Paul, as moderator, I'm requesting that you ban me from the forum. I'm dead serious.

For the love of the Holy Catholic Faith, please ban me. Your decision is all that I need for an excuse to let this whole thing go.

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

Answers

^^

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

Emerald,

If you know you have a drinking problem, quit drinking. If you are preaching schism, quit posting. You don't need the cops to bust you for DUI, and you don't need Paul to ban you. "Just say no".

Frank

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

Sorry to disappoint anyone, but the previous agreement to ban Emerald, posted under my name, was posted by the usual imposter.

So, here is my own reply - Emerald, I agree with Frank that it is ludicrous to "ban" you. Most intelligent people, and you obviously fit that category, can recognize when they don't fit in with a group and its objectives, and are sensitive enough to stop inserting themselves into the activities of a group who are not receptive to what they are offering. Like some others, I have been concerned about the domination of a Catholic group by a fringe element which represents such an insignificant portion of God's Church (assuming they are still members of God's Church - I make no judgement on that point). Very few people have actually requested that you be banned, or have even complained about your posts, and you have typically been a gentleman, and have avoided the sorts of ridiculous rhetoric ("counterfeit church, sham of a Pope") which causes me to delete messages instantly, which is why I have been reluctant to ban you from the forum. Still, if you are sincere about wanting me to prevent your posting on the forum, then on the combined basis of your request, the expressed opinions of a few others, and my personal impressions of the overall negative effects this so- called "tradionalist" influx has had on the forum, I will do so.

As for others of similar persuasion, I am not going to ban discussions of the "traditionalist" position outright; but I do intend to be diligent about preventing threads on other topics from being abducted and their subject matter transformed into further discussion of traditionalist philosophy.

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

So...am I free to post here if I want to?

Yes or no, please.

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

Dear Jake,

With all due respect - what does this have to do with you?

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

With all due respect - what does this have to do with you?

I took your comment:

my personal impressions of the overall negative effects this so- called "tradionalist" influx has had on the forum,

to mean that you consider me, being a Traditionalist, to be a part of the "negative effects" of which you complain. So, I'm not asking for attention, as I realize the converstaion at hand does not deal directly with me, but I just wanted to know if I am banned or not banned; which I thought was a reasonable query.

So which is it?

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

Jake,

As an observer, Paul's reason for banning Emerald is that he asked him to. You haven't asked to be banned, so MY guess is the answer to your question is "no", you are not banned.

Of course I also understand Paul's message to mean that disrupting *posts* on future threads will be deleted. He did NOT say anything about banning "traditionalists" as people at all.

If you have trouble interpretting this, are you REALLY sure you should be putting your own ideas for the direction of the church over the Pope's?

Frank

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

I love Emerald, and I hope he never leaves the Catholic board. Though I don't come here very often any more, I just popped to see to see what's buzzing... Emerald's posts are always full of wit, wisdom, humor, and profound faith. I find them enlightening and uplifting. Emerald, I hope you stick around a long, long, long time.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), September 19, 2003.

Hi Anna,

I agree with you Anna! Emerald is awesome!

He is my friend, and he has, no doubt, enlightened me on so many matters of Faith, over the past year (even though I don't post much at this Forum or come here often either).

Emerald is very intelligent, creative (his analogies and ideas are great), and he has helped me to understand so many things about the Catholic Faith in a more profound light.

Most importantly, he is a firm seeker of the Truth, loves the Mother of God, and loves his Holy Catholic Faith deeply.

The statement that Emerald is no schismatic, I would gladly defend with my whole being, if I thought it was necessary - In fact, I would even sign the statement that Tradition is NOT in schism with my own death blood (if I actually had the courage to do it, and if I was even one tenth of the Catholic I should be).

Emerald, thanks for all your posts at this forum! I owe you (and others, of course, you know who you are) a debt of gratitute for all your posts (for example, I loved that "Emerald's Questions" thread of yours a while back.). Be rest assured, Emerald, that your post here were not in vain. You helped me, a fellow Catholic brother, find the "Truth. Your wise words, advice, and opinions did not fall on deaf ears.

-- Robert (robertp234@hotmail.com), September 19, 2003.

If you have trouble interpretting this, are you REALLY sure you should be putting your own ideas for the direction of the church over the Pope's?

