"Traditionalists" see their own little 0.01% of the Church as Meanwhile, real modernists (they actually do exist) see the majority of the Church as bogged down in traditionalism. That's the problem with extremist positions. From such a perspective, which the extremist considers "balanced", everything else in his field of view, most of which is in fact solidly mainline, looks extremist. Modernists represent the opposite pole from "traditionalists" - another little cluster of extremists on the outer fringes of the bell curve - which unfortunately means the outer fringes of the Church. One who is actually in the mainline Church, with a more balanced perspective, can see both poles pretty clearly - and they look disturbingly similar."

This statement, made by one of the forum regulars who would distance himself from traditional Catholics, is actually a very well written description of the conclusion many Catholics today are drawing when they come into contact with various battling factions of sheep within the fold the Church.

It is proposed as a solution to making sense of the battles we are witnessing, and it doesn't seem all that bad as far as plausibility goes.

What I would like to do, though, is to show exactly how the above statement actually touches the very core of modernist strategy to undermine the objects of the Holy Catholic Faith. This is in no way attack the good will and character of the writer of the words, but to show how it is this view is a poison to Faith in things unseen that our Holy Catholic Faith consists of, and that's it's name is modernism, identified by Pope Saint Pius X as "the synthesis of all heresies".

To make double plus good on the intent not to attack the author of the above words, I myself held this same view in the past until I looked further for answers to questions.

The operative premise in the italicized statement above of what constitutes the "right place to be" in which truth of our current situation in the Church can be found, is this proposal:

That truth can be found in the mean between two extremes, or, in a balance between two opposites.

But the Truth is such that it absolutely cannot be an estimate of the way things are. The truth really is as black and white; the fact that we see grey is not because the truth is there in that grey area, in the balance between two extremes, but instead because

...we say grey because our vision is blurred.

Truth is black and white, immutable and real. To say that the truth lies anywhere in a balance between two extremes is to call the truth an estimate of reality as opposed to reality itself. If it is the case that we possess an estimate of the truth, it can truly be said that we do not possess the truth itself.

But Catholicism is the possession of truth itself, and not just any truth but truths that lie beyond human reason and attainable only by Divine Intervention; by way of Divine Revelation.

Moreso than all other truths, the doctrine of the Catholic Church absolutely cannot at all be seen as an estimate of the truth but absolutely must be held as immutable reality, and furthermore, an immutable reality which is beyond the grasp of human reasoning. This is Thomistic Theology 101. It is of the utmost importance to maintain these truths as they have been revealed to us in that they pertain directly to the salvation of the human soul. Their preservation is imperative.

In the defense of the preservation of these immutable truths of divine revelation, that Church has deemed that Thomistic Theology be the chief philosophical handmaiden to Faith. It's Mother approved. The modified Platonism of Augustine is as well, and was used for the first thousand years of the Church; I prefer this handmaiden, but both are acceptable in the defense of the Faith and in theological pursuits. The acceptibility and promotion of the Angelic Doctor's method was made clear by Pope Pius X, and it was expressed at the specific time period at which the modernists were gaining in their advances upon Holy Mother Church in by means of their new theology and thought. The Church, in response to these advances, upheld the Thomistic method as the chief handmaiden to the Faith as an antidote to the poison of modernism.

The pontiffs against Modernism knew what the enemy of the Faith, modernism, synthesis of all heresies, was attempting to push upon the faithful as the new handmaiden to the Faith. The name of this psuedo-handmaiden, altogether incapable of being suitable, is Existentialism.

The roots of Modernism are directly traced to Existentialist thought. Each and every one of the modernist theologians who were inflicting destruction on the sacred objects of the Catholic Church was using Existentialism as the philosophy and method upon which they were basing their "theology", if you want to call it that. Existentialism by it's very nature is drenched in ambiguity and sophistry; it is wholly unsuitable for attaining any truth whatsoever, let alone being suitable as an appropriate handmaiden to theological pursuits.

One Existentialist philosopher, Hegel, employed a <>Process which consists of the following progression:

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

The way this strategy works is that one model of the truth is proposed, then another and opposing model is proposed, and the truth is perceived to be attained in the synthesizing of these two diverse elements into a composite representing the "truth".

The conclusion of this synthesis is then taken from the center, moved to a secondary process and use as not a center but a new extreme, and then an even further deviant center is attained. The then repeat the process, washing away any connection between perception and immutable truth. Rinse, repeat; rinse, repeat.

In other words, perceiving the truth to lie in a means between two extremes, as expressed in the italicized statement at the top of this post; that the truth lies in balance, but not in the extremes; that the extremes themselves cannot either alone represent truth.

But the truth cannot be found by estimation, least of all the Divinely revealed truths which are are Catholic Truths. Hegelian Dialectic and the Catholic Faith are entire incompatible.

This Hegelian Process is especially useful in the practical world to pry people away from absolutes; it provides a framework for repositioning human thoughts and ideas. The Communists and Socialists have adopted the thesis, antithesis, synthesis model extensively, and our two party democratic system in America has successfully employed it as well. What once was a liberal is now a conservative, and what once was a conversative is now presented to the populace as an "idealistic lunatic" or some other marginalizing, defaming and discrediting tactic is employed. That's the desire result. With results attained, the Process is repeated for further progress in a direction. There's always a direction, but never a destination other than getting away from immutable truth.

What makes the Process so useful as a change agent is the ability to control either of the two positions which are identified as the extremes. If the "right place to be" so to speak, or the "right thing to think" is perceived as the mean between two extremes, then by controlling the extremes, the center position can be moved.

That which constitutes the truth can be moved, then, in the name of progress.

This makes sense to a lot of people; they should be on guard against it as being what the pontiffs have warned us against, this enemy of the Faith called modernism. It coincides with the warning of the Faithful by the same pontiffs against the secret sect of Freemasonry, which employs these tactics of left, right and center in all their deals in business, government and religion.

There's a reason why the word synthesis is found in the very claim of Pope St. Pius X that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies; because modernism uses synthesis as a tool, and the objective is heresy.

The objective is to move the fixation of the eyes of the believer on the things of Heaven and cast them down towards the earth at the expense of a loss of all sense of the Divine, and in the name of blending reason and progress together with the things of Faith in an unholy alliance.

This blending of two mutually opposing cities, the world and the Church, is the chief complaint of most traditional Catholics against those of the post-conciliar way of thinking, that the latter seeks to reconcile the ways of the world, the Citadel of Man, with the things of God, or the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. These two cities are laid out in great detail by St. Augustine. No alliance is possible and therefore no compromise is possible in the name of keeping the Faith whole and undefiled.

In summary, the italicized is a true representation of modernist Catholic thinking, which is tracable the existentialism of Hegel and other modern philosophers whose ideas are at emnity with the Catholic Faith.

Please consider investigating the claims that Existentialism is what is being made use of by modernist theologians, and that it is incompatible with the things of the Holy Catholic Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 05, 2003

Answers

up

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 05, 2003.

We must receive the Blessed Sacrament and we must assist at Mass on Sundays. =) Do whatever it takes to fulfill the obligation properly.

There are many reactions to the troubles we witness in the Church, but the correct one can be found and lived out even if it's a great trouble to do so, and the Rosary is and the help of the Mother of God is certainly integral to it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 05, 2003.

Emerald,

I am overjoyed you completely understand!

:)

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 05, 2003.

Love one another as I have loved you. / / / The commandment Jesus gives me and you. I couldn't have said it better. Emerald tries to say everything better, but I doubt he can top that commandment. I'll keep fingers crossed.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 06, 2003.

Who can top that? That should be the conclusion of the entire post.

A serious and honest examination of what is happening to us leads one into a direct awareness of a foe so intense that it should without a doubt make a person run straight into prayer and a complete abandonment to Divine Providence.

If that isn't happening, then there's a problem. If it is happening, then we will love one another as He loved us, like you rightly said.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 06, 2003.

"Any careful observer of the Church since the 1950s cannot have failed to note how so much of the Roman Catholic faith and practice have been subverted and replaced by false doctrine and false practice that would have been intolerable before."

A: The Church is immune to the teaching of false doctrine. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to "all truth" and that whatsoever the Church binds upon earth is bound in heaven. Do you challenge Him on that promise? What exactly is a "false practice"??

"The traditional Mass of the centuries going back to the early Church, once called "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven," has been replaced by a "New Mass" that has sunk to some kind of Protestantized social event, not the sacred worship of God."

If you see it that way, I assume you no longer attend Mass? Which is of course precisely the path Satan would have you take. Hundreds of millions of Catholics, myself included, still attend Mass with the same reverence and devotion we experienced when we were forced to participate in a foreign language. We receive the same Precious Body and Blood of the Same Risen Lord which the Apostles received in their hands at the Last Supper, and which Catholics have received at every Mass celebrated since that holy night. If you have personally lost that vision, I pray that God will open your heart and your mind to the truth, for rejection of Catholic doctrine and liturgy constitutes two giant steps toward Protestantism.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2003.

Emerald

What you are asking of me . . . and of our church . . . seems to fall very short of the expectations that the bishops of the Church have set for us.

Your way places extreme emphasis on the "respect for holiness" or "respect for the Mass," but the Bishops of the Church want more!

The Bishops of the Church made it very clear that simply "respecting" holiness isn't enough; it's what we "do" in the Mass that makes it holy.

Your way seems to me to say that "doing" . . . ANYTHING . . . is being sacriligious.

Doing . . . ANYTHING . . . is becoming Protestant!

I would submit . . . and I believe that the Bishops of the church have stated firmly that we live out our call to "Love one another" in the Mass by what we "do."

I would also submit that the essence of the Order of the Mass has remained completely unchanged from the Mass that you desire to today.

We "greet" one another and make EVERYONE feel welcome!

We "recall" our Baptismal promise.

We "Recieve" God's gift of Forgiveness

We "Forgive" those who have wronged us.

We "Proclaim" the word of God.

We "Praise" with our song.

We "Offer" our lives and who we are to God

We "are received by God" upon the altar

We "offer the Peace of Christ" to all who gather.

We are "Consecrated by God" and rise with Christ, a new creation.

We are "Dismissed" to go and live the "Good News," sharing what we have with all of God's Creation.

Now how has that changed from your Mass, to today?

If anything, the bishops of the Church have placed the bar a little higher, by saying that, it is the quality of our "participation" in the Mass that makes Christ truely present.

Peace

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 06, 2003.

If anything, the bishops of the Church have placed the bar a little higher, by saying that, it is the quality of our "participation" in the Mass that makes Christ truely present.

That's a problem.

There's nothing we can do or not do at Mass to make Christ present or absent. He would be just as present if one priest was alone in a jail cell saying Mass, or at a solemn high Pontifical Mass in a magnificent basilica packed with people (assuming, of course, that the requirements for sacramental validity were met).

If you can show where the Bishops have said that, I'll show you a mountain of evidence to prove that it's an error.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.

Your thesis above is based upon a false premise that the church has somehow lost something important.

The church stripped away a lot of excess baggage and "excess theology" that had accumulated through the course of the centuries, only to reveal the true essence of what Christ gave us.

What Christ gave us has only been made more clear. If you want to hang your hat on the "practices" of the church that were in the past and hold them us as being "holy," you are going to be chasing your tail for the rest of your days.

Practices of the Church have never made the Church Holy . . . it is only the "presence of Christ" that makes his church holy . . . and the Biships of the Church have made it very clear that it is what we "do for each other" that makes Christ present. We "Love" one another, We "forgive" one another. We offer one another the "Peace that is Christ" We "recogize" the gift of Gods creation in all that is around us.

