

"Condemned Error: that 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863"

An unfortunate statement for the late Bishop Lefebvre, don't you think?

May God inspire all people to love and serve Him with a living faith.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 18, 2003.

"May God inspire all people to love and serve Him with a living faith."

No argument from me. Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of thy Faithful, and enkindle the fire of thy love. Send forth thy Spirit, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth.

Come now, Mateo. Tell me what the problem is in the Church. Tell me how to fix it.

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

"...and they shall be created..."

Insert where missing.

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

"Come now, Mateo. Tell me what the problem is in the Church. Tell me how to fix it."

I've already given you a book to add to your reading list. Have you read it? :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 18, 2003.

Perhaps.

What's wrong with the Church, Mateo?

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

Terry,

My seminary is one of the very best, most faithful, orthodox, Catholic seminaries in the English speaking world. It is working hard to train young men to be true missionaries in North America, to preach the Gospel, salvation through Jesus Christ, and to bring lost communities back into the fold of Roman Catholicism in the best way we know: prayer, devotion, and study.

It hasn't always been this way, but it is now and it's only getting better.

Emerald,

My Faith is in Christ; my visible head is the Pope, the successor of Peter; my teachers are Scripture and Tradition; and the thorn in my heel is your clan, and my anger lies only in your unjust behavior. Your posts, to me, are "nothing more than" Web graffiti that begs for a good washing.

Even before my first year of theology, I have studied Church history, read the documents, and prayed: I have SEEN the unbroken continuity of the _authentic_ teaching of Vatican II with the Church's most ancient history, all the way through the middle ages, breaking through the Protestant Reformation, and living now, continuing to draw its life and forms from Scripture and Tradition.

I see that the possibility of the salvation of non-Catholics is NOT a 20th century innovation but an organic element of authentic Church teaching reaching back to Jesus, Paul, the Church Fathers, and Catholic pastors until today, where it has been given a name, described, and fit into the grander picture of the thriving, growing body of Christ, the Church.

And as I understand it, You Folks, be you young or old, are (understandably) distraught by the evil today, but rather than join the clear alternative to the evil, the Roman Catholic Church as headed by Christ and his vicar the Pope, you have instead chosen the route of Fear, and opted for esoteric conspiracy theories. You follow codes and words, which will always contradict themselves in history, whereas real doctrines, which arise from the unfolding of the mystery of the Cross, are One and Unifying. I spit on your duty to dissent--you treat Faith like a salvation-dispensing machine.

The Holy Faith I have been given to offer to the world is a historical one, based on a personal (meaning, AS PERSON) relationship with Christ, and fidelity to the Spirit as he speaks in the authority of our modern apostles.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

"What's wrong with the Church, Mateo?"

It's full of sinners.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 18, 2003.

Here's a very good page.

Salvation Outside the Church; Writings of the Church Fathers

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

Most interesting is this quote,

Jerome

"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church" (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]).

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

Emerald,

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter what's said to you, your ears are closed. Just like with a Mormon, no matter what you say it will be "no, that doesn't apply" or "I don't disagree at all!" but proclaim something entirely opposite.

When you can post here that you honestly believe that Vatican II was a good thing and that the Novus Ordo is either equal to or superior to the Tridentine in every way, and that you ardently wish to apply the new, as well as the old, teachings of the Pope and Magesterium to your life, then I'll call you a Catholic. If your skin blanches at the thought of typing it, then you have indeed left the church, and given your previous copious writings, you are a schismatic. Well, how about it? Which side of the fence are you on?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 18, 2003.

But also notice some of the following parts of Tradition which appear to contradict Quanto conficiamur:

Gregory Nazianz

"[Besides the baptisms associated with Moses, John, and Jesus] I know also a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which also Christ himself was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since it cannot be defiled by later sins" (Oration on the Holy Lights 39:17 [A.D. 381])."

Ambrose of Milan

"But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]’?" (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392])."

Justin Martyr

"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151])."

Augustine

"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark [by baptism of desire]" (ibid., 5:28:39)."

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

"My Faith is in Christ; my visible head is the Pope, the successor of Peter; my teachers are Scripture and Tradition...

I applaud that.

"...and the thorn in my heel is your clan, and my anger lies only in your unjust behavior."

I'm more than happy to be a thorn in your heal if that means being something that aids in the understanding of your, and my, ultimate destiny which is to become one with Christ on the Cross and the Will of the Father.

The part about the unjust behavior, well look... that's open for debate. Obviously, from my perception, it isn't unjust at all. What's unjust is the treatment of Catholics, traditionalists by name if you wish, who are being yanked around by a bunch of faceless entities that want to stick their faces in the mud and try to make them forget what their ultimate destiny is. And it's not of this earth, that Kingdom Christ speaks of.

"Your posts, to me, are "nothing more than" Web graffiti that begs for a good washing."

I've noticed that. Bummer. It is possible, you know, that this could be a technical difficulty at your end and not at my end. I'm not saying that's the august truth right there in a nutshell, but hey, keep an open mind.

