This is the wierdest thing; Is it true?

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: Don't evangelize Jews The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement Monday saying that Catholics should evangelize non-Christians—but not Jews. "The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples 'of all nations' means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God," says Reflections on Covenant

-- Catherine (Kittypie@newpress.com), September 22, 2003

Answers

Unfortunately, this is true. It is one of the greatest heresey's yet to come out of these bishops.

If what they say is true, why did the apostles, especially Paul work so hard to convert Jews.

Thos who are not baptized have no chance of entering Heaven. The Jews cannot even claim baptism of desire. Poor souls! Poor bishops!

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

Three brief points:

1. The USCCB thing is an embarrassment, but it has also been mis- reported; the scandalous claim is NOT their teaching (more like the private opinion of a few bad eggs), and neither does it claim that Jews should not be evangelized; it focuses more on certain anti- semitic excesses of the past.

2. Why on earth would a Jew be incapable of a Baptism of Desire?

3. Why do you say "poor ______" about someone you think is damned? Aren't you thereby implying that God made an error of judgement? Isn't the very idea positively, well, silly?

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

f. Sacred Ecumenical Council of Florence, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442 A.D - “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 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.” (cf. Dz. 714)

Note Jews, included in that no nonsence, tightly wrapped, infallible document.

Who are you going to believe, those bishops, or even John Paul, if he says otherwise?

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

d inspires our C 1. The following is a quote of Pope John Paul II's statement in English to those gathered in St. Peter's square on Wednesday, December 6th, 2000, in which he briefly summarized his message of the day, "FOR US, THE KINGDOM IS GRACE": "Dear brothers and sisters, the theme of Our general audience during this great Jubilee year, has been the glory of the Trinity, and today we ask what we must do to ensure that the glory of the Trinity shines forth more fully in the world. In essence we are called to be converted and to believe in the Gospel. We are to accept the kingdom of God in our hearts, and to bear witness to it by word and deed. The kingdom indicates the loving presence and activity of God in the world and should be a source of serenity and confidence to our lives. The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God's kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom. In the Lord's prayer we say 'Thy kingdom come'. May this be the hope that sustains us anhristian life and world."

Yes Holy Father, indeed we are called to be converted..... but... we must answer that call by actiively trying to enter the Church. Your address deserves respect, but it in no way can have effect on Eugene IV declaration.

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

Is this new news or old news? At first I thought that it was new news because today is Monday. But I've searched all over the internet and I cannot find any mention of it. So this is old news, right? You're referring to Reflections on Covenant and Mission (ROCM), the document that was released Aug. 12, 2002, a date which fell on a Monday.

There is no doubt that ROCM is heresy, perhaps even apostasy. Nor is there any doubt that it reflects the personal beliefs of most bishops in this age of I'm-OK-you're-OK-ecumenism. If it ever becomes the official teaching of the Catholic Church then it will be plain to everyone that the Catholic Church is in schism with her past, and any claims of infallibility will be laughable.

But I suspect that the outrage from the Catholic laity after ROCM was released last year, and possibly even private correction from JPII, forced the bishops to back off. That's why I almost had a heart attack when I first read Catherine's post and thought that this was new news.

ROCM was a very public heresy that called for an equally public correction from the Magisterium. Sadly, that correction never came. One Pope once said that to be silent in the face of error is to approve it. From a moral standpoint that's true. From a juridical standpoint it's not so clear cut. But if ROCM rears its ugly head again and there is no public correction from the Vatican, then I think that it is safe to assume that it has the Vatican's approval, making it the official -- and heretical -- teaching of the Catholic Church.

-- The Sane Trad (sanetrad@yahoo.com), September 22, 2003.

Catholic teaching on salvation for Jews appears in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, at § 1260, "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." Not all Jews are the living witnesses of God and Torah that the Bishops Committee assumes. Since we cannot distinguish among Jews as to their probable salvation through this Baptism by desire, it is prudent to assume their need for baptism.

When the bishops do address this issue, from the Catholic perspective of Christ's commands to evangelize at Matthew 28:19 and Acts 1:8, which is the correct response: (a) Provide episcopal support for a strong outreach program to show inquiring Jews that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, or (b) Discourage any Catholic evangelization of Jews at all, and entirely cede the Jewish people to the Protestants?

The Trad Catholic is correct. Even this item in the catechism touches on heresy. We are abandoning the Jews to the Protestants.

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

There's good reason that the U.S. Bishops weren't corrected: On November 17, 1980 Pope John Paul II declared in a speech to the Jewish community of Mainz, Germany, that the "Old Covenant" was "never revoked by God."

In its 1985 Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jew and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church, the third paragraph says that Judasim is a "present reality" and not a superseded "historical reality." The document cites the authority of John Paul II and quotes the words I quoted above.

Before someone suggests Notes misinterpreted the Pope's words, the Pope spoke of his support of the document on October 28, 1985.

Now, does this mean that I or anyone else should say the Pope is a heretic? No. He spoke heresy in a speech, yes, but he did not bind (or attempt to bind) this heretical idea on the Church. This is a good example of the limitations of the Charism of Infallibility given to the Pope. Nothing prevents the Pope from speaking error in a *speech*, but he does have the Holy Ghost to guide Him should he attempt to bind Catholics to this heresy. And we know the Holy Ghost would forbid it.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 23, 2003.

Regina; From strictly legal interpretations, you are correct. From the damage done to souls, who hang on his every word, we can only be horrified at the possible loss of many of those souls. He may not be "legally" reponsible, but spiritually, only God knows.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 23, 2003.

Sorry, but you're both wrong. The words the Pope spoke don't mean what you are spinning them to mean.

To say that Judaeism is not a historically superceded thing, is technically true: God did give the Law to the Jews, which includes the prophets (which Catholics hold revealed God's truth) as well as the commandments (which Catholics hold as still binding). The New Testament didn't void the Old. It fulfilled it.

Their scripture (the OT) is true scripture! As far as it goes, their law is also true - indeed good since Our Lord perfectly lived it, and since He did not sin, the Jewish law can in no way be considered bad or sinnful...even if elements of it were perfected in the Gospel!

Just because the Church and Gospel are the flowering and fulfillment of the Old Testament and covenant doesn't automatically make the first "church" (People of God, "Israel") ipso facto evil and bad.

After all, it is we, the Gentiles who have been grafted onto that vine...not the other way around.

This does not mean that people can be saved qua jews... because from among their own people came the Messiah who is the way, truth, and life - so salvation begins in the Jews (as Our Lord himself says in the Gospel of John) but ends in Christ.