The essence of our holiness doesn't just live in that little box at the very front of the church any more, we recognize the essence of our holiness in the Spirit which lives in the hearts of all in our community.

If you would put as much effort in seeking the gift of the Church that the Bishops give us, rather than continually "throwing Catholic tantrums" your eyes might be opened to the special gift that they have revealed for you.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 06, 2003.

"excess theology"

Please define.

the Biships of the Church have made it very clear that it is what we "do for each other" that makes Christ present.

When, and under what circumstances? What I'm trying to get at here is whether or not this is actual Church teaching, or your own misrepresentation thereof. As I said above, if you show me where you found that bit of information, I will show you a mountain of evidence to prove that it's a grave error to hold such beliefs.

The essence of our holiness doesn't just live in that little box at the very front of the church any more,

What you're saying is bordering on blasphemy.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.

The statement is outragious only if you do not understand the second half of my comment.

"The essence of our holiness doesn't just live in that little box at the very front of the church any more, we recognize the essence of our holiness in the Spirit which lives in the hearts of all in our community."

The celebration of the Eucharist is the focus of the mass. Through the Eucharist we particapate in the Paschal Sacrifice. We die to oursenves and our old ways and rise with Christ, dedicated in service to God and a new life in Christ. We put on Christ. We look at the world as Christ did, loving God and loving one another and all of God’s creation. We are “raised” in a state of Grace, free from Satan and the effects of our “sinfulness. The celebration of the Eucharist is the focus of the mass and “as such, the major space of the church is designed for this “action.”

. . . beyond the action of the Eucharist, the church has an ancient tradition of reserving the “blessed host.” The purpose for the reservation is to bring the sacrament to those not physically able to participate with us. It has also become a source of private devotion.

It is very important that no confusion can take place between the importance of “celebrating” or participating in the action and the devotion to the reservation.

Active and static aspects of the sacrament should not claim the same attention.

“The principal decoration” and “treasured possession” of the church is the worshiping community. It is the face of “living saints” who carry the message of the Eucharist out into our world and our time.

The principal beauty of the Catholic Church is the hospitality of its assembly, the eagerness with which they hear the Word of God, the devotion with which they share the holy Eucharist and the love which they take forth to transform the Earth.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 06, 2003.

OK, my traditionalist friends, you can have your thread back now, I have to go to work. I just had to interject a little bit of reality in here, just in case some unsuspecting soul wanders in here and think that's how we all think.

Peace be with you

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 06, 2003.

I didn't think so.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.

This thread says an awful lot, how these two camps think, and believe. One the horse and buggy, the other the jet age.

Much was said by one jetter. "When we were "forced" to attend mass in a foreign language. Forced! Is that why you went to mass?

Traditionals attend, and think of it as the greatest privilege in the world. Now you want to force us to aattend a far less devotional service. I agree with Claire. I would stay home and pray the rosary.

-- Soaps (9999@444.com), November 06, 2003.

"Traditionals attend, and think of it as the greatest privilege in the world."

Unless it's not in Latin...and then it's an event that they will take great effort in avoiding.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 06, 2003.

Iam sure that there are Novus Ordo's who also say, "No clown show, no go.

-- Soaps (9999.@444.com), November 06, 2003.

Romans 2:1-3

"Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things. We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true. Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? "

Two wrongs don't make a right, Soapy. At least you don't deny that you do the very thing you accuse other of doing a couple posts ago.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 06, 2003.

Now, this most certainly would not be the idea of the Blessed Mother or that of her Son's one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. If this does not wake up those "conservate" Novus Ordo followers, who put such trust and confidence in Fatima and its message, I don't know what will. They will probably say, "What is happening there has nothing to do with the True Message of Fatima." I would answer them, "But it is being done by those who are part of the Novus Ordo, headed by 'Mary's Pope', no?" Perhaps the real Third Secret of Fatima had something to say about this? http://the-news.net/cgi/story.pl?title=Fátima%20to%20become% 20interfaith%20shrine&edition=727

Fátima to become interfaith shrine

Delegates attending the Vatican and United Nations (UN) inspired annual interfaith congress "The Future of God", held during October in Fátima, heard how the Shrine is to be developed into a centre where all the religions of the world will gather to pay homage to their various gods. The Congress was held in the Paul VI Pastoral Centre and presided over by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon José de Cruz Policarpo.

The Shrine's rector, Monsignor Luciano Guerra, told the Congress that Fátima "will change for the better." Addressing Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Orthodox, Buddhist and African Pagan representatives he stated: "The future of Fátima, or the adoration of God and His mother at this holy Shrine, must pass through the creation of a shrine where different religions can mingle. The inter-religious dialogue in Portugal, and in the Catholic Church, is still in an embryonic phase, but the Shrine of Fátima is not indifferent to this fact and is already open to being a universalistic place of vocation."

The Hindu representative Ansshok Ansraj, described how already in the Far East millions of Hindus are getting "positive vibrations" from visiting Marian shrines without endangering their faith.

Monsignor Guerra pointed out that the very fact that Fátima is the name of a Muslim and Mohammed's daughter, is indicative that the Shrine must be open to the co-existence of various faiths and beliefs. According to the Monsignor: "Therefore we must assume that it was the will of the Blessed Virgin Mary that this comes about this way." Traditional Catholics opposed to the Congress were described by the Monsignor as "old fashioned, narrow minded, fanatic extremists and provocateurs."

For the first time in the 86-year history of Fátima all of the Pagan and Christian delegates were invited to participate in the Ecumenical celebrations. One of the principle speakers, the Jesuit theologian Father Jacques Dupuis, was insistent that the religions of the world must unite. "The religion of the future will be a general converging of religions in a universal Christ that will satisfy all", he said.

The Belgium born theologian argued: "The other religious traditions in the world are part of God's plan for humanity and the Holy Spirit is operating and present in Buddhist, Hindu and other sacred writings of Christian and non-Christian faiths as well." In an impassioned plea he said: "The universality of God's kingdom permits this, and this is nothing more than a diversified form of sharing in the same mystery of salvation. In the end it is hoped that the Christian will become a better Christian and each Hindu a better Hindu."

An official statement put out by the Congress called for a non- proselytising approach by all religions. "No one religion can irradiate another", it said "or strengthen itself by downplaying others and an open dialogue is the way to building bridges and tearing down walls of centuries of hate. What is needed is that each religion be true to its faith integrally and treat each religion on the same footing of equality with no inferior or superiority complexes." It emphasised that the secret to peace amongst all religions is admitting that contradictions exist between creeds but to concentrate on what unites them as opposed to what separates them.

Delegates agreed that religious shrines, including Fátima, should be revamped every 25 years to reflect modern day trends and beliefs. The Shrine of Fátima is about to undergo a complete reconstruction with a new stadium-like basilica being erected close by the existing one built in 1921.

How Our Dear Blessd Mother must weep.

-- (lgoodtaste@pray.com), November 06, 2003.

Well as long as you are equating Catholics who insist on Latin with Catholics who insist on a "clown show", I guess that pretty much says it all - two virtually non-existent fringe elements with little relevance to the Holy Catholic Church at large.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2003.

Matt; I do not judge the soul of anyone, however I can, and do judge the outward actions of others. When one of you said "we ae not concerned with someone in a box, at mass", I assure you that the attitude there is not for me. That someone in a box, is my Lord and Saviour.

-- Soaps (9999@444.com), November 06, 2003.

"Matt; I do not judge the soul of anyone, however I can, and do judge the outward actions of others."

I didn't mention judging someone's soul, nor did I claim that one cannot judge another's actions. You judged an inappropriate action of another while at the same time accepting the behavior of traditionalist schismatics who do the exact same thing. Re-read the words of Romans 2:1-3. It's all about seeing one's own faults in others and directing condemnation at them. One should "remove their own log," so to speak.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 06, 2003.

Matt, I do not deny my faults, nor my sins, but I hope that one sin I can avoid, is minimizing My Lord, so that Man can become more important.

Remember that even the apostles, wanted to zap some place because they didn't like it. Indeed ,we are all weaklings.

-- Soaps (9999@444.com), November 06, 2003.

Faith comes before obedience. Moreover, Catholic doctrine is that the prime obedience of the faithful is not to the Church, but to Christ. This doctrine is clearly taught by St. Peter, the first pope, and can be found in the Acts of the Apostles (5:29/DR) as he is speaking to ecclesiastics of the time: "We ought to obey God rather than men."

We know that everyone, even the pope, must adhere to the Deposit of Faith, that is, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Protestants don't believe in the latter). The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unquestionably taught that, and the doctrine was formally defined at Vatican I (Decree Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4), a dogmatic council (as Vatican II was not).

The rub is: what happens when Church authorities themselves go against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? St. Paul answers that question clearly for us in his Epistle to the Galatians (1:8-9):

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. and again in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (2:14/DR):

Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or our epistle. Catholics are obligated to hold to Tradition. Vatican I held that any action contrary to Tradition is outside of the authority (ultra vires) of any ecclesiastical person, including the pope.

-- Soaps (9999@444.com), November 06, 2003.

Leon,

What you said was very interesting. I *never* would have thought of it this way, but sitting in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament could be considered inferior to being at mass. I need to think about that for awhile, but it's much more interesting than the usual outpourings of our resident schismatics.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 06, 2003.

Can we get back to the conversation at hand, and stay on track, please? This could be an extremely interesting topic, modernism and existentialism, right, left, center, etc. if we could stick to it. I would like to actually hear people's thoughts on what Emerald has wrote, we already know what the people here think of Traditionalism vs. Novus Ordo.

Leon, you are bordering on heresy/blasphemy with some of your comments. I suggest you give it a rest, as it is obvious you have been infected with the very way of thinking that Emerald describes above. On the other hand, you can make those kind of comments, and then others can easily disprove them.........such as 'it is us who makes Christ truly present in the Church.' If you mean that how it sounds, it's pure heresy.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), November 06, 2003.

Actually, Leon's topic is much more interesting that hearing you schismatics clash you cymbal over and over.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 06, 2003.

two virtually non-existent fringe elements with little relevance to the Holy Catholic Church at large.

OK, you may have a point there. Let's look at what lies between the Traditional Mass and the blasphemous Clown Mass:

"In place of liturgy...came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product." - from the preface by Cardinal Ratzinger in the book, 'Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background' by Monsignor Klaus Gamber.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 06, 2003.

It really does go to show how far apart we are, if the Novus Ordo church is really putting out the lie that Christ is only present at the Mass to the degree that the people actively participate. (???!!!)

I'm not sure that's really what they're saying, but you'll note no one made a move to correct it; no Novus Ordos, anyway. Sometimes silence says plenty.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.

Not only that, but I'm assuming then that Christ was never present during centuries worth of the silent participation of the faithful at Mass.

When did participation become true participation only when you can hear the sound of your own voice?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 06, 2003.

And besides that, the topic this thread was started over has nothing to do with Traditionalism vs. Novus Ordo, really. It has to do with Modernism, and how people are so easily duped by it. I have been in the past. There are still times when I have to step back and go.....Whooooaaaa, I almost fell for that. And there are still many times when I actually do fall for it.

Frank said:

Actually, Leon's topic is much more interesting that hearing you schismatics clash you cymbal over and over.

This was started as a genuine topic over a heresy.