"Even before my first year of theology, I have studied Church history, read the documents, and prayed: I have SEEN the unbroken continuity of the _authentic_ teaching of Vatican II with the Church's most ancient history, all the way through the middle ages, breaking through the Protestant Reformation, and living now, continuing to draw its life and forms from Scripture and Tradition."

Congratulations. I see the opposite, in both the laity and those in ordained offices, and in my own brother. It stinks.

"I see that the possibility of the salvation of non-Catholics is NOT a 20th century innovation but an organic element of authentic Church teaching reaching back to Jesus, Paul, the Church Fathers, and Catholic pastors until today, where it has been given a name, described, and fit into the grander picture of the thriving, growing body of Christ, the Church."

And what I see is the demolition of the Holy Roman Catholic Faith. I see a trick, a trap. Furthermore, I see absolutely no examples of sainthood among those who propose such things. Furthermore, I see hardly any examples of Sainthood anywhere. I see a great apostacy, a devastated wasteland.

At the same time, I would not choose any other time in history to be alive. I am filled with hope, charged with enthusiasm.

"And as I understand it, You Folks, be you young or old, are (understandably) distraught by the evil today, but rather than join the clear alternative to the evil, the Roman Catholic Church as headed by Christ and his vicar the Pope, you have instead chosen the route of Fear, and opted for esoteric conspiracy theories.",/i>

Esoteric is the essence of the Charasmatic Movement. Esoteric is not of the Faith that I know but it is of the enemy. Esoteric I reject.

There is a conspiracy, and it is this: Satan wanders throught the world, seeking the ruin of souls per the St. Michael's prayer. That's conspiracy in a nutshell.

"You follow codes and words..."

Wrong. It's called Romance. Our Faith is a romance with the Creator. Codes and words, codes and words... codes and words. The stuff of the post-conciliar blunt traditional-clubbing instrument. Codes and words my hindquarters.

"I spit on your duty to dissent--you treat Faith like a salvation- dispensing machine."

Then you spit as do the palm-branch carriers did on Christ a week later when He carried His Cross.

Now, tell me something that makes sense.

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

Pull yourself up by the bootstraps.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), September 18, 2003.

"When you can post here that you honestly believe that Vatican II was a good thing and that the Novus Ordo is either equal to or superior to the Tridentine in every way, and that you ardently wish to apply the new, as well as the old, teachings of the Pope and Magesterium to your life, then I'll call you a Catholic."

Well, you've got a little problem with that, Frank, and it's this:

Calling the Novus Ordo liturgy the same as, or better than, the Tridentine isn't a prerequisite for being a Catholic.

Despite your desire that it might be.

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

Clement of Alexandria

"Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208])."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, I think something important needs to be said: I have not set out to prove, beyond a doubt, that non-Catholics are saved, or whatever.

However, I think I have illustrated, amply, with credit to Catholic Answers, that...

On the whole, on the matter of salvation outside the Church, Tradition is historically ambiguous.

And of course it is. How could it be otherwise? It is life, and it is thus mystery; and mystery implies inexhaustable truth but also sometimes paradox. The beauty of Vatican II is that it did not deny the truth of Quanto conficiamur, but it embraced it along with the teachings of the Fathers, some of which, especially Justin Martyr, are clearly open in a way that Pious IX was not.

Fundamentalism seeks to obliterate ambiguity and thus treat a mystery as a problem to be solved; this is the essence of unbelief.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

I could walk down the street from here to visit Catholic Answers. I know him, and have family members that work for him.

"On the whole, on the matter of salvation outside the Church, Tradition is historically ambiguous."

Actually, it's not.

The question is this... in the cases where it seems impossible to us that someone can have access to the salvific Sacraments, two possibilities seem possible:

1. They get the goods without the actual Sacrament if they are just, or...

2. In a way we have no ability to comprehend, if they are just they actually get the actual Sacrament in a manner beyond our sight, beyond our understanding.

The first won't fly.

The second will.

There's a difference, and it's this: if you use the first, you've just denied the Holy Catholic Faith... practically, what comes next, is Universalism, where all are saved in some wierd, mystical whatever. This is condemned over and over.

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

try to make them forget what their ultimate destiny is. And it's not of this earth, that Kingdom Christ speaks of.

Noone here has tried to make you do that, least of all me. And the Kingdom of Heaven is not really distinct from the Church, which you and your opponents mutually believe the other has quite haughtily left. Now isn't that nice; we're all trying to help each other into the Kingdom Christ speaks of--your version just lacks a living Pope.

And what I see is the demolition of the Holy Roman Catholic Faith. I see a trick, a trap.

Sigh. "And the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it..." But I'm a broken record. All the pre 4th-century Christian writers in the world aren't enough to bring you back now.

Then you spit as do the palm-branch carriers did on Christ a week later when He carried His Cross.

There you go again! First of all, you're saying something you consciously know is untrue, and cruel besides--you know Christ is deeply a part of my identity, my motivation, my reason for being. I ask you to retract this statement.