What you need to understand, Frank, is that provocative comments such as yours *invite* a whole new batch of Trad vs. neo debate to start all over again. Jake now has every right to come back and argue that he doesn't follow his own ideas, but those of the Popes and Saints for centuries. Then we'd be right back where we started.

Example: In another thread someone asked if (or debated) that the Pope failed to consecrate Russia. You said, "didn't some sspx nut do it himself?" or something like that. I let it go myself, but it was practically an invitation for any SSPX supporter to post expressing offense that someone from the SSPX, in trying to please Our Lady, would be called a "nut."

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 19, 2003.

Regina,

I do understand what you are saying, and can try and make things less Opinionated. Do you understand my point? Here is someone who thinks that a church council is somehow incorrect, and yet has trouble interpretting a couple of paragraphs (reading in to them things that aren't there). It gives me pause to trust his judgement on more complex issues, and should give HIM pause as his soul is on the line. Saying that you know what mass is better for the faithful than the Pope and Magesterium is a pretty arrogant thing to do, especially if you read what you want to, and not what's there.

On the consecration of Russia, I would be suprised if anyone outside of a renegade organization would approve a non-sponsored organization doing something like this, or ANY organization doing something like this without full Papal approval. The fact that they did it anyway is again pretty clear evidence to me that they do not consider themselves a part of the church hierarchy -- an announcement IMO of schism. Can other schismatics find a reason to repost from this? Yes, but they have been doing that on threads regardless of the topic, so I doubt if it's really an issue. "when all you see is a nail, you try to hammer it with whatever you have"

But I see your point ;-) .

Frank

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

Paul,

WELL???!!!

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), September 20, 2003.

Jake,

Gee, I was SURE I answered you earlier today, but now I don't see that message above (?) Sorry. Anyway what I said then was ...

"I was about to type a response to you, but it would really be a repeat of what Frank said above" ...

And that's about the size of it. Should it ever be necessary to ban you, or anyone, from the forum, rest assured you will be the first to know.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 20, 2003.

I'm sorry, Paul, let's try that again.

I'm going to need one of two things from you:

1. An official declaration of my bannying from this forum, or

2. A laundry list of my violations of the forum's rules.

Thanks!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 26, 2003.

Emerald,

Why do you need one of two things from Paul?

You said "..for the love of the Holy Catholic faith please bann me"

Excuse my being confused(like usual)- But, you are begging him to bann you, than why would you need anything from a Moderator? He gave you what you were begging for.

I'm sure if you wanted to post again, that all you would have to do is ask him to stop deleting you're posts. Right?

God bless you, Emerald.

-- - (David@excite.com), September 26, 2003.

Read the writing on the wall. Also, chess can be a devious game.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2003.

Hey Paul, I would like to un-request my requested ban, and request a reinstatement into the forum. Email backup coming.

I've changed my mind.

I would like to hammer it out with Gene on the humility issue, Frank on the schism issue, John on the charity issue, and you on this self-styled traditionalist thing you keep talking about.

Since I have not broken any forum rules (as far as I'm aware), having had a nice break from this forum, I would like to discuss the Catholic Faith a little more.

What do you say?

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

Emerald,

Earlier on the thread Paul replied to you:

Still, if you are sincere about wanting me to prevent your posting on the forum, then on the combined basis of your request, the expressed opinions of a few others, and my personal impressions of the overall negative effects this so- called "tradionalist" influx has had on the forum, I will do so

Why don't you just "Jake" your vow and say that you weren't sincere so that this "ban" doesn't really apply and post anyways? After all, if something serves its purpose at the time, it doesn't matter if it's really lived up to, right? Think of it as a *sinful act* on your part to ask this at all (since you have a DUTY to spread what you do), and not a serious request. You'll then have no trouble disavowing yourself from it as you never should have done it in the first place.

There's two good ways out, Frank

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

Why Frank?

Because you're wrong, and you know it. And because Paul's wrong and he can't defend it except by enforcing my request.

Because only a small percentage of what takes place in this forum represents the real and true essence of Catholicism, and the rest of is a mere potential setback to souls seeking truth and salvation.

The point could be made quite effectively by never again making another statement but by only asking question, thereby keeping well within the confines of the stated purpose of this forum.

So have a seat and let Paul answer. If he likes it the way it is, he'll say so; he's got the buttons.