Why do not NO's comment on it? The only one that did says heretical things, and no one here called him on it. Except a traditionalist.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), November 06, 2003.

Probably because no one's reading your posts anymore, or stop paying attention when your band of schismatics pollutes the thread with their usual blather.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 06, 2003.

So the orginal post is o.k., but then got polluted?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 06, 2003.

"This was started as a genuine topic over a heresy.

First, one must believe that the Catholic Church (the real one, not the secret remnant church founded by Lefebrve et al) is the central instrument of modernism, right up to the pope. Catholics don't believe this to be true. Martin Luther believed the pope to be the anti-Christ, head of a conspiracy. Traditionalist schismatics believe the pope to be the anti-Christ, head of a heretical conspiracy. Catholics disagree.

"Why do not NO's comment on it?"

First of all, it's "N@," not "NO."

Second, what should we comment on?

Past Catholic popes fought against the heresies such as Modernism. Recent popes have fought against heresies such as modernism. One of the other fights they are leading is the step-brother of personal interpretation of the Scriptures (Sola Scriptura); it is the personal interpretation of Tradition (Solo Traditio). Neither Sola scriptura nor solo traditio is true; but in the middle of these two extremes lies the true path...just kidding!

The Catholic Church is under the control of the Holy Spirit, not Satan. It is better to build up the Catholic Church by fidelity to Her than to proclaim that the Church is no longer able to teach the faithful the authentic message of Jesus Christ (that's what Luther said).

From my patron saint:

"For the superior is to be obeyed, not because he is prudent, or good, or qualifield by any other gift of God, but because he holds the place and authority of God, as Eternal Truth has said: 'He that heareth you, heareth me; and he the despiseth you, despiseth me.' Nor on the contrary, should he lack prudence, is he to be the less obeyed in that in which he is superior, since he represents Him who is infallible wisdom, and who will supply what is wanting in His minister; nor, should he lack goodness or other desireable qualities, since Christ our Lord, having said, "The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses," adds, "All things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not.

and later

"...it is said in Scripture, 'Obedience is better than sacrifices,' for, according to St. Gregory, 'In victims the flesh of another is slain, but in obedience our own will is sacrificed."

And so on, and so on...

Quick points:

1) Heresies are bad.

2) The Catholic Church is not under the control of Satan, spreading heresies that it has previously denied.

3) Obedience is good.

4) Constantly second-guessing the bishops and priests loyal to the pope (not to mention the muck-raking against them) is what got Martin Luther in trouble five hundred years ago. Why repeat the mistakes of history? Who benefits from conspiracy theories and throwing mud at the Church? How are these actions furthing the establishment of the "Kingdom of God?"

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 06, 2003.

Wh@t got M@rtin Luther in trouble 500 ye@rs ago w@s heresy.

Not much time today, but back at you soon.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 06, 2003.

What got Luther into trouble was separating Himself from the authority of the Church. When He took that action, he had not yet fallen into heresy. Heresy was the predictable, inevitable consequece of separation from the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, founded by Christ for the express purpose of guiding us in the truth, and away from heresy. There is no way an individual can remain free of heretical beliefs while rejecting the one source of true doctrine God provided - His Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2003.

Probably because no one's reading your posts anymore

Rest assured, people are reading the posts of Emerald, Isabel, Psyche, jake, Regina and the other "schismatics."

And they are reading the pathetic evasions and ad hominems posted by those who would accuse the "schismatics."

Someone arraying souls on a bell curve . . . strikes me as symptomatic of pervasive Modernism. I humbly offer that a more accurate representation would be a barque: the Barque of Peter. There are those outside of it, and those inside. As more and more people read the "schismatic" posts, they make their way back inside.

To the "schismatics", keep up the good work. We're reading.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 06, 2003.

what should we comment on?

One of you people s@id upthre@d somewhere th@t it w@s the "cle@r te@ching of the Bishops" th@t Christ is only present in the M@ss to the degree th@t the congreg@tion @ctively p@rticip@tes (wh@tever th@at me@ns). He @lso @lluded to the notion th@t we should not focus too much @ttention on "th@t little box @t the front of the church."

Lend us your @cumen, M@teo.

Recent popes have fought against heresies such as modernism.

They h@ve?

Quick points:

1) Heresies are bad.

Uh huh.

2) The Catholic Church is not under the control of Satan, spreading heresies that it has previously denied.

True. The Church is the Imm@culate Bride of Christ, @nd c@nnot err. Churchmen, however; c@n, h@ve, and do te@ch error, live imor@lly, @nd le@d souls @w@y from s@lv@tion.

3) Obedience is good.

@greed, but only in the me@sure th@t the F@ith is upheld by our obedience. We c@nnot obey something th@t le@ds us @w@y from reve@led truth. Ex@mple: If some numbskull w@s te@ching th@t Christ is only present @t M@ss if the people @re "into it," @ C@tholic could only respond by s@ying "No. You're wrong. T@at's not wh@t the Church te@ches and wh@t we know to be true," @nd then to run, not walk, in the opposite direction.

4) Constantly second-guessing the bishops and priests loyal to the pope (not to mention the muck-raking against them) is what got Martin Luther in trouble five hundred years ago. Why repeat the mistakes of history? Who benefits from conspiracy theories and throwing mud at the Church? How are these actions furthing the establishment of the "Kingdom of God?"

Comp@ring wh@t they s@y to wh@t's @lre@dy been t@ught is h@rdly secon- guessing or muckr@king. Luther w@s not interested in Tr@dition. He didn't c@re wh@t had @lready been t@ught. He needed @ way to justiify his immor@lity, @s did Henry VIII, so he st@rted @ new religion @nd redefined truth.

Oh and made up @ new "M@ss," too, which did @w@y with @ll references to s@crifice, s@tisf@ction for sin, etc., @nd emph@sized inste@d the commun@l @spect of worship.

He w@s a Novus Ordo, just 500 ye@rs @he@d of his time!

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.

You see, people ask, "Why should we comment." Why not? Emerald's opening post really is thought provoking. I mean, think about it. It's true what he says. If truth lies in the middle, versus one extreme or the next, then truth would constantly change. Because what is considered extremely conservative/wacked out/not with the times/old fashioned today, was just the norm a hundred years ago.

But we all know that truth cannot change, don't we?

Let's see.........maybe an example. And I'll think of one that is only subjective, not based on divinely revealed truth, so you can see how this works.

Two hundred or so years ago, to own a gun/weapon was the norm. To carry a gun/weapon was the norm. Right in the middle you could say.

Well, on the right side of that you had people who thought it OK to duel to the death with those weapons, over a small injustice.

On the left side you had those who thought it OK to own and carry weapons, but you just shouldn't take them in certain places.

100 years later.........

The middle - carrying/owning guns - has now moved to the right. On the left you have people that think you shouldn't carry your weapons around. So pushed to the middle was the former left - not carrying them in certain places.

50 years later..........

The current middle - only carrying them in certain places - has now moved over....to the right. On the left are those that think you should only have weapons to hunt with. So moved over to the middle - that's right, you guessed it - is that you shouldn't carry your weapons around.

Another 50 years later.........

The middle - not carrying your weapons around - has once again shifted right. Now on the left are those who want to ban all guns, as they 'aren't necessary'. So stuck right dab in the middle are those who think you can have them if you hunt, but there is really no need otherwise.

So you see how society changes, and the 'truths' change along with it? Only with Divinely revealed truths, it's much worse. Because they can never, ever change. Not for the sake of 'development', not for the sake of suiting modern man, not under the pretense of deeper knowledge. Never. They remain the same. But this is how it works - the constant shifting of the middle. The middle is not where you want to be. If that's where you are, you're in the wrong place. Quick! Look to your far right!

Infallibility does not pertain here. Many of you have an errant view of how infallibility works. Last time I got in that discussion, I could not keep it up, as I have been swamped at work and home, and am still so, but one day I think the subject of infallibility needs a good discussion.

But for now........Emerald brought up a subject of equal interest, IMHO. It's worth it to hack it out. Just address the subject at hand, not resort to dodging it, as I have seen thus far. If you are in the right, you cannot lose. If you are in the wrong, then you gain everything by discussion..........the truth. The immutable truth. The unchangeable truth. The Divinely revealed truth.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), November 06, 2003.

"He @lso @lluded to the notion th@t we should not focus too much @ttention on "th@t little box @t the front of the church."

Well, that was a terrible statement, regardless @f the intent he had. Eucharistic ad@rati@n is a critical s@urce @f grace f@r Cath@lics. I'm s@rry f@r n@t menti@ning my @pini@n earlier; I just can't c@mment @n every p@st that I disagree with.

"True. The Church is the Imm@culate Bride of Christ, @nd c@nnot err. Churchmen, however; c@n, h@ve, and do te@ch error, live imor@lly, @nd le@d souls @w@y from s@lv@tion."

There were plenty @f priests and bish@ps teaching in err@r 500 years ag@ at Trent (n@t t@ menti@n 1000 years ag@ and 1500 years ag@ and 2000 years ag@). Despite abuses in the current f@rm @f the Mass (just as the Mass had abuses 500 years ag@, etc), R@me has pr@mulgated the current Mass, and it is n@t subject t@ the err@r @f individual churchmen's err@rs @r imm@rality. It is Christ-centered, Cath@lic w@rship.

"Oh and [Luther] made up @ new "M@ss," too, which did @w@y with @ll references to s@crifice, s@tisf@ction for sin, etc., @nd emph@sized inste@d the commun@l @spect of worship.

He w@s a Novus Ordo, just 500 ye@rs @he@d of his time!"

Well, I attend a Cath@lic Church, and the accusati@n that the current f@rm @f the Latin Rite has d@ne away with sacrifice @r satisfacti@n f@r sin is misplaced. Y@u are making a subjective judgment that is imp@ssible t@ pr@ve and easy t@ dispr@ve. D@ I need t@ qu@te the rite @f the mass?

Ad Maj@rem Dei Gl@riam

Mate@

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 06, 2003.

It is Christ-centered, Cath@lic w@rship.



I guess you're right. All is well. Nevermind.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.

Jmj

I thought that I had seen everything -- the worst possible kinds of things -- at this forum. But satan has succeeded in tempting his ex-Catholic disciples (Jake, Isabel, Regina, a small band of newish imp-lets [Claire, Daniel, Soapy, lgoodtaste, Jaime -- all vultures lured through Google], and especially Emerald) to devise the most shockingly horrendous pile of garbage ever posted here.

The worst post of all, of course, was the "keynote address" from the Prime Minister of Protestantism, Emerald (Esmeralda in Spanish). Few are the people on Earth that could have created such a moronic mass of merde, such nauseating nuggets of narcissism. I wish that I had time to pick the whole thing apart and show how goofy it is, but I'm glad I don't have that time, because there is really only one thing that is necessary: To show that the whole argument starts with a false premise, which, when taken away, causes Esmeralda's whole House of Caca-Cards to come tumbling down.

He starts by putting a quoted statement in italics. I really can't remember reading it before, but it definitely has the fragrant flavor of something from the kitchens of Paul M.. What is stated in the quotation -- contrary to what Esmeralda later says -- is ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL. It is the kind of accurate, perceptive, bang-up job that I keep saying Paul M does 95% of the time.