Christ himself spit--a healing spit, which brought vision to the blind (and could surely do no harm to whatever beloved creature it came into contact with). But to a foul idea as that our bishops and our Pope be slaves to poorly formulated expressions of teaching wrought late in the life of the Church--no, they are slaves to Christ alone, and the Apostolic Tradition is broader than Quanto Conficiamur.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

2. In a way we have no ability to comprehend, if they are just they actually get the actual Sacrament in a manner beyond our sight, beyond our understanding.

WAIT! STOP THE TRAIN! -- I thought your system disallowed for this possibility. What happened? Recap, please, if you would.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

"WAIT! STOP THE TRAIN! -- I thought your system disallowed for this possibility. What happened? Recap, please, if you would."

Why don't you recap it and explain it to me?

As always is the way of the forum, the truth is known to all except the traditionalist, and the traditionalist's view of the Faith is known as well, and condemned.

Or is it?

Do you have a good grasp of this matter? I would be more than happy to sit back and have you explain it to me in all it's grandness.

By all means, tell me... are the Sacraments necessary for salvation or are they not?

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

"What's wrong with the Church, Mateo?" Answer: It's full of sinners.

So the problem with the Church is the same as what the Church was instituted for?

Talk about paradox... holy smoke.

As for Skoobouy, listen. Has the thought ever crossed your mind that instead of traditionalists ripping gashes into the Mystical Body of Christ, that it may be the other way around? That the constant assaults on the Faith by our post-conciliar brethren may be doing the shredding? A hideously novel concept for most, I'm sure.

As for people's understanding of what traditional Catholicism is, it isn't there. There is no understanding of it.

Of course that's frustrating. I think I've been more than patient, more patient than the impatience I, or the others, have received. Blessed be God, though. Blessed be His Holy Name.

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

"So the problem with the Church is the same as what the Church was instituted for?"

Exactly...it was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Thank God, He gave us sinners a Church. :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 18, 2003.

Emerald,

LOL, Push come to shove, I didn't think you could do it.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 18, 2003.

I don't need to.

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

Emerald

"Holy Roman Pontiff Pope Pius IX's rebuttal:

He is wrong to use the word "rebuttal" of course, but ignoring this impossibility(the Church contradicting herself on faith and moral teachings) lets continue

Condemned Error: that 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863

"Good luck. Watch your step, and... please use the handrail."

The Catholic Church also says infallibly

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation. (19)" (19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3 86972. [12]

Not for the first time I ask you do you believe the above words from Vatican II are true?

If it is a No then the cut and paste from "Matt 16:18" website may help you understand why Vatican II does not contradict the Sylabus of Errors but builds on them.

The proper reading of the Council document is "may" and not "many". (The author will not speculate on this is an accidental or deliberate error in translation.) This interpretation is definitively proven in that the Vatican web-site has a different English translation of the text where the word "may" is replaced with "can". (This specifically excludes the possibility of endorsing anything but a possibility of salvation for those in a state of ignorance that is invincible.) The distinction here is an important one. After all, that someone may achieve salvation hardly sounds like "good hope" but at most merely "hope".

That alone would demonstrate that Vatican II did not affirm a proposition condemned in the Syllabus.

The Council outlined the ways in which non-Catholics may be joined in some imperfect manner to the Catholic Church either in re (reality) or in voto (desire). But even the summary statement in the Syllabus does not do full justice to the finely nuanced teaching of Bl. Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter referenced. For far from stating that there is "good hope" for such a person the Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (QCM) merely states the possibility of salvation for those who are "labouring in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion" (QCM §7). Thus the encyclical carefully quantifies it as Vatican II does and refers to those who are somehow in the Church joined to either the body and/or the soul.

Both QCM and Vatican II affirm that there is no salvation outside the Church. QCM does so in both the same paragraph where it simultaneously teaches the possibility of invincible ignorance as well as forcefully reinforcing the necessity of the Church for salvation in the following paragraph. Vatican II does it in reverse: reinforcing the necessity of the Church for salvation in LG §14 and speaking of possible extraordinary circumstances in LG §15 and LG §16. The latter two are an in-depth nuanced discussion on what used to be referred to as "the soul" of the Church. Bl. Pope Pius IX touched on this element in QCM, St. Pope Pius X discussed it briefly in his Catechism, and Pope Pius XII spoke of the soul of the Church in its greatest pre-Vatican II dissertation in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis Christi (see §103).

These encyclicals show the continuity between the pre-Vatican II papal magisterium and Vatican II. The Council, in developing this doctrine further, nevertheless did so in a faithful adherence to the Tradition of the Church. Every source spoke of the possibility (and in no case made a claim of "good hope" at all, merely "hope") and the possibility of achieving salvation joined to the soul of the Church. Since the treatment on this subject by Vatican II and the post- council papal magisterium bases all of its expositions on the presumption that all salvation to some degree involves an affiliation with the Church, any claims of "good hope" postulated (if any is to be found) is not based in any way on those "not at all in the true Church of Christ" (Syllabus #17).