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

Paul,

I am asking that Frank be banned from forum for a week.His constant"badgering" and cut downs to jake have to stop.

Please ban him for a week like he did to Eugene. :-)

-- . (David@excite.com), October 13, 2003.

David,

Do you seek a traditional banning or a more pastoral banning?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 13, 2003.

Emerald,

Because you're wrong, and you know it. And because Paul's wrong and he can't defend it except by enforcing my request.

If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't post what I do. When I'm wrong I admit it. That's adult, if not Catholic. On the second part, Paul is enforcing YOUR request! I think this should be a good growth eperience for you that there are consequences for your actions. Why not try NOT posting and offer it up? If saints can bind themselves with chains until they erode and ulcerate their flesh, surely you can do this much for Christ.

Because only a small percentage of what takes place in this forum represents the real and true essence of Catholicism, and the rest of is a mere potential setback to souls seeking truth and salvation.

Trying to entice people away from obeying the church heirarchy is NOT Catholic Emerald. Saying you obey the church but disavow the current rite of mass isn't Catholic either.

So have a seat and let Paul answer. If he likes it the way it is, he'll say so; he's got the buttons

Make no mistake, I am NOT answering as a moderator in any capacity, but as a forum participant. There are no rules as to who can and can NOT answer, right? MY opinion is that if you realize your posts are so injurious to the faith that you shouldn't be posting, then you should live up to it, and not post. Do you see anywhere where I said Paul shouldn't respond? No, you don't. But since I am not the one who ASKED to be banned, there's no reason not to chip in is there? I'm sure Paul will answer in his official capacity when he reads this, and has thought out what he believes is best for the forum.

Frank

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

Why don't you just "Jake" your vow and say that you weren't sincere

Oh, but I was sincere. You can't hold me accountable for your failure.

So now, you're stuck with me until I get banned.

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

Maybe we'd all better start prefacing our remarks with a healthy sense of humility and position such as "It seems to me that..." or "in my opinion the Catholic Faith teaches..." or "I always thought that..." etc.

It may very well be that all of us armchair theologians and apologists stray near gray zones or are forced by time and limitations of length to paraphrase arguments and hence become less than perfectly clear...

And that thus our charges and counter charges of heresy, protestantism, or schism are really mis-applied. I don't think Emerald is a schismatic or protestant - though at times I think IMHO that he might stray towards those positions - again, IMHO. I wouldn't ban him though.

Banning should be reserved for someone who is dishonest, rude, vitriolic and unChristian (*swear words, pornographic, ad hominem etc). But it shouldn't come down on someone who simply happens to be passionate and wants to post some dense tract on why an obscure philosophical theme is better than another and tries to connect the dots trans-civilizationally to the benefit of one theological school rather than another.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 13, 2003.

ad hominem etc

Whow would that leave?

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

For your sake we should keep it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

"If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't post what I do. When I'm wrong I admit it. That's adult, if not Catholic."

Same here. But the nature of this statement coming from two warring camps in a flock of the same shepherd is enough to keep me musing for a century. It's an absolute curiousity. At the bottom layer of it is a choice, and I don't buy most arguments for invincible ignorance these days among the learned. I think most our differences have to do with choices.

"On the second part, Paul is enforcing YOUR request!"

Yes, and thanks. But I now want back on.

"I think this should be a good growth eperience for you that there are consequences for your actions."

Every day is a growth experience, so I can't argue with that. What I don't see is any connection to consequences for my actions, though. Did I do something wrong? See, for any traditional Catholic, the answer to that question is also what lies at the bottom layer of reality, isn't it?

"Why not try NOT posting and offer it up? If saints can bind themselves with chains until they erode and ulcerate their flesh, surely you can do this much for Christ."

Now that's a good question... see, it indicates to me that you do know the realities that lie at the root of a lot of the dialogue, if it can qualify as such, that occurs in this forum. Here's a killer of a question though, imho: why does it apply to me? Does the same apply to you and if not, why not? This tells me volumes. Most of the time we get are broken record accusations of heresy and schism where quite frankly there is none, but suddenly a break in the action... check it out! Frank is in possession of the keen awareness of the beauty of silence in the face of false accusation as being a virtue.

So then, the broken record accusations are a front for something of a deeper understanding of things we aren't priviledged to hear about. Underlying this surprise of yours, this admission, is either sainthood or denial of truth; one or the other, but it can't be both.