There really do exist the two groups of "extremists" that Paul M (?) mentions -- the schismo-heretical crowd that is self-mislabeled as "traditionalist" and the schismo-heretical crowd that is well-labeled as "(neo-)modernists." The first group contains the losers that I mentioned earlier (as ex-Catholic disciples of the nether world). The second group has not had a representative at forum for quite a while. However, we had the misfortune of hearing from one person, Leon, who is definitely tending in the direction of neo-modernism -- and we need to rescue him. The poor guy is a recent convert from Lutheranism, and he may have been instructed by a modernist priest or with a textbook written by a modernist author -- or finally, he may have brought all that "baggage" into the Church and it hasn't been scrubbed out of his system yet.

When I said that "we" need to rescue Leon, I was referring to that huge mass of orthodox people (whom the quote in italics calls "balanced" and "mainline" Catholics) -- e.g. (posting on this thread), Eugene, Paul M, Mateo, Frank, and me.

What then is Esmeralda's fatal error that causes the whole thread to be totally worthless (and worthy only of deletion)? It is this statement of his: "The operative premise in the italicized statement above of what constitutes the 'right place to be,' in which truth of our current situation in the Church can be found, is this proposal: That truth can be found in the mean between two extremes, or, in a balance between two opposites."
The fallacy in those words is that they attribute to Paul M (?) a "proposal" that he never made. Paul never stated that there is a principal that "the truth can be found in the mean between two extremes." That is a false assumption on Esmeralda's part, so the entire remainder of his long-winded, self-congratulatory, pseudo-intellectual tirade falls harmlessly into "File 13." A model that may be easier for people to understand than a continuum or a curve is a transparent sphere within which all persons can be seen. At the very center is God surrounded by his angels and the pope. At varying distances are the rest of us -- some striving toward the center (orthodox Catholics) and others turned around and heading outward (dissenters) or even having punctured the rim and heading out into the dark reaches of space (both neo-modernists and the Emeraldine Exodus party).

Well, it's 1:00 a.m. and I should be rising at 4:30, so I have to cut it off here, even though I'd like to demolish about 40 more ludicrous things stated by Emerald and his Envoys. Those will have to wait, though I'd really rather not have a chance to post them -- thanks to the Moderator's deletion of this thread.
Moreover, I make this plea to him: He is right to say that the schismo-hereticals and the neo-modernists represent 0.1% of those people claiming to be Catholics. It is true that they are children of God about whom we must be concerned and for whom we must pray. BUT ... for the purposes of the forum, they are actually insignificant, extremist imbeciles, and their rarity in real life tells us that IT IS A SIN OF INJUSTICE AND LACK OF CHARITY to allow their presence here to continue -- and IT IS A SIN OF WASTE OF RESOURCES for us to have to spend 50% of our time brutalizing these haters of the Church.

Just as proselytizing Fundamentalist Protestants are given only a limited time to make their point before being sent packing, so must these proselytizing Anti-Vatican-II Protestants be given the heave-ho TODAY. The grossly improper action of allowing them to stay (for about two years now) has borne incredibly rotten fruit -- with the loss of one Catholic and the attraction of a wider and wider cast of mind-numbed, robotic, yes-men to prop up the sick egos of Esmeralda and his Envoys. I beg you once again, Moderator -- for the love of God and for the relief of us good Catholics -- get rid of these creeps and never let them (or replacements) back in here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 07, 2003.

with the loss of one Catholic

Do you refer to Robert P.?

If you have this much trouble controlling your rage now, I think it may be best for you to leave the forum, since the coming news about him might very well stop your heart.

Viva Cristo Rey!

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 07, 2003.

You know, John,

You always say you could tear a post apart, but you never do. If you can spend 5 hours of forum 'work', why not work to back up your statements about Emerald original post being bogus.

Come on, I'm ready and waiting to see it. If you ever take the time to read Pascendi, which I highly advise, you will see what Emerald says it true.

So, after reading your long post of ad-hominem attacks, uncharitable name calling, ridiculous statements, claims that have yet to be followed up, I am still left waiting for you to provide something constructive, useful and to the point. Try following through once in a while with what you claim you can do.

Show me the money.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), November 07, 2003.

John has his own style of confrontation and so does Jake. Emerald overflows with paternal correction and likes to be confronted, because it gives him a wider platform. He is challenged often by John, and I think he deserves it.

John at basis wins this confrontation. He stated something true; Frank never implied any part of what Emerald inferred. Period. Leon said something up above upon which the elitists quickly pounced. ''The essence of our holiness doesn't just live in that little box at the very front of the church any more,''

Countered by: ''--What you're saying is bordering on blasphemy.''

No; that isn't why Leon advanced his opinion. I see Leon just stating a fact: We all have Jesus Christ in our own hearts; we are tabernacles for Jesus; joyful ones. --Not just the silent tabernacle within the Church sanctuary. That is no blasphemy, it's true!

I'm a living tabernacle. I was that back in my childhood, before Vatican II. I am after the Council; Yes, and the silent tabernacle in the sanctuary is absolutely sacred to me, because Jesus dwells there. He is dwelling as well in my own heart; where He is NOT silent!

I really think I'm saying exactly what Leon says; and adding to it a personal observation. The dissidents here believe the silent tabernacle was always the preferrable one. Christ has otherwise decided; we will have Him, Emmanuel, ''God within us.'' Which is why Leon appended, ''any more.'' Bravo, Leon. Keep up your productive posting.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.

You have hit the nail on the head , Eugene. God is everywhere, in my heart, all around, etc. the tabernacle is just another silent place. I remind you that Jesus is truly present, body, blood soul and divinity, in that tabernacle. Any wonder why so many do not blieve that anymore. You are right out of the protestant handbook.

-- Soaps (9999@444.com), November 07, 2003.

I really think I'm saying exactly what Leon says

Yeah, but JFG has condemned what Leon said as coming from a schismo- heretical neo-modernist point of view. He said that Leon has retained the errors of his Lutheranism, and needs to be "rescued" by Catholics like you & he.

How will you accomplish this rescue if you are of one mind with the "victim," and are at odds with your fellow rescuer?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 07, 2003.

I'm a living tabernacle. I was that back in my childhood, before Vatican II. I am after the Council; Yes, and the silent tabernacle in the sanctuary is absolutely sacred to me, because Jesus dwells there. He is dwelling as well in my own heart; where He is NOT silent!

But there's a big difference here, Gene. You've got the truth mixed with something else. Let me explain:

First of all, yes. When we receive Our Lord in Holy Communion, He dwells, truly and physically within our souls...for a short time only. Then, as long as we remain in a state of grace, He remains within us spiritually. There is a difference between Our Lord's physical presence (in the Tabernacle, at the Consecration, during Holy Communion), and His spiritual presence (after Mass, during prayer in our homes or wherever.) To confuse the two, or to say that that the spiritual presence is the same as the physical, is an error.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 07, 2003.

Regina,

I think you missed the point. The point is where do you think Christ would rather have His body be be?

Physically in a Tabernacle? or

Spiritually in the hearts and minds of Christians?

A no brainer, that.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 07, 2003.

If John has anything to say he'll contact me, I think. I only posted in reference to one thing that Leon said; over which you guys had a cow. Soap Bubble thinks I don't ''believe'' in the True Presence of Our Lord, in the holy tabernacle ? ? ? And I'm using a protestant handbook?

I guess when Soapdish receives Holy Communion, he denies the True Presence is taken into his heart by the Sacrament he consumes? He better not; it's ''protestant'' to say it isn't. So, which one of us is the protestant?

As for Leon, he had the truth absolutely; and the Catholic truth! And I didn't suggest for one moment the tabernacle in our churches isn't a place where Jesus reposes silently. I love the holy tabernacle more than any of you pharisees.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.

Dear Regina;
Let me say something with no intention of seeming superior; that's not what I'm saying:

Before you were born I knew and believed to the point of dying for it, --that the sacred host was physically with me for less than one hour, and Jesus within me spiritually thereafter; as long as I resisted sin and prayed to Him.

It's appalling you'd presume to teach this old dog, as if you had esoteric knowledge I'd never received. This is an example of your elitism.

You talk down all the time; to the ''rabble'' and ''bogus Catholic''.

Stay out of trouble, won't you Regin? Don't send me any posts. Show love for your neighbor, and ask God for the gift of humility. --Advice from the elderly, Chile. / Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.

I think you missed the point. The point is where do you think Christ would rather have His body be be?

I *think* it was St. Faustina who was told by Our Lord how He loves to dwell within the soul of one in a state of grace, *and* how He loves when we visit Him as He waits for us in the Tabernacle. It would appear to me that both places give Him much pleasure.

But why are you asking me to speak for Him? Why should such a choice be made anyway? I think you may be right, I think I'm missing the point. I need you (or Gene) to clarify - Are you suggesting that His spiritual presence within us privately and among us at Mass is more important than His Real Presense in the Tabernacle? And if so, is this how many of you justify His being placed away from the worship space of most NO churches?

If the spiritual presence is ultimately more important for us as Catholics, why reserve Him in the Tabernacle before or after Mass? Why have Eucharistic Adoration, or Benediction? Why pay a visit when you get a chance? Why receive Communion any more than the once a year requirement?

It's because His Real Presence is the center of our faith. It is the Mystery of our Faith. If you agree than it leads to reason that He should be in the center of our Churches.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 07, 2003.

It's appalling you'd presume to teach this old dog, as if you had esoteric knowledge I'd never received. This is an example of your elitism.

Gene, I'm speaking to anyone who's interested in the discussion, not just to you. If you feel you've been taken down a few notches from me, that's your problem, not mine. That you can't (won't) consider the possibility that someone considerably younger than you could possibly offer you something to think about is an example of *your* pride.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 07, 2003.

Regina,

Are you suggesting that His spiritual presence within us privately and among us at Mass is more important than His Real Presense in the Tabernacle?

Absolutely. Picture this, the Nazis are coming, and all the people have fled a town. The priest was out visiting the sick, and can't get back to church, so in this abandoned town there is still the Body of Christ in the church, but no people. IMO Christ would MUCH rather be spiritually in the souls of His followers fleeing the Nazis than physically present in the church, alone. Even in the Sr. Faustina quote, she didn't say Christ wanted to be by HIMSELF in the Tabernacle, what he wanted was the worship of the faithful that took presence in front of the Blessed Sacrament. It is the worship of the faithful that is most important. Christ will exist without you, and has no need to have pieces of His physical presence in Tabernacles around the world without worshippers to receive Him.

And if so, is this how many of you justify His being placed away from the worship space of most NO churches?

I have no idea. I can only speak for myself, and for the Catholic church as a member of that church. To my knowledge there is no such thing as an "NO" church.

If the spiritual presence is ultimately more important for us as Catholics, why reserve Him in the Tabernacle before or after Mass? Why have Eucharistic Adoration, or Benediction?

His presence in the tabernacle is beneficial IF it helps the faithful to be more faithful. There is NO reason for Christ's presence in the tabernacle if there is no one worshipping or adoring there that I know of, perhaps you can enlighten me. You see Regina, Christ's mission was the salvation of our souls, WE are what is important to Him. If we fail to become Christlike, and turn our backs on Him and His church, what difference would it make if the last Catholic priest put a tabernacle on every streetcorner? It is the worship of God by Christians that is important, and the salvation of souls.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 07, 2003.

Regina took an old man down a notch!
Truly some evaluation! All credit on her side, she figures; and I was worried about sounding too uppity!

But her heart is yearning to teach; not to learn.