Therefore, the teaching of Vatican II and the post council popes is in conformity with the condemnation of Bl. Pope Pius IX.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

Too late, kiwi. I've already put in my request to be banned.

Believe whatever you wish, but look, I thought people were sick of this anyways, huh? It's not like you could rightly say I'm running away from a debate if I finally give everybody what they want; can't have it both ways.

It'll free up Nuvo's so that they can't hack each other's heads off like they were doing before I showed up.

Fear not, or however that goes.

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

Origen

"[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).

This is your quote Skoobuoy, Yours not mine. Read it carefully. It's clear enough.

You have quoted a wonderful group of saints, but not one papal bull or pope. Thrice defined Dogma. Can't get away from that!

"No salvation outside Catholic Church". It's a hard thing to swallow and you can quote a hundred saints, but they do not make up for one pope.

Sure Valerian got what he asked for. Augustine baptized him. Either that, or it was a guilt trip, to assuage his feelings.

Emerald is correct, you love to swim in your heresies. You love your misplaced feelings for your fellow man. You can't wish them into the Church. You have got to scare the hell out of them. But excuse me, the pope says there is a hell, but he thinks no one is in it.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 19, 2003.

"But excuse me, the pope says there is a hell, but he thinks no one is in it."

Uh, Terry? That's incorrect. Brazenly untrue statements do not a good argument make.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 19, 2003.

Emerald writes:

"It'll free up Nuvo's..."

If you're going to learn schismatic vocabulary, the correct term is "neos." Otherwise, it wouldn't rhyme with my name. And that would make me sad.

Mateo el Nuvo (bad)

Mateo el Neo (good)

:-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), September 19, 2003.

You could always change your name...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 19, 2003.

You are correct Skoobuoy, it was not that bad, but bad enough;

I have received several articles quoting the Pope and Billy Graham on the existence of a literal Hell. A recent Reuters article states: "Forget the flames and the devils with pitchforks. A week after telling Roman Catholics that Heaven was not a place up in the clouds, Pope John Paul II said Wednesday that hell was not a physical place either. 'More than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.'" He described hell instead as "the pain, frustration and emptiness of life without God...Eternal damnation is not God’s work, but...our own doing." The article goes on to state: "The pontiff’s end-of-millennium guidelines on hell came a week after he told the pilgrims heaven was not 'a physical place in the clouds but a living and personal relationship of union with the Holy Trinity,' and that a foretaste could be had on earth." I will come back to this next week but let me quote Luke 16:27-28 the rich man in hell, "Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him (Lazarus) to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment."

Skoobuoy, If Heaven and Hell are not physical places, then, where do these resurected bodies dwell? Where does the present physical bodies of Jesus and Mary dwell?

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 19, 2003.

Kiwi,

Hey, how are ya' man? I am glad to hear that you went to Confession. It always gives me joy to hear that from someone. I hope you will continue to attend, at least, Sunday Mass.

You said.

The Catholic Church also says infallibly

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation. (19)" (19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3 86972. [12]

Uh, no.....no way.....This was not declared infallibly. No new doctrines were declared at Vatican II. It was a pastoral council. Anything stated in Vatican II that had not been previously defined, does not fall under the protection of infallibility. Try again.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 19, 2003.

Insistence on heaven and hell as "physical places" presupposes that our "glorified" bodies will be "physical". Though no person on earth really has any understanding of what our "glorified" bodies will be like, it is pretty clear that they will not be "physical" as we now understand that term. We believe that the body of Jesus at the Transfiguration was a preview, so to speak, of what our bodies will someday be like - but not having been present at that event, we really have no accurate concept of what that was like either.

We do know that at the end of time, all physical creation will pass away, as will time itself (2 Pet 3:10; Matt 13:39-40). That's what the expression "end of time" means. Matter and energy cannot exist in the absence of time. Therefore our glorified bodies will not be composed of matter and energy as we now understand those concepts, and therefore they will not require a "place" to be, and in fact there will be no "places" as we understand that term, because places require space, and space cannot exist in the absence of time. Before the creation, God simply existed, as He does now, outside of time and space. He was not "somewhere" because "somewhere" did not yet exist. He could do so because He is not physical. After the end of the world - matter, time and space - we will exist with Him, in a state similar to that in which He has existed from eternity. Every atom that God ever created will have ceased to exist, just as no atom existed before the creation. Therefore, while it can be useful to think of heaven and hell as "places", it can also be confusing since they clearly are not "places" which exist in time and space, and therefore are completely unlike our current concept of "place", and in fact completely beyond our capacity to understand. "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard what God has prepared for those who love Him" (1 Cor 2:9) Therefore, the concept of a "state of existence" is probably closer to accurate, or at least more useful, than anything we can conceive of based on our interpretation of the word "place".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 19, 2003.

3:5 "In most solemn truth I tell you," replied Jesus, "that unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

This is right from the Lord Himself. Plain and simple. You cannot twist it, it says what it says.

Also, another "Unless". "

Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot have life in you"

Why do you try to complicate these two direct statements? Are they not as infallible as it can get?