Read Paul on the vine: us Gentiles have been grafted onto the vine of the Jewish people - insofar as they rejected the Gospel and Christ, they are lost...but what if they don't reject it and him because they are ignorant of him?

Read Acts of the Apostles: the Centurion. He was a PAGAN, but he prayed to the God of Abraham, and God heard him and sent an angel to him... he was sincere and God treated him justly by sending him to Peter.

What does this mean? That paganism is a means of salvation? No. It means that pagans can be saved - not qua pagans, but despite the fact they have little truth to go on and little or no means of obtaining grace. Yes, its ideal to be born a Catholic and never have to suffer ignorance or error...but this doesn't mean Pagans can't come to know the truth and receive the grace of faith in Christ even before coming to Mass...

There's also the principle of sacramental theology that you are missing out on: how does the catecumen first come to accept the truth of the Gospel? How does a man come to ask for baptism? It requires faith - supernatural faith (which is a gift, and virtue) doesn't it!

But chronologically in the life of all converts, this gift of faith comes to the man before the sacrament of baptism (which is why he asks to be baptized!)

If then God can give the grace of faith to people BEFORE sacraments, we must conclude that, though the Church is essential, and that though it is His will that people become members, His grace can and does come to people apart from or prior to their involvement in the Church.

The Pope wants to avoid two extremes: one that says erroneously that religion is relative and not important, and the other that erroneously holds that God's grace is entirely bound (limited) by either the Covenant he made with Israel (which is not true because non-circumcised pagans found favor in His eyes) or the visible confines of the Church.

If you believe, then yes, for you the Church is essential - you cannot arbitrarily decide to leave and still be saved. But if you do not fully believe...God can still save you from your own ignorance and limitations - but ordinarily His saving plan leads people towards the Church "the sacrament of salvation" as proclaimed in Vatican II (which would be an inexplicable title if the Pope or Vatican II really taught what you think they taught).

Part of evangelization is finding a pacific means of talking with non- believers. If your Jewish listeners walk around with serious chips on their shoulders (and they do), with serious misunderstandings both culturally and theologically (and most do), with millennia of legend and official rabbinical teaching that Jesus was a sorcer and Mary a whore... you are not going to find the path to evangelization open by quoting old Church teachings directed at CATHOLICS who were tempted to leave the Church for easier (morally) religions.

The Pope has taught elsewhere that BECAUSE the Old Testament prophets and Law is true and good, and can lead people to holiness (didn't it lead John the Baptist, Mary, and Joseph to true holiness?), Jews should approach Jesus and the Gospel not at a competing religion but as the fulfillment and perfection of what they justly believe is God's revealed truth.

Their leaders are to blame for post-AD heresy about the Messiah, and all the other post-Resurrection teachings that are opposed to the Gospel, but all official teachings BC can only be considered OK.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 23, 2003.

Joe,

When the JPII tells Jews that "the Old Covenant has never been revoked" is he not leading them to believe that he supports a dual covenant theology? If he means what you think he means -- that the Old Covenant was fulfilled in the coming of Jesus as the Christ (which is thoroughly orthodox Christian teaching) -- then it is incumbent upon him to say so, otherwise he is being deceitful.

The first priority of a shepherd is not to lose the sheep he already has. The Pope should be strengthening us Catholics in OUR faith, not strengthening Protestants, Jews, Moslems, and Hindus in THEIR faith.

-- The Sane Trad (sanetrad@yahoo.com), September 23, 2003.

Joe; You make compelling points, but just from the point of being as little children, as the Lord say;

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" and that's it. We do not have to be theologians with degrees. Eugene IV said it also. Not unbelievers Jews etc etc. even if they give their life for Jesus, will go into hell fire.

Sounds hard and unmerciful, but it is the Holy Ghost speaking. Get tired of repeating this, but that is what it comes down to. The Church since Vatican two, would like everyone to forget that there was a church, and popes prior to that.

Those of sincre heart will not be left orphans, and just like the angel coming to Cornelius, and Philip to the Ethiopian, God will handle it in His own way.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 23, 2003.

Terry,

You wrote, "The Church since Vatican two, would like everyone to forget that there was a church, and popes prior to that."

This is not true, and you know it. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote,

"It is impossible (‘for a Catholic’) to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism”, at least in its extreme forms. Second: It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so- called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.

To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is also our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.”

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, San Francisco. 1985, pp. 28-29.

You also wrote, "We do not have to be theologians with degrees." You had better darn well be if you're going to be so confident about breaking with the Council.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 24, 2003.

Terry, if you say that God is merciful and can save people in his own way, you have just agreed with my position! Of course the Church is essential - all who are saved are saved by Christ in the Church - but the "Church" is defined as "the union of men with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit" - and this association between the soul and God can be effected either by human intervention (missionaries) or by direct action of God with the souls.

Obviously, WE can only verify the first and normal economy of salvation. But the second is still possible.

It is highly probable that membership in the Church will lead you to salvation and that adult refusal to enter the Church will lead you to hell... but it is still POSSIBLE that a soul could be saved by God through his own means. Likely? maybe not. But possible, yes.

That's the only point. No one here is suggesting that "therefore" we don't have to preach the gospel or seek conversions. Of course we do. The real question is How. Do you hit pagans over the head with "First of all, you're wrong, you're sinners and if you don't obey me, you're damned" or "first of all, God loves you and wants you to be happy in time and eternity".

With respect to Jews, you can't approach them as though they were pagans. Your pastoral approach therefore can't presuppose that their culture and prior beliefs are wrong and need correction. You have to a) know their culture, language, and customs, b) know their theology and philosophicla presuppositions and c) be an expert in the Faith and how the Gospel perfects and fulfills their Law and Prophets, rather than is a break from it.

When dealing with Pagans we just presuppose that they know nothing and don't believe in the true God and that their customs and beliefs are based on no true revelation. This means that practically the missionary doesn't need to know much about Zeus or the Baccanalia.

If the bishops are saying that it's better to not evangelize the Jews until you do it right, then fine. They have long memories and big chips on their shoulders (eldest brother syndrome). If we as a Church don't handle it correctly we could inadvertantly drive them away.

So you have to soft-peddle and go slow, carefully.

Maybe - as is likely - there isn't any truly Catholic congregation out there with the charism to convert Jews. Or maybe every Catholic would be prepared if they only had read and kept up on Catholic education and the Papal teaching since 1963 instead of only reading 3rd parties' take on things...

Quite a few Jewish commentators had many good things to say about Evangelium Vitae and Veritatis Splendor... as well as the Pope's many practical forms of outreaching towards Jews.

If someone has their emotional and psychological shields up...all the evangelization in the world is going to be useless.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 24, 2003.