Dear Regina, teach me to be good; not to oppose a Tarad even if he/she is giving the pharisees a run for their money. Who ever heard of any ''N.O.' having a meeting of the minds with her;--? Regina has no use for his ordinary faith. She's extraordinary; like a Martha Stewart of the Latin Rite! Ha ha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.

eugene,

statement of faith does not involve comparison to non faith -merit of faith does not involve comparison to faith lacking...

-faith and obedience stand alone with Truth -not relative to non- Truth...

Calling others pharisees does not bolster your position or prove anything else -in fact, it degrades all as it does nothing for Truth...

Now I speak in 'vain' regarding lord gecick -he too takes your non substantive approach -he too is wrong...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 07, 2003.

Thanks, Hawk
Calling sincere and devout Catholics Neos and ''modernists'' doesn't prove greater love for Tradition. We sometimes fight fire with fire.

I've no doubt the elite will achieve their salvation someday. No Sir! It's not because I judge them evil I say Pharisee; it's my way of helping Regina for one, to stop and take a look at what they're doing. I'm a uniter, not a divider. I want Regina to fall on her knees before the Blessed Sacrament and pray for the unity and peace of his Church. Not walk all over other people's faith, and declare it ''protestant'' and ''insulting to Jesus Christ''.

This has been part & parcel of her messages and Jake's now for more than a year. They're SAVING the Catholic Church from evil people like ME-- ! Yes; ME!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.

Frank,

Our belief in and the very Real Presence of Our Lord in the Tabernacle is what *separates* us from false religions. Geez, why not just stay home and get spiritualized if that's all that's important?!

This idea that all Our Lord is in the Tabernacle is some lonely Man waiting for someone to drop by, is just...unCatholic. There is a whole Other World going on on the Altar where Our Lord is kept, whether we are visiting with Him or unable to. He is accompanied by His Angels, who guard each and every Tabernacle on Earth.

There are many saints who lived on nothing but Our Lord in Holy Communion for years at a time. The spiritual presense inspires us, the Real presense *sustains* us.

I knew the post-Conciliar Church had its problems, but when you're at a point where Our Lord's Real Presense is regarded by the faithful as 'second best'...my gosh, where do you go from there? -----

Regina took an old man down a notch!

Uh, Gene? I said "If you feel I took you down a notch, it's your problem not mine. No where in my post did I claim I did.

Once again, would you please gather your thoughts before you post? Your posts are getting...strange again.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 07, 2003.

You may not believe these stats, but that is your problem.

SECOND GALLUP POLL: BELIEF IN DOGMA ON HOLY EUCHARIST

In January 1992, the St. Augustine Center Association sponsored a second Gallup poll, called "A Gallup Survey of Catholics regarding Holy Communion." This poll, which included telephone interviews of 519 U.S. Catholics during the period of December 10, 1991, to January 19, 1992, revealed that

ONLY 30% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS BELIEVE THE DE-FIDE DOGMA ABOUT THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

namely, that at Communion they are really and truly receivng the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, which is known as the Real Presence.

70% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS NOW HOLD AN HERETICAL BELIEF IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 07, 2003.

Bubbles, what's a "Novus Ordo Catholic?" I have never seen a Novus Ordo Church.

Isn't this the same dumb thing that protestants tried to do with calling themselves "Christians" vs. us Catholics, as if Catholics aren't Christian?

Schismatics never stop looking at protestants for tactics on attempting to legitimize their dissent from the Catholic Church.

Yawn.

Regarding Modernism

In what document or documents (please quote the moderist statements) of the Catholic Church can we find proof of modernism taking over at or since Vatican II? Is the mere description of modernism as a concept enough to condemn the Catholic Church as guilty of it?

I believe that being too tough in punishing crime is wrong. I believe that being too lenient in punishing crime is wrong. Punishment of crime should be in proportion to the severity of the crime. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. Oh, my goodness, I'm a modernist heretic! L@L

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 07, 2003.

These are the lion hearted bishops that we must follow or be called schismatics. Ignored the stats above, right?

Washington DC Bishops Conference to be the site of the first annual "GIVE THE BISHOPS SOME BACK BONE, FACE THE TRUTH TOUR" on November 10, 2003 11/2/2003 10:58:00 AM - Catholic Citizens News Service

Card. Mahoney says Gray Davis has a "right" to communion. Canon Law says otherwise. Catholic activists fed up with the indifference shown to pro- abortion 'Catholic' politicians are planning a FACE THE TRUTH demonstration on Monday, November 10 from 4-6 PM at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, 400 New Jersey Ave, NW near Capitol Hill to be held in conjunction with the National Catholic Bishops semi-annual meeting. Organizers state that the purpose will be "to energize the Bishops to give credibility to CHURCH TEACHING against abortion by refusing HOLY COMMUNION to such pro-abortion politicians as Kennedy, Mikulski, Harkin, Biden, Gray Davis, John Kerry, etc," said Jack Aims

-- (9999.@444.com), November 07, 2003.

Do you have somebody with a lion's heart you'd folllow? I voulunteer; I have a lion's heart. Come on, just follow me. Together we'll demand the Holy Spirit throw out every bishop in our holy mother Church. He'll turn them all into chess-pieces, and make you & me bishops. Of course, I'll be your superior, 9999.@444. /

If I say shut up, you'll shut. If I say jump, you'll ask how high. Why?

Because, I have a lion's heart. You, my friend don't. You don't even want to be a catholic. All you want is the prestige without the sacrifice. It's easy to talk big religion. But you forget we're all one Mystical Body of Christ. You are a toe, and you talk like a chest. Maybe if you pray for God's grace, God will help this Body of Christ overcome the itching in His toes. (You need some foot powder.) Now-- my lion heart is saying to you: Take a hike, little toe. We don't want any more crying around here, we need support!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.

Regina,

You seem to be looking so hard for a fight you want to invent them rather than admit you have ANYTHING in common with the Catholic church.

I knew the post-Conciliar Church had its problems, but when you're at a point where Our Lord's Real Presense is regarded by the faithful as 'second best'...

No one said this or even implied it. It must be sad to NEED to misunderstand all the time. To hear someone say "the mass is the epitomy of Christian faith" and interpret "they don't love the Blessed Sacrament" ... is just sad.

May you find your way back to the church some day.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 07, 2003.

"I believe that being too tough in punishing crime is wrong. I believe that being too lenient in punishing crime is wrong. Punishment of crime should be in proportion to the severity of the crime. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. Oh, my goodness, I'm a modernist heretic! L@L"

Actually, you're not a modernist heretic in that case, because there's a distinction between the truth itself and the conformity of action to the truth.

Your example is of the nature of what's in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and it's a valid application of the concept of finding a mean between extremes.

In your example, the mean is being sought out in the realm of practical action, where the person is seeking to bring his actions, or judgment on actions, in alignment with a fixed principle or with an immutable truth.

So in that sense the appropriate action would be seeking to conform to the truth, and this in a true case where estimates are in fact made. It's an estimate or a judgment about one's actions in relation to truth.

It's a lot like art; it is an estimate of reality, or a reflection of it, and not the reality itself.

So it works there because it's in the realm of practical judgment and not the realm of principle and abstract reality.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 07, 2003.

Duughh; Yeah Frank. That's what I say.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.

"No one said this or even implied it. It must be sad to NEED to misunderstand all the time. To hear someone say "the mass is the epitomy of Christian faith" and interpret "they don't love the Blessed Sacrament" ... is just sad."

Interesting.

A certain little misunderstanding concerning a the use of the word abomination comes to mind.

=)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 07, 2003.

"It's a lot like art; it is an estimate of reality, or a reflection of it, and not the reality itself. "

Drawing the line between a mortal sin and a venial sin is also an estimate of reality. Grey area...

Lot's of grey out there.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 07, 2003.

No Emerald, if someone *uses* the word "abomination", they mean it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 07, 2003.

"In what document or documents (please quote the modernist statements) of the Catholic Church can we find proof of modernism taking over at or since Vatican II?"

Modernism manifests itself by what it produces, which are deviant understandings in place of known and always-held truths; so to track it down, you start with the most recent, prevailing understanding of a particular doctrinal matter.

Pick any doctrinal matter and put it down onto the discussion table; then try to understand in detail the current understanding of that particular doctrinal matter. Once you've got an understanding of it, if that's even possible, the only proving that then needs be done is to match whatever is proposed as doctrine against what is contained in the entire 2,000 year history of Catholic documents wherein doctrine and definitions are clearly laid out in unambiguous and concise terms.

If it comes up deviant, then you ask from which conciliar or post-conciliar document the current understanding of the doctrinal matter is derived from. If you can get someone to actually reference something, then you look for the presence of an ambiguity in the cited text and see if it is possible that one could interpret the document in manner consistent with tradition, and at the same time, whether a the deviant understanding can be implied as well within the same set of text.

If the latter is the case, scratch your head and wonder to yourself why in the world someone would have written up the text that way and what they could possibly have intended in doing so.

So basically all you need is a particular doctrine to discuss. If you wanted to discuss a particular subject, that's the method I would use, and I would say let's do it. That's the only way to attack something you come across which has it's origin in Existentialism, and in the very writing style that is conducive to it. It's topic-by-topic, doctrine-by-doctrine all the way.

It's kind of like a Theological Vietnam.

It's the Existentialism that provides the ambiguity platform that goes to make up this synthesis of all heresies; it's what makes it so pervasive and all-compassing... you have to attack it doctrine by doctrine.

So pick a topic you like, I guess, and we could go from there. Most of the conversation would then consist choosing which interpretation of an ambiguous statement best represents earlier documents which, thank God, were clear and precise, and therefore are the Catholic truths of the Catholic Church.

But... that's only if someone ever bothers to look at the existing history of Church documents. It's the nature of Modernism never to look back but always to progress forward; it never will look back because that would oppose it's own progress. It means to be getting out of something or getting away from something. It instead wants to take it's deviant understandings and re-invest them into further interpretations. If ambiguities exist in the first outlay, then it's claimed that these ambiguities must be straightened out with further documentation. But in turn, the new documentation is loaded with fresh ambiguities; so it keeps moving away from immutable truth in the name of always painstakingly trying to clarify itself.

A good species of this kind of strategy is the Communism strategy of "two steps forward, one step back".

That's why we never see the modern Catholic looking to reconcile new documents with the history of the documents of the past, but only to reconcile itself with itself and with yet newer and thicker documents. It reconciles itself with the future instead of the past; in other words, with Progress, and not Tradition.

It's simple: we can't know something that's ambiguous; we cannot know to be truth what is only an estimate of the truth.

So pick a topic for discussion, and we'll go through the whole process, and... hey! Guess what? That's what the trads and neo's have been doing all along in the forum. You'd be re-writing the forum at that point, because people are aren't really in a disagreement so much as they know what they are thinking and they are choosing sides based on either...

1. What they want to hear, or

2. What the truth really is.

In that sense, after you're finished with each doctrine up for discussion, you can then ask yourself why you just wasted so much time.

That's because what this is really all about good and bad will, about who wants to serve God and who really wants to serve self.

A person exercising good will: chooses Truth over self, and self will consequently serve truth.

A person exercising bad will: chooses self over truth; the "truth" is then twisted somehow in the mind in order to serve self (in other words, lies to justify).

At death, the truth is known by all, and people are saved or damned; they either exclaim "Blessed be God" or they scream "your judgments are just, O God". The Truth never did change for anyone, though, and intelligence will have had little to do with destinations.

At least at that point, everyone is relieved of ambiguity... for what it's worth for each type of choice.