Then again if our Lord says "Many" but you say He said "All", then maybe they are not infallible at that. All beccause we then are able to squeeze Protestants,Muslims,Jews. Etc into the salvation umbrella.

-- Terry (abc@aol.com), September 19, 2003.

Jesus said "Do not kill". Do you support those who kill for righteous causes like soldiers etc.? Jesus said "Do not judge". Do you support courts and law and do the judges and lawyers go to hell for the "crimes" they commit? Jesus said "Show your other cheek to one who beats you on your cheek". Would you do that? Jesus said "you cannot serve money and God at the same time". Who do you serve? Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the impossibly small gate, than a rich man to get to heaven". Do the rich, starting from Bill Gates to downward, go to hell? What about you? These are all his words, but the meaning is far more deep, but would you say that anyone who does not do that is sinning? Without understanding the true meaning of the words of God, and its interpretation, one makes himself a fool. Only the catholic church can correctly define and explain the words of God. It is a cheap tactic of protestants and other heretics to pick certain parts from the scripture and twist things around. Catholics shouldn't do that. They should know that without the catholic church to explain to us the meaning of the words of God, we would still be crawling in the darkness. The same church, guided by God, tells us the deap meaning of everything. Who are we to presume that we know better than the head of the church, guided by God himself?

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 19, 2003.

Terry, your posts seem to combine the worst of Protestant fundamentalism (quoting the Bible as if the only possible interpretations were your (rather strange) opinions) with a completely ahistorical Traditionalism. Nothing you've written merits an intelligible response--you haven't even argued anything yet; just posted ridiculously and flambouyantly mistaken ideas, that have really nothing to do with Traditionalism.

Yeah yeah, the Pope is a heretic, we've heard it all before--for two thousand years, in fact. Nothing new under the sun.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 20, 2003.

Skoobuoy, you are one of a very,very, few entering the priesthood. Even more you will be ordained without the rite specifying that you have the power to forgive sins. Think about it. Older priests did have that power given to them. It is not even hinted at in your ordination.

Yow will then go on to do many consecrations of the wine, sayng for you and for all. Great, except that is not what Our Lord said at the last supper. Try to rationalize it, maybe you can live with that, but you will always have doubts. They will try to explain it away for you, but pick up a catechism of the council of Trent and see what they said. It is very easy to brainwash the idealistic young.

God bless you, many times over.

Your friend Terry

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 20, 2003.

That's an interesting point you raised, so I looked it up. Yep, in Matthew and Mark, Jesus says (in the NAB English translation) "for many" - which is also what appears in the Tridentine rite of Consecration.

The NAB footnote says, which I am confident you won't listen to because you think the translation was done by Masons or something, reads,

"The liberation brought by Jesus' death will be for many; cf Isaiah 53:12. Many does not mean that some are excluded, but is a Semitism designating the collectivity who benefit from the service of the one, and is equivalent to 'all.' While there are few verbal contacts between this saying and the fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), the ideas of that passage are reflected here."

So, I looked up Isaiah, which reads as follows:

"Even as many were amazed at him-- so marred was his look beyond that of man, and his appearance beyond that of mortals--

So shall he startle many nations, because of him kings shall stand speechless; For those who have not been told shall see, those who have not heard shall ponder it.

...

Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses."

What can I say? Any reasonable person knows that translations are never 1-1 equivalencies. It's entirely possible that the hard distinction for us between "many" and "all" doesn't really exist in the inter-lingual world of Hebrew and Greek.

If it's true that "for many" is equivalent to "for all" in that Scriptural context, then it would be very bad to keep the Consecration formula "for many" because that would confuse people.

Of course, Terry, you should be smart enough to know that "for you and for all" does not mean "Hell is empty." Far from it. It doesn't imply it, and no right-thinking Catholic teaches that we need not fear Hell.

But you should remember the origin of the name of our faith: "Catholic," meaning "Universal," meaning that it's God's wish that all be saved--hence, "for you and for all." But of course we both know that people abuse their freedom, reject God, and are left in the burning darkness forever.

"for all" does not mean "forced upon all", after all.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 21, 2003.

Here is an article about "for many" vs. "for all"

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 21, 2003.

Actually, since the article is long (and a little more petty than I would have liked), I'll paste his most important citation here.

[4] Notitiae 6(1970) 39-40, no 28, Documents on the Liturgy (Collegeville, Minnesota Liturgical Press, 1983), as cited in Akin, James, Mass Confusion, Catholic Answers, Inc., San Diego, Ca., pp. 120-121.

In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating wine, the words pro multis are translated thus: English, for all; Spanish, por todos, Italian, per tutti. Query:

a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing this variant and if so, what is it?

b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the Catechism of the Council of Trent to be considered superseded?

c. Are all other versions of the Biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?

d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?

Reply: The variant involved is fully justified:

a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has as its meaning “for all”; the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying “Christ has died for all.” The words of Saint Augustine are apposite: “See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ’s Blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that has been given for them alone are proud” [Enarr. in Ps. 95, 5].

b. The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.

c. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 21, 2003.