Joe; Sometimes I give simplistic answers, but at least some are not refuted by highly techical rhetoric.

Just one; Why did the Lord weep over Israel?

Another; Why did pope Eugene, {ex-cathedra), say Jews would be damned? ( unless they convert).

No one is going to be able to talk people into Heaven, but rather pray them in. The apostles would not have died trying, if they believed that "big umbrella "theory. I am not rooting against Jews and Muslims. I want all to be saved, but there are no shortcuts.

While we wait for a more diplomatic time, those two infidels over there are blowing each other into hell.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 24, 2003.

Shalom Sane Trad,

You said:

>>>"The first priority of a shepherd is not to lose the sheep he already has. The Pope should be strengthening us Catholics in OUR faith, not strengthening Protestants, Jews, Moslems, and Hindus in THEIR faith."

By your definition Yeshua (Jesus) was a farce because He did not stop His disciples from leaving Him after he explained the Eucharist to them and they found this doctrine (as do many modern Christian) hard to accept, for it is written:

"After this many of His disciples drew back and no longer went about with Him." Jn.6.66

The Chapter and verse for us is indicative as they match the number of beast. Yet as John explained just prior Yeshua knew not every one claiming to be of Him was which is why He said:

"But there are some of you that do not believe." Jn.6.64

And did not our Blessed Mother tell us that when judgment came down upon our Church, she would step into judgment's way, and this would change to a call of "penitence, penitence, penitence". When has this happened? A high mountain is also seen that our leaders and laity would climb that would have at its apex a cross, and in time half the holy city will go into destruction while the other half will go into trembling. Our pope, the one who comes at this time, will walk with staggered steps (not a smooth) up this mountain and mourn those who fall like winter fruit does when shaken by a gale.

Thus, we see that one day our leader will have to make a very hard decision based on repenting from something done wrong. It is intertwined somehow to the apostasy of Russia and a war that came during the pontification of Pope Pius XI, which happens to be WWII; all because the consecration she asked for was delayed. All these are pieces to the puzzle that our Church must piece together, and by our faith we know Yeshua will uphold our Church until the very end!

Therefore, by these things we see we reject the RadTrad arguments completely as schismatic, and uphold Joe's own view as more viable as his view upholds the rock on which our Church is built!

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), September 24, 2003.

Terry, you wrote, "I want all to be saved, but there are no shortcuts."

Apparently, you believe there is one shortcut: being born Catholic.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 24, 2003.

we reject the RadTrad arguments completely as schismatic

Really? How so?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 24, 2003.

Our Lady's message was delievered in sealed envelope to the Popes...and then made public, but as far as I know the letter itself was never published.

This being the case, it is entirely possible that all the details of the prophecy were not revealed to us, and thus the Popes' actions or "delays" may not be the result of nefarious calculations but merely responses of prudential pastors.

Now part of the message was the need for ALL CATHOLICS to pray, fast, and keep the first Fridays and saturdays... that is, 50% of the message about Russian and world peace depended on what Lay Catholics did or did not do - since we make up 99% of the Church Militant.

Now the Popes have promoted these things - and at Vatican II tried to jump-start the laity's appreciation for all the other culture and civilizational things we are SUPPOSED TO BE DOING - evangelizing the culture we're in, changing things for the better through all the means at our disposal (economy, politics, media, education, sports, ethics, morality, etc).

Yes, it's just grand to have the bishops out in front leading us, but we're still duty bound to DO SOMETHING ourselves even if they're NOT out in front. If you are free enough to complain about it, you're free enough to do something practical.

Had the laity responded to the calls of the Pope and Council, sought holiness (actively rather than passively), sought peace through justice and public morality rather than self-centered hedonism...we might have a fighting chance to be the means by which the nations come to obey Jesus Christ and thus fulfill Mary's prophecy of peace and healing...

But if we think we can sit back and watch all the fireworks without doing anything, or just sit back and watch the Pope and bishops (all 4500 of them) do all the work - and that 3 billion souls will wake up one morning and without any human means at all, will suddenly convert to Catholicism... we're absolutely insane. That's not how salvation works, that's not how it's ever worked. That's not what Christ taught us to expect, nor what the apostles experienced.

Finally I find it highly suspicious that so-called "Traditional" catholics [sic] should talk highly of Tradition while second-guessing the actions of all the Popes this century. Private Revelation is just that - private. It's not the same level of assurance as Public revelation, nor does it have the guarantee of infallibilty, which the Pope does have. If the Pope (who got the original letter) and knew the contents of the secrets chooses not to do the big razzle dazzle consecration...then I assume he decides that the sine qua non conditions for such a consecration had not been met.

You don't baptise infants until you are sure their guardians will bring them up in the faith...similarly you don't consecrate whole nations filled with heathens and atheists until there are enough missionaries and witnesses ready to assist their conversion.

Saul was knocked off his horse... but led to Barnabbas, a devote believer who took him in and baptised him. Since that is the only case we have of direct, miraculous intervention of Christ in the conversion of a soul, and that's how Saul became Paul...I assume that that's the template we can expect: God will do his part, when there are people on the ground ready and able to do theirs.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 24, 2003.

Why do people still keep relying on the non infallible judgement of popes, rather than the messenger from Heaven. Our Lady knew that she would be disobeyed, that is why she gave a time limit of 1960.

Pope John ignored it and instead called Vatican two, just two years later. What a slap in the face to the Mother of God. Well, we all paid for his disobedience. You can argue all day about the pro and con of that council, but you can nit hide the disaster that followed. No need to quote the statistics, as they are well known. Joe thinks miracles can't happen. Joe do you believe in the miracle of the sun?

In any event , Our Lady said that the consecration would be done, but that it would be done late. As far as the people are concerned,they are losing their faith in the Blessed Sacrament, in very large numbers. So how can you get them to pray rosaries?

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 24, 2003.

"Our Lady said that the consecration would be done, but that it would be done late."

In fact, the Church does not teach that Our Lady said ANYTHING! The Church only grants permission for individual Catholics to believe that Our Lady said something, and to pursue that private devotion if they so desire. But one cannot expect or demand that the Church of the Living God will base any of its official teachings or decisions on such optional personal devotions!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 24, 2003.

C.Foegen,

In response to my statement that the Pope "should be strengthening us Catholics in OUR faith, not strengthening Protestants, Jews, Moslems, and Hindus in THEIR faith," you wrote the following:

>>>By your definition Yeshua (Jesus) was a farce because He did not stop His disciples from leaving Him after he explained the Eucharist to them and they found this doctrine (as do many modern Christian) hard to accept, for it is written:

"After this many of His disciples drew back and no longer went about with Him." Jn.6.66<<<

I'm not sure if I understand your point. It seems to me that this incident in the Bible supports what I am saying. Jesus is revealing to his followers the key to eternal life. Although it's a hard teaching for anyone to accept, Jesus doesn't try to sugarcoat it. Those who refuse to accept it and walk away, He lets walk away. He doesn't chase after them and re-phrase His teaching in a manner that would be more acceptable to them. He tells them the plain truth and lets the chips fall where they may.