But again, why would such a rule be applied only to the traditional Catholics and not pointed also at those of the new flock?

"Trying to entice people away from obeying the church heirarchy is NOT Catholic Emerald. Saying you obey the church but disavow the current rite of mass isn't Catholic either."

This is something to comment on after Paul decides what he's going to allow.

"Make no mistake, I am NOT answering as a moderator in any capacity, but as a forum participant... etc."

I wasn't thinking in those terms; I know you're not trying to act in the capacity of moderator. I meant something else.

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

For your sake we should keep it.

Meaning that, in my case, you should be able to insult me with impunity?

Not that I disagree, I just want to be sure I knew what you meant.

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

Ad hominem is not always insulting, Jake. It simply says we answer the man, not his proposals.

Since all your proposals are worthless on the face of it let me be your adversary ad hominem. Don't you like a tennis match? I thought you were a sport.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

I think he said yes, jake. I can't be too sure, but I think that's what he said...

At least it's honest. =)

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

let me be your adversary ad hominem.

My personal insulter? Err...sure. Be my guest. There may be one or two ahead of you in line, but there's enough of me to go around.

Don't you like a tennis match? I thought you were a sport.

As far as name-calling, I won't return your "serves," so on that level it won't be much of a match, but by all means, pelt away! Doesn't lend any credence to your theological positions, but it might make you feel better.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

Emerald,

"On the second part, Paul is enforcing YOUR request!"

Yes, and thanks. But I now want back on.

That's the whole point I was trying to make that this should be a growth experience for you. The question is should YOU be allowed to make the call that your ban is over? If "yes", there was no reason to "ban" you in the first place, you would have restrained yourself, and began posting again when appropriate. If, however, you are unable to restrain yourself, and you needed to be banned from an outside authority, then the answer should be "no", you should NOT be allowed back until you have proven to the moderator's satisfaction BEFORE posting that you are worthy of it. The question is moot since you are posting anyway, but there you go. I have not seen a public reply by Paul here, so unless he e-mailed you with a "go-ahead", I have to assume you are breaking your ban. What good is to come of that, Emerald? We are supposed to obey legitimate authority, and you are not. How does that reflect on your larger positions, except that others can assume you believe the same thing on church matters as well?

What I don't see is any connection to consequences for my actions, though.

It's a very surface-level thing. You ask to be banned, you are, therefore you can't post. Not posting is the direct consequence of being banned. What's so hard to understand?

Here's a killer of a question though, imho: why does it apply to me? Does the same apply to you and if not, why not?

It applies to you and not anyone else because you are the only person to ASK to be banned. You should therefore live up to it. Again, simple Emerald. As a medical expression goes "if you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras". (Unless you live on the plains in Africa LOL)

This tells me volumes. Most of the time we get are broken record accusations of heresy and schism where quite frankly there is none

Yes there is. The decrees of Vatican II are infallible, as I understand it, and MUST be obeyed. Refusing to do so is schism, at least. If you can show me where a papally approved ecumenical church council does NOT have to obeyed, I will be happy to be enlightened. Otherwise you are quite wrong.

But again, why would such a rule be applied only to the traditional Catholics and not pointed also at those of the new flock

I assume that your question without the schismatic euphamisms is really "why does this apply to schismatics and not Catholics?" The answer is it doesn't even apply to schismatics, it only applies to YOU, because that's what YOU asked for.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

The decrees of Vatican II are infallible, as I understand it, and MUST be obeyed.

You understand wrongly.

Refusing to do so is schism, at least.

Refusing to do what? Go to the New mass? Not criticize the Pope when he errs? Take Communion in the hand?

Frank, none of these things, taken separately or lumped all together, do not come anywhere close to schism. If they do, then Padre Pio, St. Catherine of Siena, and Mother Theresa are all schismatics!

What exactly is it from the Council that Traditionalists are "disobedient" to? I asked you in another thread. Maybe you didn't catch it yet. No problem, though. Take your time.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

Jake,

In the year or two you've been here you've maligned the Catholic Church more than anyone I've seen to date, and on this forum that's saying something. Don't bother asking questions of me, it's a waste of time answering them.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

This is a character who places himself on a level with Mother Theresa, Padre Pio and Saint Catherine without a qualm. Must be cool.