"Is the mere description of modernism as a concept enough to condemn the Catholic Church as guilty of it?"

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. That being the case, the Catholic Church is not guilty of being Modernist. The question is loaded with an impossibility; it's whatever is heresy that is cut off from the Mystical Body and therefore not part of it, not part of the Church.

There is a heresy called Modernism that cannot in any way be Catholic whatsoever. Basically, if you want to believe what Catholics believe, then you believe Catholic things. If you believe Catholic things, you can't possibly be a Modernist... kind of straight forward.

So what's the conclusion of all this? I don't know. Say your Rosary, I guess, and love God and your neighbor as yourself, and do penance.

And stuff.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 07, 2003.

"That's why we never see the modern Catholic looking to reconcile new documents with the history of the documents of the past."

I suppose you'd have put bounds on who a "modern Catholic" is. It seems to me that schismatics always argue with some imagined "modern Catholic" interlocutor. He seems to be a straw man conveniently set up so that he can be knocked down.

Do you believe that the documents of Vatican II cannot be reconciled with documents of the past? I just want a single example. For some reason, groups like SSPX spend a bunch of time maligning Vatican II.

When we talk about accepting Vatican II, I get a couple of positions from schismatics:

1) They ask for others to show where they disagree with the Vatican II docs. You've also said this.

2) They say that it's an ecumenical, non-binding council with no doctrinal content. It's as if there is an erroneous statement that ipso facto can't be doctrine.

I'd be happy to spend all day maligning the "Spirit of Vatican II," which has nothing to do with Vatican II. But, what exactly is the position of schismatics regarding the Council and its documents:

1) They believe that Vatican II was bad because it taught something new (presumably wrong), therefore it's non-binding. Or,

2) They believe that Vatican II was bad because it taught nothing new.

I've heard both accusations. Don't these positions contradict eachother? Or maybe this is something that divides schismatics? Are there two camps?

"So what's the conclusion of all this? I don't know."

I still don't understand the point of the thread...maybe I'm just dense.

"Say your Rosary, I guess, and love God and your neighbor as yourself, and do penance."

Well, that's some good advice! I just might have to take you up on it.

AMDG,

Mate@

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 08, 2003.

"I suppose you'd have put bounds on who a "modern Catholic" is."

The Church is visible... there is something of a template, so to speak, to match things against to say it loosely; but that would require another discussion. But that there are deliniations that are available, sure.

"It seems to me that schismatics always argue with some imagined "modern Catholic" interlocutor. He seems to be a straw man conveniently set up so that he can be knocked down."

Either that or instead of naming person A or person B on the forum or in everyday life, the attempt is to strike at a heresy instead of at a person. The strawman is ok if instead of a phantom opponent who never did or never could exist, it represents those who hold to whatever degree certain modernist heresies without accusing them personally: "de internis nec Ecclesia"

Leaving the house right, so I'll post again on the rest tonight.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 08, 2003.

No one said this or even implied it. [In responce to my suggestion that the faithful now regard Our Lord in the Tabernacle 'second best.']

Frank, I asked: "Are you suggesting that Our Lord's spiritual presence within us and among us at Mass is more important than His physical presence in the tabernacle?"

To which you replied: "Absolutely."

I am in no "need" of an arguement, nor do I "need" to misunderstand anything. If you are saying that His spiritual presence is more (most) important, it follows then that His physical presence, comes second, hence "second best."

If I have misunderstood, it's because you didn't explain yourself clearly or I'm missing the point you tried to make. I'll take the blame and ask you to clarify for me, if you would. But in answering, I'd also like you to consider the fact that Our Lord *wants* to be kept in the Tabernacle for us - all day all night in every Catholic Church, no matter if thousands, one or two, or no one comes to visit Him, irregardless of how senseless it seems to you.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 08, 2003.

The parish we attend has the constant presence of Jesus in our tabernacle. I know, because there's our Friday holy hour devotion; our priest brings Him out of it, instals Him in the holy monstrance; we gather to pray to Him, and contemplate. We recite the rosary, then hymns, then St Michael's chaplet, and finally, Benediction, with the Litany of the Saints; and a procession back from the Mary Chapel to His permnenet tabernacle. All in accordance with Catholic devotion.

That's not good enough for hidebound ''traditionists''-- It has to be Latin. Give me a break! Devotion is what Jesus deserves. Not holdouts from the Catholic communion.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 08, 2003.

Regina,

The point you are trying so hard NOT to agree with is that WE are what is important to Christ, and OUR worship of Him. You have yet to show me why it is important to have Christ's presence in the tabernacle if NO ONE is worshipping there. Why is it so hard for you to admit that WE are what is the most important thing to Christ? (more so than church buildings, golden altarpieces, statues, etc.) What do you think the real *purpose* of those things is?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 08, 2003.

hey kids, what's up? after months and months I come back, still, same 'ole arguments. How about a turn-around? What's the Holy Spirit been saying to ya'll? What's been on the Lord's Heart lately? anyone been listening? Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (RodnTee4Jesus@sbcglobal.net), November 08, 2003.

Sorry Theresa, but no thanks.

I think it's more important to defend Holy Mother Church than to imagine that a phenonema put before us as a real and true manifestation of the Holy Spirit would attempt to distract us from trying to not fall into heresy and towards other and lesser things and considerations.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 08, 2003.

church buildings, golden altarpieces, statues, etc. What do you think the real *purpose* of those things is?

To house the Blessed Sacrament.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 08, 2003.

OK; we love to offer Him what we love the most. It seems fitting.

What Jesus Christ asks is a life of commitment to Him. That I carry my cross.

In the desert following the exodus, God was content to abide with His people inside a tent. I know it was the finest tent Israel could afford. Yet, He loved his people.

I believe the external glory is returning some day. He will have His glory; what I see today is passing. What we offer Him NOW-- isn't passing, it's holy. Our love and our joy in Him!

Sure I ask myself; why not the best? Give God more; without limits on-- what? Our pocket-books? You can't buy God's grace. We already have stupendous cathedrals and tremendous art and pomp & ceremony! He's seen it all; and next to His Divine Son it's just wall-paper! LOVE is what God demands. True, undying love for Him commandments and all.

His riches in heaven could bury all the golden vessels and tabernacles of history. I've seen some of the best and they aren't worthy of me; my soul-- much less of Jesus Christ!

He wants living treasure. The hearts of His faithful.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 08, 2003.

"Why is it so hard for you to admit that WE are what is the most important thing to Christ?"

Why is it so hard to admit the Christ is what should be the most important thing to us?

What I see here is a subtle manifestation of the idea that we are so important that Christ is here to serve us as a result of this fact; that we are somehow worthy of something and the Christ is affirming us somehow. That never has been the attitude of the Catholic Church.

I think what's important to know is that we were damned by default before God so loved the world that He gave His only Son for us because of sin; that God owes us not a thing and that all consideration of us is an act of mercy on His part; that he could actually have done nothing at all to save us and we would have absolutely no right to complain, first because of Original Sin, and subsequently thereafter from Actual Sins on our part.

He owes us nothing.

We, however, must serve Him. He has to be important to US; that's the focus; without Him, we are nothing. I can't see anything but danger walking around all day thinking about myself being important to Christ as opposed to walking around all day thanking Him for offering to save my sorry hide should I vow to serve Him in the way that He has instucted me to do so.

Now once a person tries this, then they see a glimpse of His love for us, but for the real deal, we have to perservere and find out later.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 08, 2003.

''--What I see here is a subtle manifestation of the idea that we are so important that Christ is here to serve us as a result of this fact; --''

To which we say, --Fiddlesticks! That is not a subtle or a blunt ''manifestation'' (can't you say SIGN-- ?) of anything that ever popped up in your punkin head!

We know better! Christ is Our KING! --Get the message, and stop the preening: Catholics are ready to die for Jesus Christ at the moment He asks them. I am; and I don't flatter myself as one of just a few. Like some ELITISTS I know (unfortunately.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 08, 2003.

I'm not going to move an inch.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 08, 2003.

["Isabel," out of respect for my friend David/e (who inexplicably likes you), I am going to make my tongue very bloody by biting it hard and stifling most of the harsh words that I am inclined to use because you deserve them. I'll just make this short and sweet. (And if you don't like what I say or the way that I say it, just realize that it would have been at least five times worse, if it weren't for David.)]

"Isabel," you seem to have forgotten that I totally reject your presence here. I consider you absolutely and completely disqualified and banned. In 2001, you (along with Jake and Regina) referred to the rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass approved by Pope Paul VI as an "abomination." You were banned and never apologized for this gross slur. For this reason, I consider you still unworthy of posting a single word on this forum.

I grant you only the barest minimum respect that a human being is required to pay to another for his/her humanity, but I disrespect almost every word and action that you wretchedly impose upon this poor world, which is so underserving of your shrewish, contemptuous gaze.

Get this straight, "Isabel" -- once and for all time. Until you apologize for you got you banned, and until you return to the Catholic Church, I forbid you to ever request anything of me. And if you may not "request" anything, so much the less may you DEMAND anything of me as you tried to do in an earlier post on this thread.

I have posted about 7,000 messages at this forum and, of these, literally HUNDREDS have been posts that "tear [others'] posts apart," so I don't need some bumbling bungler like you to tell me that I "never do" that. Maybe you should reach into your memory banks (if you have any) -- or check with one of your pseudo-trad cronies -- to recall the thread on which I posted a mile-long message totally demolishing all your bogus arguments about the Mass, LaSalette, and various other subjects. I guess you forgot that conveniently -- just as accident victims forget their traumatic events.

Various orthodox Catholic "regulars" here will tell you how I have, on MANY occasions, tried my best to refute people of all stripes (maybe even them) at great, great length. So I don't want to hear any more of this bull-manure from you or anyone else. You should have stopped to think, before, criticizing me, that you have seen only a small fraction of all the threads on which I have written -- because, like your fellow elitists, you can only be bothered with spending time on a few selected threads. You couldn't lower yourself to look at ALL threads EVERY DAY, as I do. Heck, if you and your fellow felons were to do that, you might just have to write something about subjects other than your pet heresies and whinings. How boring, right?! No. How sick of all of you!

For you to have expected a long rebuttal from me (of Esmeralda, etc.) on this thread was triply ridiculous on your part. First, I told you that I had been working for hours and couldn't do it. Second, I said (above) that I wanted this thread to be deleted, so it would be asinine for me to spend hours hear on a long reply. And third, I said that Esmeralda's opening premise was false, so there was no point in arguing against the house of cards that followed. So you should be triply ashamed about having harassed me. No. Make that quadruply ashamed -- because you should have remembered that I consider the whole freakish lot of you to be banned. So I wouldn't give Esmeralda the time of day, much less a long rebuttal that would indicate I respect his message.

Besides avoiding all requests and demands of me, "Isabel," I require you to cut the sarcasm out of your messages -- all messages, not just to me. For example, look at this guano of yours: "If you ever take the time to read Pascendi, which I highly advise, you will see what Emerald says it true." How DARE you assume that I have not read "Pascendi"? How DARE you presume to try to advise me? What are you, some kind of idiot who doesn't think before she writes? If not for David, I'd tell you exactly what you could do with your filthy comments. Now stay the heck out of my life until you straighten your own out -- until you apologize for your forum crimes and get your soul cleaned up and back into Catholicism.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

I like a lot of what you say in the forum, Gene; I've always taken note of what seems your stubborn promotion of a Faith of simplicity and humility, and of what looks to be a genuine sense of home you find in Catholicism, and a stubborn belief in unseen realities. I don't take you to be a dishonest person and I think you mean the things you say, and I've appreciated it all this time.