It is hard to accept that one must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ in order to have eternal life, that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ, or that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. So these and other teachings of the Church are now being obscured or watered down for the sake of ecumenism.

My goodness, when the Pope tells Jews that the Old Covenant has never been revoked, when he kisses the Koran and prays for John the Baptist to protect Islam, when he gathers pagans together at a Catholic monastery in Assisi so that they can pray to their false gods for world peace, I cannot help but feel shocked, angered and betrayed as truth takes a back seat to ecumenism.

And why is JPII doing these things? To try to break down hostility towards the Catholic Church. Perhaps he thinks that this will help to bring about more conversions, but all he is doing is promoting religious indifferentism, making non-Catholics feel comfortable in their errors, and undermining the authority of the Catholic Church by contradicting what previous Popes have taught.

Even if you have no doubt that the Holy Spirit will protect the pope from officially teaching error, that is no reason to be complacent about it. Papal infallibility does not mean that the pope cannot be a weak pope who allows errors to go unchecked, nor does it mean that the pope himself may not be personally in error.

Catholics have not only the right but the duty to insist upon clear, orthodox teaching. The other poster, Joe, put an orthodox spin on JPII's statement to Jews that "the Old Covenant has never been revoked" by saying that it has not been revoked, but fulfilled, in the coming of Jesus Christ. But the Pope never said that and everyone knows, including the Pope, that the Jews he was speaking to did not understand it that way. Was the Pope deceiving the Jews? Or does he support a dual covenant theology? Those are the only explanations that I can think of and neither of them speak well of the Pope.

-- The Sane Trad (sanetrad@yahoo.com), September 25, 2003.

Then read the whole statement of the Pope on the topic, and cross reference it with all the other statements he's made on the subject. At least then you'll have a better idea of what he means when he calls the Jews "our older brothers".

If you are IGNORANT of all the other background texts and encyclicals, writings and discourses of the Pope on this subject and on the need for the Church and evangelization and conversion of non- believers.... if you are IGNORANT of all the wealth of theological and philosophical reflection he has repeatedly made over 25 years... and try to JUDGE him based on 1 or 2 short -out-of-context- quotes, you are only going to fool yourself.

So take the time to visit the Vatican.va website, search on Jews and the Pope, take the time to scan a couple of his encyclicals and Wednesday audience catechisis... and then once you have actually read his words in context, come back to us.

Most - not all, but most so-called Traditionalists will quote long tracks of Trent, but not long tracks of Vatican II. They'll quote long encyclicals from 1234 but either have never read or only read small chunks of modern encyclicals...yet in their arguments they take for granted their superior knowledge of the modern Papal teachings and seem to presume they know what the Pope is thinking...all without actually having read what he's written! Miracle!

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), September 25, 2003.

Joe; I agree with sane Trad. You can quote all the lovely words of V2, that you want. You can write off Our Lady, if you want, but there is one thing that you cannot do. You cannot stop this Vatican 2 church from bleeding to death. That is a fact. You can make all the alibis that you like, but you can't stop the bleeding. At the rate it is going it will be comatose in another 40 years. Yes, the Church will survive, but not in Vatican city. It will, in homes, barns, hotels, a few small chapels etc. Remember the Lord said " When I return, will I find any faith at all". So maybe that time is closer than we think.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 25, 2003.

It is the Holy Spirit who directs and protects the Church. It is He alone who keeps the Church Holy and vibrant, in spite of all the mistakes and sins and scandals perpetrated by its members. Apparently the promise of Jesus to be with His Church until the end of time means little to self-proclaimed "traditionalists", who see themselves, not Christ, as the savior of the Church. "If I don't save the Church from the Pope and the Magisterium, no-one will". Now, where have I heard that before? Oh yes ... Luther.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 25, 2003.

Shalom Jake,

We just want to reiterate it is their attitudes we reject, not the people because we all make mistakes. And given this simple fact that we all make mistakes, if we were found to be in error, wouldn't we want someone to gently and lovingly help us to see that mistake? Paul knew this only too well because he often faced the leaders who where Jewish with issues they knew nothing about being that these were Gentile issues. And he also knew his Gentile flock needed to learn this as well. So he gave them a "How to correct a leader" class" and it's found in Gal.6.1-10:

"Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ (Matt.7.1-5). For if any one thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. For each man will have to bear his own load.

"Let him who is taught the Word share all good things with him who teaches."

"Do not be deceived; G-d is not mocked, for whatever a man sows that he shall reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are in the household of faith."

Maybe it's because we have carried a heavy burden and that we've kept this burden to ourselves for too long that we find it extremely hard to condemn our leadership in their actions, as in regards to these things. We have also studied our Lady's words at Fatima and compared this to our wonderings on certain Scriptures, particularly those Sister Lucia gave as clues. We suspect something's there as we have perceived in other places and having done this we believe we may understand our leadership's actions, and if correct they have acted not out of outright disobedience when they hesitated, but rather out of fear and confusion. And if by this fear and confusion they may have brought down upon us any future sufferings, we believe from the little we understand that they may very well face far more than the flock will. And further, did Yeshua (Jesus) condemn our first pope, Peter, when he denied Him three times? Or did He forgive him and teach him a very important lesson at the very same time?

Although we believe we can find Scriptural evidence to support some of the claims of this group on how our Church has handled our Lady's visions, we can also find similar evidence to support the papacy and Vatican II. So we agree with Joe when he said that to reject Vatican II is reject all our Church's Traditions, because this is the mountain we believe are Lady warned us was steep, which held a cross at its apex.

This is what we perceive and anyone is welcome to disagree, but if you do, please do so gently and with a spiritual heart as Paul teaches above. Put simply, if Yeshua (Jesus) and His Blessed Mother have given you insights/words, as some here seem to think they have, then it is these words that shall win our leadership over and not anything you can do yourself. Besides, you should not be breaking with the Word while you are trying to reach them.

Another note to consider, that hasatan (satan) is a great imitator, therefore he is imitating something of truth and righteousness in order to deceive. Someone said that good and evil are a lot like two opposing chess pieces upon a board, only the color is different; so it may very well be with the great apostasy. Therefore Vatican II was given to us to reach out and bring all believers together yet at same times our enemy will condemn this on one hand and form his New World Religion on the other hand as well.