He went from singing litanies on humility and the total refusal to accept human respect last week, to this? Maybe he isn't schismatzers. But look at those mood swings!

An ad hominem observation from the ''Neo'' lookout point.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 14, 2003.

Don't bother asking questions of me, it's a waste of time answering them.

Frank

You just answered a whole bunch of them. Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------

This is a character who places himself on a level with Mother Theresa, Padre Pio and Saint Catherine without a qualm.Must be cool.

Recalling something someone said or did is not an attempt to place anyone on any sort of level. George Washington crossed the Delaware River. That doesn't mean I'm running for office.

total refusal to accept human respect

There's nothing I want less, especially from this forum, and from you, Gene, in particular.

An ad hominem observation from the ''Neo'' lookout point.

...and a classic one, too! Well done.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

See, there we go... two private judgments.

Anyone else like to condemn jake? Get the balance right and don't be shy. Let's uphold our Holy Faith by this most excellent means.

By all means, let's not tackle the burning questions but burn the questioner himself.

Eugene and Frank, I know that both of you know full well that jake isn't as bad as all that and that it's just a kneejerk way to avoid difficult questions. I'm inclined to say that everyone is able to see through this, but then I have to take a step back and remind myself that they actually don't see through it. =)

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

Man what a disappointment to the devil. Jake-- on another humility circuit. On his Catherine Wheel.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 14, 2003.

"On his Catherine Wheel."

Gene's mental picture of jake's personal Ark of Salvation.

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

S.S. Catherine?

Not a bad role model, BTW. I named my oldest daughter after her.

Note the passenger of this "Ark" in the photo does not leave the driving to anyone else. He's not out on the lido deck eating peanuts and watching shuffleboard. He has to hurt & sweat a little to get the thing to move at all, and wear a lifejacket in case he falls overboard.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

The Pope is Peter's successor, isn't he? We might be upset with his ''modernistic'' Novus Mass; but let's ask why.

Saint Peter is the Captain of the Church. She's his bark; tossed by the waves; driven by the winds of ''modernism'' (lightning flashes) and about to sink. Yes. Once Jesus came up from below and calmed the tempest. Today He sends the Holy Spirit to fly over the ship. All hands on deck!

Peter is Captain of his ship. He will never lose the ship, ''Trads''; you won't need those life jackets. Get to work and start bailing water, Swabbies; this means YOU, Jake, Regina, elites! Too many Catholics want to give orders to their Captain. (Right now I've got to go out and cut the grass.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 14, 2003.

Saint Peter is the Captain of the Church. She's his bark; tossed by the waves; driven by the winds of ''modernism'' (lightning flashes) and about to sink. Yes.

What about the New Sprintime? Didn't It plug up all those holes in the hull?

Get to work and start bailing water, Swabbies; this means YOU, Jake, Regina, elites!

We prefer remiaining in safe harbor rather than being dashed to pieces on rocks. We'll weather the storm here. Saving the ship is more important than a desire to move it "forward," if heading in that direction means we all fall overboard (and without lifejackets, if we follow your advice, Admiral!)

(Right now I've got to go out and cut the grass.)

Right. Go research my question to you on the other thread. Take your time.

For your convenience, here it is:

Ask me any question on faith, the church, and the Catholic religion, Regina. I will return an answer immediately. I won't search for it, I'll give it to you from memory. Q: What are the requirements for sarcamental validity?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

I've been following these discussions here for awhile, and I ask this with all sincerity.

Jake, why does Frank understand wrongly? You just simply say that he understands wrongly, but you don't say why (even though he asked you to (basically) back it up).

Emerald, I understand that you asked to be banned. That suprised me actually. When I had had enough of this place, I just took a self- imposed vacation for awhile. But doesn't it kind of take away from the meaning of a person being banned when they decide "oh, I didn't really mean it, unban me." I don't know; I guess it's not mine to say, and I'm really not trying to be critical here or anything. I guess I just understand what Frank meant about the consequences of one's actions (ie asking to be banned, means that you have to live with being banned).

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks,

Carolyn

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), October 14, 2003.