Skoobuoy, you are a religious and dedicated man, so I will not argue the point of many and all. It just goes around in circles.

However there is also the big pont about ordinations. When the old rite of ordinations was used prior to 1968, there was a firm and definotive mention of the power to make sacrifice and to forgive sins. Both are omitted in the new rite. Why? Just 32 little words that are no longer there.

You are good on research, so look it up for yourself. Google will show the way. Arguing about 2 words that mean the same thing is one thing, bu arguing about words that are not even there is another.

It's like the narriage ceemnon "Do you take this woman" Do you tahe this man" Take them where? For your lawfull wedded wife, or husband must be included or no marriage. I hope you get the point.

God bless you Skoobuoy, With all my heart, Terry

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 21, 2003.

Terry,

You wrote, "Even more you will be ordained without the rite specifying that you have the power to forgive sins. Think about it. Older priests did have that power given to them. It is not even hinted at in your ordination."

I looked up the Ordination Rite for the Order of Priest, in which is it prescribed for the bishop to say,

"When you baptize, you will bring men and women into the people of God. In the sacrament of penance, you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church. With holy oil you will relieve and console the sick. You will celebrate the liturgy, and offer thanks and praise to God throughout the day, praying not only for the people of God but for the whole world. Remember that you are chosen from among God's people and appointed to act for them in relation to God. Do your part in the work Christ the Priest with genuine joy and love, and attend to the concerns of Christ before your own."

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 21, 2003.

Der Skoobuoy; Thank you for the information; I t would seem that the new rite might be valid but nt s direct.

Here is some of the old rite;

Priestly Ordination: The New Rite Vs. The Old Rite Strange Changes

On June 18, 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new rite for the priestly ordination.

The matter and the form of the sacrament [1] remained almost the same as in the rite promulgated by Pope Pius XII in November 1948. There are only two small changes in the form, which do not however affect the meaning of the sacrament; in fact, they specify it better.

The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest: 1) In relation to the power to offer Mass:

Old Rite New Rite “Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead.” “Let our Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Father anointed by the Holy Ghost and by fortitude, guard you in order that you may offer the sacrifice to God and sanctify the Christian people.”

2) In relation to the power to hear confession:

Old Rite New Rite The second imposition of hands along with a quote of Our Lord Himself: “Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”(John 20:22) Abolished completely

These two ceremonies in the traditional rite of ordination indicated clearly that the priest has two powers:

1. The first, on the physical Body of Christ, consisting in offering the Sacrifice for the living and the dead.

2. The second, on the mystical Body of Christ i.e. the sanctification of the faithful, especially by the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of Confession.

While these two powers are mentioned in the new formulas, it is not done very clearly:

- The Sacrifice is no longer for the living and the dead.

- The sanctification of the faithful does not come firstly by the forgiveness of sins, which puts souls in the state of grace.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 22, 2003.

Terry,

If you won't be satisfied with less than “Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead,” maybe you only need to look closer at what the new rite actually says:

"They are called to share in the priesthood of the bishops and to be molded into the likeness of Christ, the supreme and eternal Priest. By consecration they will be made true priests of the New Testament, to preach the Gospel, sustain God's people, and celebrate the liturgy, above all, the Lord's sacrifice.

Bishop then addresses the Candidates:

My sons, you are now to be advanced to the order of the presbyterate. You must apply your energies to the duty of teaching in the name of Christ, the chief Teacher. Share with all mankind the word of God you have received with joy. Meditate on the law of God, believe what you read, teach what you believe, and put into practice what you teach.

Let the doctrine you teach be true nourishment for the people of God. Let the example of your life attract the follower of Christ, so that by word and action you may build up the house which is God's Church.

In the same way you must carry out your mission of sanctifying in the power of Christ. Your ministry will perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful by uniting it to Christ's sacrifice, the sacrifice which is offered sacramentally through your hands. Know what you are doing an imitate the mystery you celebrate. In the memorial of the Lord's death and resurrection, make every effort to die to sin and to walk in the new life of Christ.

When you baptize, you will bring men and women into the people of God. In the sacrament of penance, you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church. With holy oil you will relieve and console the sick. You will celebrate the liturgy, and offer thanks and praise to God throughout the day, praying not only for the people of God but for the whole world. Remember that you are chosen from among God's people and appointed to act for them in relation to God. Do your part in the work Christ the Priest with genuine joy and love, and attend to the concerns of Christ before your own.

Finally, conscious of sharing in the work of Christ, the Head and Shepherd of the Church, and united with the bishop and subject to him, seek to bring the faithful together into a unified family and to lead them effectively, through Christ and in the Holy Spirit, to God the Father. Always remember the example of the good Shepherd who came not to be served but to serve, and to seek out and rescue those who were lost.

Examination of the Candidates

Bishop: My sons, before you proceed to the order of the prebyterate, declare before the people your intention to undertake the office.

Are you resolved, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to discharge without fail the office of the priesthood in the presbyteral order as a conscientious fellow worker with the bishops in caring for the Lord's flock?