But then there's this other side in your posts that seems to work in conflict with the above, and it's this...

All those above virtues you seem to hold dear? They're the stuff of traditional Catholicism. I think you know this, and it pulls you in two directions. It's almost like synthesis.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 08, 2003.

There are no virtues that are specific to pre-Vatican II Catholics. Virtues are eternal, experienced imperfectly in the Church of God in every time and place, and eventually perfectly in the eternal kingdom. One does get the impression however that humility and obedience are practiced particularly imperfectly among certain small Catholic factions.

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

Emerald,
I'm not pulled in any direction. Both past glory and present experience are excellent sources of grace to one who trusts God. I'm no different from you or any other Catholic, I kneel humbly before God. I have to pray constantly. My love of God wouldn't be greater because priests faced a beautiful altarpiece or spoke Latin.

I dare say that in the past as many unworthy Catholics lived side by side with the devout ones as there are now. They were just harder to distinguish. Did you really think evil thoughts, hypocrisy, cupidity and unfaithfulness increased after the 2nd Vatican Council, just because you don't care for our sanctuary today? Or because many are too stupid to genuflect? Lazarus was a beggar with dogs licking his sores. It didn't keep him out of heaven. It was only his outward appearance.

The past always had its sinners. You focus on what's apparent to you. God has always distinguished well between faith and empty ostentation.

The one thing Christ abhorred in His life among men was the plaster saint, or whitened sepulchre as He called them. Times change but human nature is the same as ever. It's giving God our hearts which will matter. When we leave this life, the organ music and stained glass art stays behind. It has a purpose here; but it's not for separating the people of God, or a rift between ''neos'' and ''trads''. The ONLY thing which ought to separate us from one another is sin.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 09, 2003.

Emerald to Eugene: "All those above virtues you seem to hold dear? They're the stuff of traditional Catholicism. I think you know this, and it pulls you in two directions. It's almost like synthesis. "

Protestants try to claim that reading the Bible is the "stuff" of Bible Christians (protestants). I'm sure that plenty of protestants read and study the Bible more than I, yet I feel no need to leave the Catholic faith.

I'm sure that plenty of schismatic traditionalists read and study the documents of past Church councils more than I, yet I feel no need to leave the Catholic faith for a schismatic faith. I suspect Eugene's in the same boat.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 09, 2003.

Hey Isabel! look at the bright side. You could be married to the sweet Gecik guy. Oh boy, purgatory on earth, or worse.

-- (Anotherdope@bedlam.com), November 09, 2003.

Definitely "purgatory," if that's what is deserved.
But "heaven," if that's what is deserved.
(Not worse than purgatory, though. That would be beyond my capability. She'd need Emerald or Jake for that.)

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

She'd need Emerald or Jake for that

Alas, we're both already married. We're not NFP championing EWTN-flag- waving annulment-seekers, either (NFP is queer, dontchya know - and with Novus Ordo couples contracepting/aborting/sterilizing at the same or greater rate than the pagans around them, and with the aging hippie populace of the Novus Ordo priesthood heading down to Florida by the busloads to play golf & die, the future of the Church really is ours. If we can't pray you out, we'll breed you out!) :-)~

We're in this marriage thing 'til our wives lower our miserable remains into the earth.

Isabel will just have to manage as best she can to expiate her sins without the aid of having either Emerald or myself as her mate. I know and respect her, though, and I know she's got more grace than she needs in her soul to accomplish the task.

Viva Cristo Rey!

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 09, 2003.

Right on, the N.O.'s are aborting, and birth controlling themselves out of existance. The "remnant" will triumph.

-- (whatever @wherever.com), November 09, 2003.

Mateo:

"I'm sure that plenty of schismatic traditionalists read and study the documents of past Church councils more than I, yet I feel no need to leave the Catholic faith for a schismatic faith."

Too bad your claim that traditional Catholics are schismatic cannot be supported.

You're welcome, however, to try to make the claim stick. Nobody has ever done it.

Be careful calling the traditionlist Catholic's Faith a schismatic faith; you may find yourself in denial of the Catholic Faith. It's your own Catholic Faith we hold, and to put us away from yourself is to put Catholicism away from yourself.

We hold all the doctrines of the Catholic Faith, and as for being in schism:

Canon 751 definition of schism: "The refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

That's us that you are refusing communion with.

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

I'm so glad I changed my mind about skipping JFGs posts. I'd miss my daily dose of laughter!

David/e (who inexplicably likes you)

Aye, he's got good taste.

most of the harsh words that I am inclined to use

I know your prefered brand of words. To describe them as harsh is incorrect. Given the content of one of your last rants, I'd say "filty" better describes the words of your choice.

I'll just make this short and sweet.

This means: Make yourself comfortable, Iz. You're in for another long- winded, yet deliciously hilarious JFG Commentary. I hope you're not eating or drinking anything. Soda pop laughed out the nose feels awful. I know.

(And if you don't like what I say or the way that I say it, just realize that it would have been at least five times worse,

OH NO! JFG would have flung an..an...an even *longer* bunch of words at you from his trusty keyboard!

"Isabel," you seem to have forgotten that I totally reject your presence here.

I don't know if she's forgotten, but in any event, I'm pretty sure she doesn't care. I consider you absolutely and completely disqualified and banned.

Well, the moderator doesn't. Apparently he, too, is uninterested in your preception of the situation.

I consider you still unworthy of posting a single word on this forum.

I'm disapointed. I was looking forward to a good laugh. All I feel is sheer boredom. C'mon, John, you can do better than this latest offering. Where's all the "demonically possessed" "servants of Satan" stuff? At this rate I'll be asleep with my head on my keyboard.

I grant you only the barest minimum respect that a human being is required to pay to another for his/her humanity,

What a gift! I'm sure Isabel is just tickled pink.

but I disrespect almost every word and action that you wretchedly impose upon this poor world,

My eyes are perking up. Maybe I'll get my dose of laughter anyway!

which is so underserving of your... contemptuous gaze.

Given the state of the world today, there'd be something wrong with Isabel if she *didn't* regard it with contempt.

Get this straight, "Isabel" -- once and for all time.

UH OH!

I forbid you to ever request anything of me. And if you may not "request" anything,

I hope you're listening, Isabel! A stranger and his keyboard just gave you an order. If you need to be instructed on the salute proper to a chemically-imbalanced stranger, see me for details.

I have posted about 7,000 messages at this forum and,

each one has been either hilarious or a real Snoozer.

of these, literally HUNDREDS have been posts that

have caused countless folks to squirm in boredom while

I posted a mile-long message

And he can never seem to make one single constructive, informative, helpful point to support his stance even though he posts

at great, great length.

Given the fact that you, Iz, are a knowledgeable, good Catholic who knows where to find good solid *correct* information regarding your faith if you wish,

you can only be bothered with spending time on a few selected threads.

You couldn't lower yourself to look at ALL threads

That's right Iz! How dare you read All the threads! I demand you lend your assent to such burning topics as why you shouldn't masturbate, drive a piece of jewelry through your tongue, marry a Bhuddist in a Pagoda and still be recognized as a Catholic

EVERY DAY, as I do.

How boring, right?

Right!

because you should have remembered that I consider the whole freakish lot of you to be banned.

We're back to this again. YAWN.

I require you to cut the sarcasm out of your messages -- all messages, not just to me.

Remember what I said about that proper salute...

If not for David, I'd tell you exactly what you could do with your filthy comments.

You shaking yet, Iz?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 10, 2003.

You certainly love the attention, Regina. Many Pharisees did too. Maybe that's one reason they objected to their Messiah. He got more attention than they did. Instead of charity, you respond with snide remarks. Good goin' Prima Regina!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2003.

"Canon 751 definition of schism: "The refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

That's us that you are refusing communion with."

Umm, explain to me what schismatic traditionalists are doing when they drive hundreds of miles to avoid the current rite of the mass and Our Lord consecrated in the Eucharist. Maybe your personal interpretation of Canon Law is just as wrong as a protestant's personal interpretation of the Scripture. What was that quote from Lumen Gentium again?

Schismatics, multiplying by division...

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 10, 2003.

"Too bad your claim that traditional Catholics are schismatic cannot be supported.

You're welcome, however, to try to make the claim stick. Nobody has ever done it.

Don't worry, protestants think that they're not heretics either. They don't even think that they are outside of Christ's Church. The parallels are endless...

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 10, 2003.

drive hundreds of miles to avoid the current rite of the mass

That's it? Is this the essence of our "schism?"

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 10, 2003.

No, your false pride is the essence of division. Division is schism.

You divide what Christ united in His Mystical Body. Take what name pleases you if you dislike schism.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2003.

Drive hundreds of miles? Well my answer is, that going to the circus once a year is enough. I do not need a weekly dose. Clowns every week is a bit much. Sometime you even have a football player, or even superman. You have to get the kids interested, but once a week, is even a bit much for them.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 10, 2003.

Oh, heck, yeah. Catholics take things like that seriously. Catholics are grown-ups. Like ''Bubbles.'' (Drip.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2003.

No, your false pride is the essence of division. Division is schism.

What is it that we need to assent to that we do not assent to? What, based on Canon Law and the Magesterim, do we need to do to come back into the Fold?

Do you even know?

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 10, 2003.

What was that quote from Lumen Gentium again?

What was that quote from Quo Primum Tempore again?

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 10, 2003.

You disconnect too easily and flippantly.

I mentioned false pride, and division, caused by pride. In other words the foolish Elite.

You want a Canon Law to underscore pride?

Can't offer any. The Devil & his angels might go to court against God and Saint Michael.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2003.

You want a Canon Law to underscore pride?

Nope. Just something to back up your claim of schism.

Got anything?

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 10, 2003.

I spoke of division, which leads to schism. I truly think so.

You divide what Christ united in His Mystical Body. Take what name pleases you if you dislike schism. / Notice I've repeatedly referred to you (correctly) as: Pharisees-- Elitists-- Dividers-- and Dissidents. I've never called you anti-Catholics or protestants (though you protest publicly), and, in fact I've called you Catholic fanatics. How much more Catholic can one be? Schismatic? I can't say. I'm not a theologian. (But I'm not easy to confuse.)

If you believe the Church is about to BENEFIT from your isolationism, you're a fool. For months I've hoped to make you understand. But nothing seems to penetrate your overweening PRIDE ! ! !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2003.

Just some random Canons I found online:

Can. 1215 §1 No church is to be built without the express and written consent of the diocesan Bishop.

§2 The diocesan Bishop is not to give his consent until he has consulted the council of priests and the rectors of neighbouring churches, and then decides that the new church can serve the good of souls and that the necessary means will be available to build the church and to provide for divine worship.

§3 Even though they have received the diocesan Bishop's consent to establish a new house in a diocese or city, religious institutes must obtain the same Bishop's permission before they may build a church in a specific and determined place.

Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

[updated via Ad Tuendam Fidam]

1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in Can. 1364 §1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teaching mentioned in Canon 750 §2 or in Can. 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;

2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.

Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

From an online article:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

St. Thomas Aquinas: "The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say rebelliously, since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to subject to her judgment" (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae Q.39 Art. 1. Dominican Fathers translation).

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 10, 2003.

None of the schismatics will likely read or comment on that link, which was excellent, but don't be suprised if one of them posts a picture of a priest on a sailboat.