You're right Caroline, it was kind of a stupid idea. The truth is I should have just walked away for a while, so it is weakness on my part. But there was somewhat of a point I wanted to make in that I never said anything to my knowledge that was contrary to the Faith, and if so it wasn't done with mal intent. With someone in particular continually calling for my banning based on heresy, schism and demonic possession, I thought it would be funny that if I was to be banned, I would have to do it myself.

But you're right though, it was goofy. It is frustrating discussing the Faith in difficult times and while I try to keep a level head about it I do get extremely irritated sometimes, and that's a failure on my part imho.

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

Carolyn:

"The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements..`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

LOL at myself!! Jake, I have to confess that I read that statement 3 times at least, and I STILL don't understand it! I'm no simpleton, but there's a reason I stay out of these debates; it's beyond me! Thank you though for answering me. Maybe someone will answer you and I can read it and maybe understand a little better.

::Carolyn slinking back to just lurking on these threads!::

first though, thanks Emerald for your honest answer!

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), October 14, 2003.

Jake:
Off top of my head:

A sacrament first, must be instituted by Jesus Christ. He makes it valid by His death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection. There is no sacrament made by men, in the church or othrwise. All sacraments bring grace to the soul receiving them. They all are the sign and the grace itself. ; administered properly. The grace is more than actual grace; the grace that Jesus merited for us dying on the cross is sanctifying grace. It is virtually a share in the life of God Himself.

A sacrament is valid if the soul is capable of receiving that sacrament. To be valid, the receiver must want and intend to receive it. Otherwise it's invalid. Some sacraments cannot be received before baptism. In matrimony, each spouse gives that sacrament one to the other. Etc., etc., What else should we cover, Jake?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 14, 2003.

What else should we cover, Jake?

Wow. Well, I guess that's about it, Gene. I understand much more clearly now. Thank you.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

You pasted that question at the other thread too. You must have time on your hands. Time to kill.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 14, 2003.

Hi Gents!

Hi Jake, what point are you trying to make with this quote- be careful now :).

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 14, 2003.

"...be careful now..."

Watch out jake... kiwi's been consulting the Ascended Masters of Antitradionalcatholism for guidance again! lol; good to see you're still out there kiwi.

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

On that site you'll see this quote:

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."

I've heard that very same thing before... from a friend who overhead local prelates discussing why they relegated the tridentine Mass in our area to halls of the local mausoleum. It was in order to depict this same train of thought, that, in their words, traditionalists were the walking dead of the Roman Catholic Church. Nyuk, nyuk.

What I've found is that the intended slight has been a blessing of insight, to be able to assist at a Mass where the bodies of the souls of the faithful departed surround you as in a catacomb, and all of life and death is put into perspective in the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The short end of the stick sometimes yields finer results, with the meek inheriting the earth and whatnot.

Speaking of drawing straws, there's two choices... one is to adopt the mocking tone of the authors of the above site, or to be on the receiving end of the mockery and a considerate a happy fault. In there you'll find everything one needs to engage tradition Catholics in spiritual combat, or you'll find every reason to wonder if how they conduct themselves truly constitutes souls seeking sanctity or doing the work of God.

It's not so much a knowledge thing as it is a choice. Good choices yield good knowledge, but good knowledge does not necessarily yield good choices, kind of like in the Garden of Eden.

So go ahead and take after jake, kiwi, if it will either make him and you, or both, holier...

I just thought it might be enlightening for some people to know that most anti-traditional arguments are canned from a relatively small pool of sources.

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

Only if it's seen that we were anti-traditionalists, Emmie. We aren't. Neither are we ''neos''. We're faithful Catholics, pilgrims with our Holy Father. Not like so many elitists who call Catholic only that which tickles their own fancy of a Tradition. They divide; we unite.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 14, 2003.

Hi Jake, what point are you trying to make with this quote

Err, which quote be that, mate?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 14, 2003.

Hi Jake

Dont worry about it, Ive lost intrest anyway Im out of here after this .

Take Care Jake and Regina

Hi Emerald Im just sick and tired of this, to parphrase Newman "To be deep in history is to cease to be a 'traditionalist'". I would like to answer Carolyns question on the magisterium in a short simple clear cut way as I think its something useful and postive I can do and unless someone else dose it for her before I get some time again. Im outa this place for a while. I think youve changed and not for the better over the year or so Ive known you on this forum and Im sorry to say that. I admire your apparent religosity (sp?) in much the same way I admire fundamentalist Muslims but that doesnt make them faithful Catholics. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for all his fine points, was a theological retard, those that folow him even dimmer. Please provide me with a list of current leading Catholic theologians who suppport his(and your) views as Id like to read up on them at some satge, perhaps Im missing something.