Candidates: I am

Bishop: Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ faithfully and religiously as the Church has handed them down to us for the glory of God and the sanctification of God's people?

Candidates: I am

Bishop: Are you resolved to exercise the ministry of the word worthily and wisely, preaching the Gospel and explaining the Catholic faith?

Candidates: I am

Bishop: Are you resolved to consecrate your life to God for the salvation of his people, and to unite yourself more closely to every day to Christ the High Priest, who offered himself for us to the Father as a perfect sacrifice?

Candidates: I am, with the help of God

Promise of Obedience Bishop: Do you promise respect and obedience to me and my successors?

Candidates: I do

Bishop: May God who has begun the good work in you bring it to fulfillment."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The element quoted by your document are the words for the laying on of the hands.

"The Father anointed our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus preserve you to sanctify the Christian people and to offer sacrifice to God."

Now, Terry, you wrote, "The Sacrifice is no longer for the living and the dead." That would be a dramatic change, and a frightening one--but it hasn't happened. At EVERY Mass, there's a prayer for the dead, after the acclamation of faith, and at the end of general intercessions.

You also wrote, "The sanctification of the faithful does not come firstly by the forgiveness of sins, which puts souls in the state of grace." Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "firstly", but sanctification has always been the proper object of the Eucharistic sacrifice, not the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Lest you be confused, the Church does, and has always, taught that the recipient of the Eucharist must be free of mortal sin, or else come under guilt of sacriledge. Confession and Eucharist are intimately related, and no faithful Catholic is confused about their visible agency being, exclusively, the priest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look, if you STILL can't stand the new Ordination Rite, or consider it inferior, maybe this very simple concept will help...

Jesus was asked, "What is the most important Commandment?" Jesus replies, "To love God with all your heart, mind, and soul." And the second is, "To love your neighbor as yourself."

The Traditionalist mindset might have complained, "Hey, you left out 9 commandments, dumbed down the first, and that second one is new! Heretic! Innovator!"

But of course the faithful understand that these Two Commandments subsume and radicalize all the others. For noone can break any of the 10 Commandments and claim to follow the Two. Furthermore, some who follow the 10 Commandments may still fail to follow the Two.

Terry, the words you seek, “Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead,” are subsumed and radicalized, not only by the ordination rite of Paul VI, but by the practice of the entire Church, now and throughout the ages.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.

Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” These words were good enough for the Lord. It seems that they are not good enough for the Bishops. Man, especially the feelings of Protestants come first. So be it, but not for me. I have to Face Him some day, and whatever else is held aginst me, this won't be one of them?

God bless you, Terry

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 22, 2003.

Terry,

I appreciate your wish for consistency with Scripture.

However, you know that Catholic sacraments, liturgy and worship have never been of mere slavish copying of Gospel texts. Your criticism that the bishops somehow judge Christ's words insufficient would target every Catholic liturgy in history, including Medieval accretions apparent in the Missal of Trent.

Did you know that, "For thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory, now and forever, Amen"--the prayer we thought the Protestants added because "the Our Father of the Bible wasn't good enough for them," was actually a part of Catholic Liturgy for centuries before the Reformation, and can be found in the Didache, which was written before the 3rd century?

Perhaps the "Our Father of the Bible" wasn't good enough for the ancient Church up until Trent either. Or better, maybe there is nothing wrong with adapting the deposit of faith in various ways consistent with it, and formulated for its benefit and building up.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.

http://www.communigate.co.uk/ne/tradition/page7.phtml

Skoobuoy, That is stilled used in the Ukranian mass, which I sometimes attend, but check the similarities between the new and old mass.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 22, 2003.

Well, thanks to my losing electrical power for more than a day and a half, and for other reasons, this is the first chance I've had to get back to this poor, unfortunate (hijacked-from-Skoo) thread since I posted my impassioned plea for the banning of "Emerald" on September 16.

I discovered that, in the intervening week, torrents of words have been poured out (above). There were the wheelbarrows full of hogwash (from "Emerald," Isabel, and Terry). And there were the pans full of gold nuggets (from Skoobouy, Abraham, Mateo, Kiwi, and [with exceptions] Frank). I'll take the nuggets and flush the hogwash.

The best thing I noticed is that "Emerald" hasn't posted in five days, so I hope it means that he has been banned, but I'm not going to count my chickens ... The worst thing I noticed is that, even if banned, "Emerald" has a diluted "heir apparent" [i.e., "heir(etic) apparent] in Terry. He'll have to be banned too, I guess.

You guys (orthodox Catholics) have "said it all" (or almost all) with your gold nuggets, so I don't have much to add today. Just a few clarifications ...

Frank, you wrote: "As you know, I have turned over the 'moderating' reins, and Paul has assumed the position ... Anyway, I don't feel comfortable making any 'judgement' decisions on this, it's his call to make, and he is the one who should make it."

I think that you made this statement because I had referred to "moderators." You must have misunderstood me to be calling on both of you to ban Emerald. The actual reason I used the plural ("moderators") was to call attention to the fact that both of you (and a third "quasi-moderator") had failed to ban the guy, despite so many opportunities.