Shalom, C & C

-- cfoegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), September 25, 2003.

Shalom Terry,

You wrote:

>>> Our Lady's message was delivered in sealed envelope to the Popes...and then made public, but as far as I know the letter itself was never published. >>>

The letter is available at the Vatican's own Web Page as a photo static copy in Portuguese. All you have to do is read Portuguese or find someone who does. By this method, the Church cannot be accused of manipulating the information.

>>> Why do people still keep relying on the non-infallible judgment of popes, rather than the messenger from Heaven? Our Lady knew that she would be disobeyed, that is why she gave a time limit of 1960. >>>

Perhaps there may be some misunderstanding on this issue of infallibility. Beyond that, please consider Sister Lucia's own words: "Because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so," and "It [the Third Secret] will be clearer then." We don't see this as a "time limit", just a strong recommendation.

>>>Pope John ignored it and instead called Vatican two, just two years later. >>>

Pope John XXIII actually called for Vatican II on January 25th 1959.

>>> You can argue all day about the pro and con of that council, but you can nit hide the disaster that followed. No need to quote the statistics, as they are well known. >>>

IF the sin in our Church only began with Vatican II, then why did a quarter of a million Jews die in Europe 40 years prior? Is rejecting a Christianized Messiah with His blonde hair and blue eyes, and lawless followers reason to gas their children or burn their synagogues or even steal their businesses and homes? If not, where was the Christian body in Europe and why were the Vatican calls against fascism totally ignored?

Also a side note, did you know that very war also happens to be in the second Fatima prophecy:

"…but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI."

Therefore, if Vatican II is the reason we are falling away (as you claim) then why did He allow WWII?

>>> In any event , Our Lady said that the consecration would be done, but that it would be done late. >>>

Yet, if it was too late in 1960 as you claimed above, how can Pope John Paul II be held responsible, as he became pope in 1978? And if indeed this will be done, which pope do you think is likely to have the courage to do so?

And since we are on the topic of His Holiness the Pope, the remark that he hangs out with the wrong crowd (was it you or someone else who brought up the Deli Lama?); we recall another guy back in history who got into similar trouble with certain leaders for hanging around with tax collectors and prostitutes and even for breaking a few of their legalistic "laws". Maybe you are familiar with His response to their complaints:

"Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are SICK; I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Lk.5.31-32

This we see as the essence of Vatican II.

And lastly, on the conversion of the Jews...exactly what are we trying to convert them to? Are we to covert them to believing in the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob over their present faith in the El-hi of Av'raham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov? And speaking of our father Av'raham (Abraham), if you really must go through Yeshua (Jesus) to get to the Father, and Yeshua (Jesus) pre-existed all things, then exactly Who did Av'raham speak to when he spoke to G-d? How about Moshe (Moses) when G-d spoke to him "face-to-face"? By our faith, the Father and Son are one (echad, Hebrew), and ALL creation was made through Yeshua (Jesus), therefore that includes the Law and the precepts given through Moshe (Moses).

And what's so mysterious (Rom.11.25) about demanding their conversion, especially when we were told that G-d "hardened their hearts", thus He has His own plan for this? For the past two thousand years, we've been forcing this on and off and left a legacy of anti- Semitism, anti-Judaism and bitter hatred in our wake. Why continue to do the same thing that has proven to be bad fruit? To do the same thing over and over again without success is insanity so what does this make those who refuse to learn the lessons of history? Physician heal thyself.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), September 25, 2003.

Pax vobiscum, C&C.

You haven't answered my question.

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

A lot of questions, but not many answers. The full and true text of the third secret was not released. Whether fear or other reasons, who knows.

Where does La Salette come in on this? Don't say "Rome will lose the faith", applies to the whole city. Our Mother was talking about the Vatican. Faith not geography.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 25, 2003.

If that's what someone says Mary said, then they're lying or confused. "Rome" meaning Peter cannot lose faith - we have the word of Jesus in the Gospels to back up the charism of the Pope. There is no guarantee ANYWHERE for the infallible teaching of marian apparitions and no authority (apart from the Pope) to say what is truly revealed and what is not.

To claim that you can use a Marian apparition to disobey the Pope or Church is to believe in a heresy itself! (it's also a clever attempt to BE POPE yourself!)

Jesus didn't say "You are Peter...and you'll have some things to do, but I'll be guiding my Church every 300 years by means of Marian apparitions since I know men get lost and can't do anything right".

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 25, 2003.

Those who protect men agains the Queen of Heaven will have to account for it. Ke4ep denying the apparitions, as it will put you right into tne Protestant camp.

Bad popes have come and gone. We live in an age of extremely bad popes, but they have their defenders. Nothing infallible has ever come out of their mouths, but so many act as if it did. OK keep denying Our Lady, who will crush the head of the serpent. The serpent is crushing the Church with the help of bad popes, but in the end times they will be deceived.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 25, 2003.

There have been hundreds of reported apparitions of Mary in the last century. Yet you seem to accept as true only a couple of them? Why? Isn't because the Church (all these bad popes you talk about) have approved them as believable?

You seem to believe anything you hear - except when it comes from the source of authoritative teaching!

Sorry Terry, you can't have it both ways. You YOURSELF are not the judge of the veracity of any apparition - so you need a teaching authority to make the call - but once they say "Fatima is believable" they don't instantly loose all authority and then turn over the reigns to the apparition as though it was a new Gospel which could interpret itself - THAT'S A PROTESTANT IDEA; SOLA SCRIPTURA. You're stance is "sola apparitio"!

I believe Mary is the Mother of God not because some mystic said so, but because the Church said so. And I believe that Mary appeared at Fatima not because the children said so, but because the Pope said so. And in the same way, I cede my opinion about how things should be done and when and how not to some po-dunk priest or magazine or newspaper or mystic, but to the Vicar of Christ who alone has the promise of Christ of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You don't, I don't, theologians don't, priest's don't. Jesus said he would build His Church on Peter - not on Mary.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 26, 2003.

Shalom Terry,

>>>The full and true text of the third secret was not released. >>>

The L-rd our G-d, King of the Universe, Who Created ALL Things has power over its full release so we should trust in HIM that His Will, will be done.

>>> Where does La Salette come in on this? >>>

Maybe we should be asking another question: why if all you claim is true (or at least seems to suggest this) why did our Church on November 15, 1966 revise the Code of Canon Law and permit ANYONE in the Church to publish on Marian apparitions without need of an imprimatur knowing what might be contained within them?

A lot of questions we agree, however the answers come from Above and the lightning shall come from the East!

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@anglefire.com), September 26, 2003.