WHile you snigger weakly,the jokes on you my friend, theres only a small group of part time laymen intenet apologists who deal with this issue becauase given the complete and uttter demolition of Lefebrvres dissent many many years ago Catholic theologians today dont give such pathetic sorry arguments even a second thought. The fact you get frustrated with not having reason on your side doesnt mean you have to reach out for an emotional nostalgic ideology in order to convince yourself youre doing ok. Youre not and its not faith IMHO . WHatever makes you feel good green man I guess.

Thanks for all the help ,esp in the early days I guess I know the differnce this forum made to the way I view the world and Im sad to think you and others are effectively preventing others from hearing such viewpoints. I really thought the world of you, I guess we all change maybe its just me. :(

See you mate.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 15, 2003.

Hi Jake Dont worry about it, Ive lost intrest anyway Im out of here after this

Right. That's what you always say before you post some indefensible nonsense. Kinda insulates you from having to back it up. Not sure if I'll be allowed to post whenever it is you decide to come back, so be well.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 15, 2003.

Hi Emerald Id like to retract my statements about your faith being emotional based crap etc, Im in no position to judge your faith personally.

Jake I just knew it would end in tears :-). I withdrew becasue youre like an elephant in a lillypond on these complex issues, its not fair or dignified to let a man persecute and humiliate himself like you always do. I like a challenge and frankly youre about as challenging as a runny nose and even less appealing.

On an unrelated prior issue , ignore what your workmates cruely say to the contrary: " strong body odour" is indeed a sign of a "traditional" Catholic man( and Regina will thankyou). Remember to bath even less frequently and never forget God loves you Sir.

Hi Carolyn

I hope this link helps, Ive forgotten how to link again!

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html

The Magisterium refers to the Churchs divinely appoited authority to teach religious truths. If youre unsure about anything in the link Im sure one of the "regular" forumites will help you.

Peace!

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

"Please provide me with a list of current leading Catholic theologians who suppport his (and your) views as Id like to read up on them at some stage, perhaps Im missing something."

Here it is Kiwi. I wouldn't say each leading Catholic theologian is current per se, but at least the list is current.

j/k.

Well all in all, I would call your take on it a good thing kiwi. Human respect is kind of a poison and easy to fall into. Even among good people who respect each other for all the right reasons; if anyone hangs on your words it's bad for you and bad for them. If anyone hangs on what I say it's bad for them and bad for me. We have unity because of truth; but if you look to another person for the whole truth, you'll only have truth in unity. That latter way leaves God high and dry in the matter; the first way makes him the Cause of it all.

I have to admit I find a lot of happiness in knowing those people who have absorbed fundamental truths more deeply than others; this will test the patience of many I'm sure, but guess what: jake's one of them. Even so, for example, if I hang on jake's words or if he hangs on mine, there's trouble, and that's one of those fundamental truths about life that I'm sure jake would agree with.

So look deeper.

I don't disregard what you say and toss it aside because while we might disagree at least I think you're being honest. I have to admit that when you take out after somebody it has an sharp effect, but perhaps not the intended one because you always get me laughing; you're good with the words, man.

Don't worry about me, I'm fine; think about truth. Find it before it finds you. You're Catholicism is always the place to start.

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

strong body odour" is indeed a sign of a "traditional" Catholic man

It's because we've none of that New Springtime freshness.

I'd rather reek.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), October 18, 2003.

Gee jake,

You're the last person I'd expect to say "traditionalism stinks", but I guess you should know. Come into God's Church, where the air is always sweet and fresh. :-)

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

If you're really getting off for good, kiwi, do what I said to do:

Petition to the Holy Mother of God that she be your guide. In the litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, one particular section blows me away altogether:

Ark of the covenant, pray for us. Gate of heaven, pray for us. Morning star, pray for us.

I made my request in an initial, informal way in December of 1999; nothing has been the same since then because she remembers everything and is true in all things.

Pitiful, miserable, misguided person that I am? Absolutely. It's this awareness that is principle to the first and last step into towards the Beatific Vision.

So go do it.

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