Frank, you continued: "Whatever his decision is, though I withold the right to bellyache about it if I disagree, I will respect it, as respect for his legitimate authority in the forum to MAKE it, and IMO his attempt to do what he feels is the 'right thing.'"

This clearly states the wrong belief that you have long held -- that the moderator of this forum has "legitimate authority" that commands "respect." In reality, you had no "authority" before, and Paul has none now. It is not "authority" that has ever been exercised here, but power.

Frank, you and the others would have had respect-eliciting "authority" if the moderatorship had been given to you by a vote of the "regulars" [orthodox Catholics] -- and if you were subject to being recalled and if your major decisions (e.g., bannings/unbannings) were subject to votes by the "regulars." But what really happened is that each of the three moderators "lucked into" a set of dictatorial "powers." That's all. It's not really a good set-up, but it's better than having no moderator at all.

Next, I found this cute line posted by "Her-icane Isabel":
"Please John, stop it. You look like a raving lunatic."

Considering the unreliability of the source of that evaluation, I have renewed confidence that what I did was right. Thanks, Stormie.

Then we have Mr. Ban-able himself, stating [with required correction inserted]:
"I've noticed something in the long while I've been here. None of the [orthodox] Catholics in here get along with each other, hardly. It seems like between each person and at least one other person, there's been this at-your-throat mayhem at some point. Now I have any number of areas of disagreement with my [schismo-heretical] friends, but funny thing is, we all get along splendidly."

Poor guy didn't realize how he was indicting himself and his pals. A very visible characteristic of today's "mainstream Protestant" denominations is that they "have any number of areas of disagreement ... but ... all get along splendidly." And here we have a new group of protestants (Emerald and gang) who also get along great. [Hmmm ... "new group of protestants"? They should probably be called "Neos" or "Nuvos" or "Novus Ordo Prots," I guess.]

We orthodox Catholics do indeed occasionally rev it up among ourselves -- because we care about getting things right, and we are seeking the best possible expression of the truth. We have spats more about disciplinary matters and personal behavior far more than about doctrine -- and usually only where we need to work through some "grey area." Our skirmishes don't mean that we come away hating each other or thinking that we are heading for hell.

Frank, you wrote:
"Everyone but you knows, and you SHOULD know that the church allows for the possibility that someone in invincible ignorance will be in some fashion be able to 'join' the church in some fashion at death so as to not suffer eternal damnation for never having been exposed to Catholicism during life."

You said that "everyone ... knows" this, but I'd have to say that I don't know it to be an actual teaching of the Church. That is, I can't recall reading that the Church has said that God will offer a Hindu, at the moment of his death, a chance to opt for Catholicism. [Perhaps you are confusing this with the widely held belief/hope that each person in a state of sin will have a chance, at the moment of death, to repent or remain with his face turned away from God.]

As I have been led to understand it, what the Church teaches about the possibility of non-Catholics being saved [per Vatican II, Pius IX, etc.] is quite different from what you outlined. Instead of being given a last-minute chance to "join the club," those non-Catholics who are saved will have been admitted through perseverance in an implicit Baptism of Desire, which effectively makes them Catholic in the end. That is, their lives will have demonstrated to God that, had they known (and been convinced) of the necessity of Baptism of Water, they would gladly have sought and received the sacrament. They don't, therefore, need to make a last-minute decision -- for their whole way of life has constituted a decision. [I know that what I have just written will be scoffed at by some, but that's OK. They will come to agree, later in life (or in heaven!).]

Uh-oh! Another doozie from Mr. Ban-able:
"And yet you are entirely impotent to lay out the case as to why it is you think I'm in schism, or a heretic."

Delusions persist! Every sane person here knows that "the case" has been "la[id] out" time and again -- but he either lacked the smarts to grasp "the case" -- or he turned off his "hearing aid" and simply ignored the eloquent arguments made. He has been totally refuted by Chris B, Mateo, Frank, Eugene, JFG, Skoobuoy, and others whose names have faded into the past. Yet, here he is again, demanding that "the case" be "la[id] out." His mammoth ego forces him to keep himself in the spotlight. Apparently, he was neglected as a little boy, so he is still being the class clown and show-off. I'll be darned if I will ever again "lay out" "the case" for this guy -- who should have been banned at least nine months ago.

"Her-icane Isabel" howls again, at Category 5:
"No new doctrines were declared at Vatican II. It was a pastoral council. Anything stated in Vatican II that had not been previously defined, does not fall under the protection of infallibility. Try again."

She does her best "Play-it-again-Emerald" impression here, repeating the old "pastoral council" canard for the umpteenth time. She shows that she does not understand the concepts of development of doctrine and of infallibility (so well explained recently at forum by Paul). The purpose is, as always, for the schismo-heretics to insist that there are errors in the teaching of Vatican II, the new Catechism, and the writings of Pope John Paul II.

God bless you all.
John

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

So you don't agree with me?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 25, 2003.

Paul has assumed the position

He sure has.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 25, 2003.