Shalom Terry,

We believe you misunderstand what Joe is saying. He does not seem to be speaking against our Holy Mothers visions, but rather that these cannot be correctly understood if they contradict the very Word of G- d. Also, it is by the authority of the Church that deems which apparitions are indeed true, especially when anybody can make a claim. If truly from above, then Holy Mother will affirm the Word or those visions are not from our holy Mother.

>>>Those who protect men against the Queen of Heaven will have to account for it. Keep denying the apparitions, as it will put you right into the Protestant camp. >>>

Those who place words in her mouth will be accountable in heaven as she upholds the Holy See! Further, John Paul II is NOT an extremely bad pope (or even just bad), but even if he were he is still a human being worthy of the same Grace that saved us all and the respect we are called to give to ALL made in the IMAGE of G-d!

Also, if you still have problems, may we suggest reading Matthew 23 where Yeshua (Jesus) upheld the authority of the scribes and Pharisees for they "sit upon the seat of Moshe (Moses)", despite their hypocrisy.

>>>OK keep denying Our Lady, who will crush the head of the serpent. The serpent is crushing the Church with the help of bad popes, but in the end times they will be deceived. >>>

If you understand these visions as you seem to be claiming, then you explain these in light of their connections to the Gospels and Revelations. Please give the explanation exactly how does the third vision, the one our Church has revealed (whether it be in full or in part), fits into the 8th and 13th chapters of Revelations and how when you do all this, it justifies your highly disrespectful remarks against Holy See!

Smoking guns do not make in the ecclesiastical beltway.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), September 26, 2003.

Shalom Jake,

You said,

>>>You haven't answered my question. >>>

You asked why we disregard the arguments of the Rad Trads and feel they are schismatic in nature and we explained, it was their behavior that makes them so. Yet if you still do not understand perhaps a story will help you see why behavior is as important as positions:

Joshua and Gamaliel- the Wrong Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement)

Joshua Ben Chananiah picked up a small piece of metal with his tongs. He held it over the white hot coals of the charcoal fire. Slowly he turned it and turned it until the metal was red hot. Then he put it down on the anvil. Just as he raised his hammer to shape it, a sharp knock sounded on the door. Joshua left his tools and metal on the anvil and went to open the door.

The visitor was his younger student, Akiba. "Welcome, Akiba," said Joshua. "What brings you here so early?"

"Shalom, Rabbi Joshua!" Akiba spoke quickly, as if he were out of breath. "Gamaliel sent me with a very important message for you. I did not wish to come, but I had to obey Gamaliel. I don't think you are going to like the message I have to deliver."

Joshua smiled at Akiba. "You may be right. But first come and sit down. After you catch your breath, there will be time enough to tell me what Gamaleil wants. The metal for my needles is already cooling. We may as well have a little visit."

Akiba sat down, He leaned forward in his chair, facing Joshua. "I want to get it over with. This is the message. Next Thursday Gamaliel orders you to wear your working clothes. You are to take your staff and your satchel. You are then to walk to Yavneh (a town in Israel). You are commanded to go to Gamaliel's office in the Sanhedrin. You are to do all this...next Thursday

But Gamaliel knows I can't I can't do that," Joshua said angrily. "The way I figure the date, next Thursday will be Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur is the most Holy Day in the whole year! I never traveled on that day, except to go to synagogue for prayers. It is against our laws to carry things like a staff or a satchel on that day. Gamaleil knows all that."

"Yes, Rabbi, Gamaliel knows all that. But the way he figures the date, Yom Kippur will be next Wednesday. And he is the president of the Sanhedrin. He wants you to change your mind about the date. He wants you to obey him."

"Now I see why you did not want to come on this errand, Akiba," Joshua said to his student. "The whole thing started because Gamaliel does not understand the movements of the sun, the moon, and the stars. Two men came to him and said they had seen the New Moon of the month of Tishri. He took their word for it. He announced right away that Tishri had started. Old Dosa ben Horkinas told him that he was wrong. So did I. But it did no good. He said it was the first of the month, and so, the first of the month it had to be.

"I did not say anything more about it. I just kept Rosh Ha-shono on the right date, one day later. Now he wants to force me to do what is wrong on Yom Kippur. I would rather be sick in bed for a whole year than have to carry things and travel on Yom Kippur."

Akiba looked very worried. "But Gamaliel is the head of the Sanhedrin," He said softly. "If you do not obey him, every Jew will think he can do just what he feels like doing. If you do obey him, you will break Yom Kippur. What will you do?"

"I must think it over, Akiba," Joshua said."Thank you for bringing the message, even though we don't like it." they said good-bye. Akiba left.

Joshua went back to his work. He put a few more pieces of charcoal on the fire. He pumped the bellows to make the fire grow hot. "Shewoosh, shewoosh, shewoosh," went the bellows. The flames leaped up, red at the bottom white at the top. Joshua took the piece of metal in his tongs. He held it over the fire. Then he placed it on the anvil. He shaped it with his big hammer. "Bang, bang; bang, bang, bang, bang," went the hammar. All that day Joshua worked. And as he worked he thought about Ganaliel's order.

"Shewoosh, shewoosh, shewoosh...should I obey Gamaliel or keep Yom Kippur? Bang, bang; bang, bang, bang, bang...should I keep Yom Kippur or follow the orders of Gamaliel?" That's how it webnt all that day and all the next day.

According to the way Rabbi Joshua ben Chananiah figured, Yom Kippur begins at sundown that Wednesday night. Before the sun set, Joshua put away his tools. He got cleaned up. He fasted that evening and prayed to G-d. The next morning Joshua felt very sad. He put on his leather work apron. He took his satchel out of the closet. He strapped it over his shoulder. Taking his staff in hand, Joshua walked out of his house. With his head bent, he walked slowly to Yavneh. Every step he took hurt him. Tired and miserable, Joshua came at least to the building where the Sanhedrin met. He knocked on the door of Gamaliel's office.

Gamaliel called out, "come in." Joshua entered the room. He stood before the young head of the Court. He expected Gamaliel to say something mean.

To Joshua's surprise, Gamaliel seemed very glad to see him. The young man stood up. He seemed almost ready to cry as he put his arm around Joshua's shoulder. "Welcome, my teacher and my student," he said. "You are my teacher because you are wiser than I am. You are my student because you have obeyed my order. Happy is the generation when the great listen to the small! I know you believe that today is Yom Kippur. In obeying me as head of the Sanhedrin you helped keep our people strong in a time of trouble. Forgive me for having to ask so much of you."

Joshua did forgive Gamaliel. From this time on, they worked together closely in the Sanhedrin at Yavneh.

(Leaders of our People, by Rabbi Joseph H. Gumbiner, published by Union of American Hebrew Congregations (c)1963; pp.48-52

We believe that this story illustrates infallibility extremely well. In the story, the high priest/POPE is completely wrong about the day to keep the holiday. What he is saying would be like a pope demanding all Catholics keep Good Friday on the Wednesday before and then telling a highly Orthodox Catholic to come his house on Good Friday for a feast and festivities. This is the type of conflict Joshua faced and yet in end he listened to his high priest despite his reservations and by doing so he keeps the people together and helps this shadow of our pope come to full understanding on the truth. This is highly important for their people because many of their people are falling away and they need to see a united faith if they are going to survive though those turbulent times. For indeed Yeshua (Jesus) desires us to be one, but as this happens, note that hasatan (satan) will also use his one world religion lie to cause confusion upon the truth.

Sane Trad and Terry claim that this is time of high stress for our Church and that many are falling away and this is why they are being so obstinate in their positions. Yet, we suspect what they do not understand is that they are inadvertently feeding this falling away by disregarding the papal authority and basing their views on their own understanding, NOT OUR HOLY MOTHERS or our TRADITIONS while disregarding our Church's! Therefore, even if everything they say were true we would still stand against them and fight against them as we fight Protestant wolves and thieves, at least until they humble themselves before the Holy See.

Put simply there is a right and wrong way to disagree with any position of our Church and the Rad Trads have chosen the wrong way.

Shalom, C & C

-- CFoegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), September 26, 2003.

I didn't read your story, it lost me at the first line. I will say, however, that true Traditionalist positions do not "disregard Papal authority." That's just one allegation that's often levied baselessly.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 26, 2003.

Shalom Sane Trad,

You wrote:

>>>I'm not sure if I understand your point. It seems to me that this incident in the Bible supports what I am saying. >>>

If you came to that conclusion then you are absolutely correct in that you do not understand what we wrote.

>>>Jesus is revealing to his followers the key to eternal life. Although it's a hard teaching for anyone to accept, Jesus doesn't try to sugarcoat it. Those who refuse to accept it and walk away, He lets walk away. He doesn't chase after them and re-phrase His teaching in a manner that would be more acceptable to them. He tells them the plain truth and lets the chips fall where they may. >>>

This is what we meant: In Vatican II our Church reveal to her children the key to eternal life, that we are saved by faith not works of Law, though works are good and an outgrowth of faith. Still all faith comes from Above not from our conversion techniques. Yet those who refuse to accept this also have walked away even if they claim otherwise. Our Church should not chase after them either but should ask to those of us still with her, “Will you also go?” to this we answer: “John Paul II, to whom shall we go? For you were given the keys to the kingdom of heaven; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the foundational Church of G-d.” And it is our ORTHODOXY, not our liberalism that keeps us here!

>>>It is hard to accept that one must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ in order to have eternal life, that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ, or that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. So these and other teachings of the Church are now being obscured or watered down for the sake of ecumenism. >>>

Many of our local kids in Religious Ed have walked away from the Eucharist we agree, however this is because of peer pressures and attacks from Protestants they go to school with, not Vatican II. Perhaps Vatican II allowed such communications, but shouldn't the flock have understanding of their faith as well to stand against the tide? For indeed all will tested, as gold is tested in fire. Therefore, we see this communication as building a bridge that allowed some to fall away because of wolves and thieves, but there are others who are burying the hatchet because we can argue our Eucharist Scripturally, and this seems to bring more healing and exposing the wheat form the tares, as Yeshua (Jesus) said was to happen. This was happening before Vatican II only before Vatican II the answer was “trust your Church” and the attrition continued. Now we had solid Biblical answers which we were able to research and find because of the rights given us by Vatican II and we can now give these arguments to these kids and their faith in Eucharist is growing again and sometimes one of their friends even comes to join our Church.

>>>My goodness, when the Pope tells Jews that the Old Covenant has never been revoked, when he kisses the Koran and prays for John the Baptist to protect Islam, when he gathers pagans together at a Catholic monastery in Assisi so that they can pray to their false gods for world peace, I cannot help but feel shocked, angered and betrayed as truth takes a back seat to ecumenism. >>>

And Jesus sat with tax collectors and entertained prostitutes. He healed the children Canaanites and Romans and hired a Jewish rabbi to tell the new Gentiles believers to forget the law and begin with faith. So by your testimony John Paul is in our eyes stepping into Jesus’ and Paul’s shoes! What a novel approach.

>>>And why is JPII doing these things? >>>

To abide the call our Messiah, to listen to the Blessed mother voice, as Lucia said: “It [the Third Secret] will be clearer then." where “then” was 1960- at the very beginning of Vatican II. So of the beginning of Vatican II our Holy Mother said it would be:

“An immense Light that is God” (3rd Fatima prophecy cf. Zech.11.7)! Yet it will also be Great Mountain as well with a cross at the top though that Light shall lead to a victorious pope in the end, Zech.4.7-8 cf. Fatima:

“What are you, O Great Mountain? Before Zerub’babel (“out of confusion”) you shall become a plain; and he shall bring forward to TOP STONE (Peter) amid shouts of “Grace, grace to her (THE CHURCH)”! The came the words of G-d to me: the hands of Zerub’babel laid this foundation of My house (with the first Peter) and his hands will complete it (with the last Petros Romanus), then you shall know that G-d of hosts has sent Me (Yeshua/Jesus) to you (His Church).” Zech.

This is at least how we answer that question.

>>>Catholics have not only the right but the duty to insist upon clear, orthodox teaching. >>>

Before Vatican II that right didn’t exist and if the schematics get their way it will soon evaporate for us all if it hasn’t already.

>>>The other poster, Joe, put an orthodox spin on JPII's statement to Jews that "the Old Covenant has never been revoked" by saying that it has not been revoked, but fulfilled, in the coming of Jesus Christ. But the Pope never said that and everyone knows, including the Pope, that the Jews he was speaking to did not understand it that way. Was the Pope deceiving the Jews? >>>

In this we see the story of the prodigal son. His father didn’t wait until he came to him but while he was still FAR off, his father ran out to get him! Judah maybe still far off as far as it goes with our own Catholic understanding about salvation, but John Paul II still has the courage to run out to them and to lead them into our house. Are we his flock going become the nagging disgruntled brother because John Paul II is showing them mercy? Yeshua died while we were still sinners, He did not wait until we repented. Should we, who believe in Him, not take up that same cross and follow Him to that same end? Put simply in our eyes John Paul II and his loyal leaders are rewriting the book of Galatians for a Jewish audience.

>>>Or does he support a dual covenant theology? >>>

We do not believe that he does but that he proclaims the promise of Jer.31.34.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), September 26, 2003.

Good news for you. I give up! No sense beating your head against a rock, it hurts too much. Let Jake, and Emerald carry the torch. I will put my trust in Fatima and La Salette, pray the rosary, and hope that we all make it. Shalom.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 26, 2003.

Terry,

What torch did you carry? You didn't even carry a little match stick.

-- - (burnn't@out.match.stick), September 26, 2003.

Shalom Jake,

You said:

>>> I didn't read your story, it lost me at the first line. I will say, however, that true Traditionalist positions do not "disregard Papal authority." That's just one allegation that's often levied baselessly. >>>

Because you had so much trouble understanding why we said what we did, we will repost the story with some slight changes. Still the story you are about to read is true. The names and certain details have been changed to remove all excuses for not reading this.

Josh and Greg- the Wrong Good Friday"

Josh picked up a small piece of metal with his tongs. He held it over the white hot coals of the charcoal fire. Slowly he turned it and turned it until the metal was red hot. Then he put it down on the anvil. Just as he raised his hammer to shape it, a sharp knock sounded on the door. Josh left his tools and metal on the anvil and went to open the door.

The visitor was his younger student, Al. "Welcome, Al," said Josh. "What brings you here so early?"

"Hi, Josh!" Al spoke quickly, as if he were out of breath. "Greg sent me with a very important message for you. I did not wish to come, but I had to obey Greg. I don't think you are going to like the message I have to deliver."

Josh smiled at Al. "You may be right. But first come and sit down. After you catch your breath, there will be time enough to tell me what Greg wants. The metal for my needles is already cooling. We may as well have a little visit."

Al sat down, He leaned forward in his chair, facing Josh. "I want to get it over with. This is the message. Next Friday Greg orders you to wear your working clothes. You are to take your staff and bring a vegetable on tray. You are then to walk to Rome. You are commanded to go to Greg's office in the Magnesium. You are to do all this...next Friday

But Greg knows I can't I can't do that," Josh said angrily. "The way I figure the date, next Friday will be Good Friday. Good Friday is the most Holy Day in the whole year! I never traveled on that day, except to go to Church service for prayers. It is against our Catechism to carry things like a staff or eat. Greg knows all that."

"Yes, Cardinal, Greg knows all that. But the way he figures the date, Good Friday will be this Friday. And he is the president of the Magisterium. He wants you to change your mind about the date. He wants you to obey him."

"Now I see why you did not want to come on this errand, Al," Josh said to his student. "The whole thing started because Greg does not understand the movements of the sun, the moon, and the stars. Two men came to him and said they had seen the New Moon of the month of March. He took their word for it. He announced right away that March had started. Old Joe told him that he was wrong. So did I. But it did no good. He said it was the first of the month, and so, the first of the month it had to be.

"I did not say anything more about it. I just kept Ash Wednesday on the right date. Now he wants to force me to do what is wrong on Good Friday. I would rather be sick in bed for a whole year than have to carry things and travel on Good Friday."

Al looked very worried. "But Greg is the head of the Magisterium," He said softly. "If you do not obey him, every Catholic will think he can do just what he feels like doing. If you do obey him, you will break Good Friday. What will you do?"

"I must think it over, Al," Josh said. "Thank you for bringing the message, even though we don't like it." they said good-bye. Al left.

Josh went back to his work. He put a few more pieces of charcoal on the fire. He pumped the bellows to make the fire grow hot. "Shewoosh, shewoosh, shewoosh," went the bellows. The flames leaped up, red at the bottom white at the top. Josh took the piece of metal in his tongs. He held it over the fire. Then he placed it on the anvil. He shaped it with his big hammer. "Bang, bang; bang, bang, bang, bang," went the hammer. All that day Josh worked. And as he worked he thought about Greg's order.

"Shewoosh, shewoosh, shewoosh...should I obey Greg or keep Good Friday? Bang, bang; bang, bang, bang, bang...should I keep Good Friday or follow the orders of Greg?" That's how it went all that day and all the next day.

According to the way Josh figured, Good Friday begins at sundown that Thursday day night. Before the sunset, Joshua put away his tools. He got cleaned up. He fasted that evening and prayed to G-d. The next morning Joshua felt very sad. He put got dress in appropriate clothes. He took a vegetable on tray out of his frig. He packed it into a cooler. Taking his staff in hand, Josh walked out of his house. With his head bent, he walked slowly to Rome. Every step he took hurt him. Tired and miserable, Josh came at least to the Holy Vatican met. He knocked on the door of Greg's office.

Greg called out, "come in." Josh entered the room. He stood before the young head of the Court. He expected Greg to say something mean.

To Josh's surprise, Greg seemed very glad to see him. The young man stood up. He seemed almost ready to cry as he put his arm around Josh's shoulder. "Welcome, my teacher and my student," he said. "You are my teacher because you are wiser than I am. You are my student because you have obeyed my order. Happy is the generation when the great listen to the small! I know you believe that today is Good Friday. In obeying me as head of the Magisterium you helped keep our people strong in a time of trouble. Forgive me for having to ask so much of you."

Josh did forgive Greg. From this time on, they worked together closely in the Magisterium in Rome.

(Modified from Leaders of our People, by Rabbi Joseph H. Gumbiner, published by Union of American Hebrew Congregations (c)1963; pp.48-52

We believe that this story illustrates infallibility extremely well. Sane Trad and Terry claim that this is time of high stress for our Church and that many are falling away and this is why they are being so obstinate in their positions. Yet, we suspect what they do not understand is that they are inadvertently feeding this falling away by disregarding the papal authority, basing their views on incomplete understanding (for they have yet to make the connections of the prophecy to Scripture and thus establish their claim), rather than OUR HOLY MOTHER'S or our TRADITIONS while disregarding our Church's!

Put simply there is a right and wrong way to disagree with any position of our Church and it seems that Gal.6 is not being followed in their attempts.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@anglefire.com), September 29, 2003.

what Christ set in stone.

"Based on the teachings of St. Paul and the other Apostles, who received their instruction from Jesus Himself, and from the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church has always taught that in order to be saved one must have faith in Jesus Christ and be baptized in the name of the Blessed Trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. According to the Church's teaching this applies to all men, and there are no exceptions. The Church established by Jesus Christ is to preach the Gospel of salvation to all men, so that they might believe and be baptized. "Go into the whole world," said Jesus to the Apostles, "and preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mk.16:15,16). The Sinai Covenant is no longer necessary or valid, since Jesus Christ established the New Covenant in His Blood poured out upon

This is not what today's church is taching. What a disservice to the Jewish people.

-- Ziggster (----@---00.com), September 30, 2003.