Frank

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

Instead of charity, you respond with snide remarks

Had that rotten post of JFG's been directed to me, I would have probably ignored it, or possibly found a way to respond charitably. There is nothing wrong with defending a friend, and I'm trying to make it clear, in terms he can only understand, that his daily hatespeeches are a waste of time on his part, and serve no other purpose to us other than amusement. If he wants to continue to be laughed at, he should continue what he's been doing. If he wants to be taken seriously and really does wish to instruct, he should behave as a Catholic. Catholics are leaders. Not bullies.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 10, 2003.

There is no obligation to put up with bullies. Nevertheless you can be charitable if you try.

I suspect that John resorts to his unpleasant strategy these days for a practical reason. He may be trying to reduce threads like this one to a frenzy of ill-will in order to compel the Moderator to delete the whole batch. What else is left for him to do? He's been unable for several months, to ban you & your elitist company by acting with discretion. You folks are insufferable, IMO-- He no longer posts with any prudence at all since he aches for the day you're thrown out. That's his way of enforcing rules around here.

You should forget your wounded pride and face the inevitable reality: there's NO sympathy in our forum for your grievances. If you continue to flip John & others off by insisting, you invite their open resentment. That only leaves you one way to react; with snide remarks and insults. Catholics might be ''leaders'' in your judgment. Popes and bishops are our appointed leaders, by my own. I choose to follow the Pope. --Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2003.

Hi, Frank!

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 10, 2003.

No sailboat?

Frank

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

"Umm, explain to me what schismatic traditionalists are doing when they drive hundreds of miles to avoid the current rite of the mass and Our Lord consecrated in the Eucharist."

This paragraph contains the premise that a traditional Catholics are trying to avoid the Blessed Sacrament.

I don't agree with this premise, so I can't explain to you what I do not think is happening.

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

"Don't worry, protestants think that they're not heretics either. They don't even think that they are outside of Christ's Church. The parallels are endless..."

That sounds like a good idea; let's give it a shot.

Let's do a comparison of a traditional Catholics doctrine to Protestant doctrine. Supposedly the parallels are mind-numbing, so doctrinally, tradtional Catholics and Protestants should be really close, right?

How well is that one going to turn out, Mateo?

Next, we'll do a doctrinal comparison between a Conciliar Catholic with a Traditionalist Catholic. I suppose they, um... should come out different, correct?

See, maybe I can squeeze it out of you just yet, just maybe. Through another door.

This question, that is: What are the new teachings of Vatican II which the tradionalists do not lend their assent to, that put them apart from Conciliar Catholics?

If it's not doctrinal and related to heresy, and if it's all in the department of schism, then tell me how it is that traditionalists are in schism.

If it's the Novus Ordo Missae, then, tell me how the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically connected to the documents of Vatican II.

Give me something, anything, that provides the principle of separation.

What is the principle of the division. What.

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

Regard the list of things, Mateo, that you've posted from Canon law and other sources, I have done a thorough examination of conscience, and have concluded the following:

1. Of building a church without permission: not guilty

2. Of being a diocesan Bishop failing to do due diligence concerning the above: not guilty

3. Of more stuff about building churches: not guilty

4. Of inciting my subjects (my kids?) to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary: not guilty

5. Of consecrating a person a Bishop: not guilty

6. Of the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith: not guilty

If have, however, in the course of said examination, produced the following:

1. Not doing my daily duty without murmuring: guilty

2. Being selfish and impatient: guilty

etc.

You get the idea I think.

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

"Let's do a comparison of a traditional Catholics doctrine to Protestant doctrine. Supposedly the parallels are mind-numbing, so doctrinally, tradtional Catholics and Protestants should be really close, right? "

Huh? You're missing the point of a clear statement. Do you really believe that the inference you're making can be made, or are you just getting desperate to win an argument?

Invalid inferences, quoting imaginary interlocutors, etc, etc. Yes, this stuff is mind numbing...my goodness...

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 10, 2003.

"Regard the list of things, Mateo, that you've posted from Canon law and other sources, I have done a thorough examination of conscience, and have concluded the following:"

Great, we all know that you're attending an indult. I have also heard you in complete support with those who attend illicit schismatic masses. Have you changed your mind? If you didn't have an indult locally, would you attend an illicit mass to avoid the churches in union with the local bishop?

I believe that there's a direct relationship between one's level of schism and their ability to squirm and wiggle to avoid questions that point out the schism. It's just a theory, though.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 10, 2003.

While you squirm on the other questions, here's another Emerald:

Based on Canon Law, do you think that the priests in SSPX are in schism with the Catholic Church? Are they in conformance of Canon Law? Please support your answer.

If a priest is only breaking a Canon Law (let's say he gets married and attempts to continue his priestly ministry), is he in schism? If not, what is his status in the Church?

Personal interpretation of Scripture...personal interpretation of Tradition. It's all protestantism.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 10, 2003.

"here's another Emerald"

Opps...it wasn't another Emerald. It should have read, "Here's some more questions." There's only one "Emerald."

Waiting with bated breath...

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 10, 2003.

I said:

"Let's do a comparison of a traditional Catholics doctrine to Protestant doctrine. Supposedly the parallels are mind-numbing, so doctrinally, tradtional Catholics and Protestants should be really close, right?"

To which you say:

"Huh? You're missing the point of a clear statement. Do you really believe that the inference you're making can be made, or are you just getting desperate to win an argument?"

Actually, I'm not missing the point, because there's no comparison whatsoever between a traditional Catholic and a Protestant.

To go through some possibilities of a comparison:

Are there any grounds for a comparison on doctrinal matters? Absolutely none whatsoever. However, there is arguably much more of what Protestanism entails in the beliefs Conciliar Catholic.

How about a comparison of the liturgy and prayer of the traditional Catholic Mass to Protestanism? Little. However, there is arguably much more of a likeness of a Conciliar Catholic to Protestanism in liturgy and prayer.

So what exactly are you getting at in this comparison of Traditional Catholics to Protestants?

Is it this: that you assume that the tradtional Catholic is refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff? This must be how we are to be said to be Protestants.

The problem with this, though, is that traditional Catholics do not reject the Roman Pontiff. Perhaps you can lay out the case as to how they do.

Now it may be the case in the case of this group or that group you could do so, and in some cases very easily.

But this does not speak to the phenomena known as traditional Catholicism. It's a phenonema that is not going to go away, because it has nothing to do with submission to the Roman Pontiff but about hanging on to what the Catholic Church has always believed and practiced.

The pontiff has never excommunicated Traditional Catholics. And I don't mean a tug of war over the word traditional between you and me, I mean the phenomena we both know exists: that of Traditionalist Catholics.

Traditionalist Catholics have not been excommunicated for being Traditionalist Catholics. Except by you, maybe... =) But not by the Roman Pontiff.

What will never go away is the heart of the matter is this absurdity: that while you would like to make a comparison of traditional Catholics to Protestants, it is the Conciliar Church which appears, more and more every day, to have the look, the feel, and the doctrinal understanding of Protestantism. Log, eye, etc.

I would be incumbent upon you, in that sense, to explain how it is that while traditional Catholics remain believing and praying the same way, that the Conciliar Church is praying and believing more and more Protestant-ly every day.

All this, while Mateo, a Conciliar Catholic, accuses of the tradtional Catholics of being something like Protestants. There's this line I love out of one of Aristotle's works, I forget in which of his works, where he says something like this, from memory here:

"Now that we have come up with a theory, let's now see if the theory fits the facts" or in other words, if the theory fist with commone experience.

Your facts don't. You make a comparison between traditional Catholics and Protestants, while the Conciliar Catholicism we see today is becoming more and more Protestant looking all the time. It's all upside down, and it doesn't work in your favor.

"Great, we all know that you're attending an indult. I have also heard you in complete support with those who attend illicit schismatic masses."

The use of the phrase "illicit, schismatic masses" is pre- loading with a conclusion of your own. You need to produce examples and show Masses that in fact illicit and schismatic.

As a sidenote, however, I have a hard time understanding how a Mass can be schismatic. I thought people were.

"If you didn't have an indult locally, would you attend an illicit mass to avoid the churches in union with the local bishop?"

The Vatican said it was alright to attend, for example, an SSPX. They said so by name, because they were asked specifically about the SSPX masses. Rome has spoken, I guess. Do you disagree with them on that point?

"I believe that there's a direct relationship between one's level of schism and their ability to squirm and wiggle to avoid questions that point out the schism. It's just a theory, though."

It shouldn't hold up long. There are no levels of schism; schism doesn't admit of variation of degree; one is either in schism or isn't. They either reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff, or they don't. Where are you getting the idea that there a levels of schism?

Perhaps you're using the wrong term anyways; maybe the application of the word disobedience would be better in the interests of your cause than the word schism.

"While you squirm on the other questions, here's another Emerald: Based on Canon Law, do you think that the priests in SSPX are in schism with the Catholic Church? Are they in conformance of Canon Law? Please support your answer."

I don't know all the details surrounding the situation of the SSPX, so I'm not really qualified to answer that question. Was I supposed to know in order to be a traditional Catholic?

Answer: No.

It's not going to be the big touche you're looking for, and here's why: My objective is to support traditional Catholicism, not the SSPX. Whatever the SSPX has in common with traditional Catholicism I would be in agreement with them on.

"If a priest is only breaking a Canon Law (let's say he gets married and attempts to continue his priestly ministry), is he in schism? If not, what is his status in the Church?"

I guess I would have to study up on the details of that question, because I don't know all the details concerning those things. Why do you ask?

"Personal interpretation of Scripture...personal interpretation of Tradition. It's all protestantism."

I would say that the ambiguity of the Conciliar documents gives rise to the need for interpretation, much of which ends up being interpreted in a Protestant sense, which would make sense of what I said earlier in the post about how absurd it was that you make a comparison of traditional Catholics to Protestants while it is the Conciliar Church that looks and prayers and believes more like Protestants every day.

It looks like this:

Mateo wants me to be more like a Protestant in order to avoid becoming a Protestant.

It's really just that absurb, and it's all based on technicalities too, something I thought the Conciliar Church was supposed to be getting away from in order to have more the spirit of things than the letter. Tremendous progress has been made, I see.

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

Boo, Frank!

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 10, 2003.

Mr. Tweedle-Dee writes: "the future of the Church really is ours. If we can't pray you out, we'll breed you out!) :-)~"

The "future of" Protestantism may be yours, but not "of the Church." You may "breed" out the rest of the world's heretics. But perhaps, instead, the good Lord will be kind enough to help your broods rebel against you and join the true Church of Jesus, which their parents deserted.

"We're in this marriage thing 'til our wives lower our miserable remains into the earth."

Ah, but maybe one of you will outlive your wife and then be free to marry "Isabel," so that you can effortlessly give her the "hell on earth" that I am too sweet to be able to give her.

Master Tweedle-Dumb (and I mean rrrreeaaally Dumb) writes:
"Be careful calling the [pseudo-]traditionalist [ex-]Catholic's Faith a schismatic faith ..."

Be "careful"? Why? Are you threatening to bring a pea-shooter (or six-shooter) against us? We certainly have nothing to fear from God in calling you what you are -- de facto schismo-heretical. We don't mind being martyrs for standing up for the truth that you have left the Church and endangered your soul.

"It's your own Catholic Faith we hold, and to put us away from yourself is to put Catholicism away from yourself."

No comedian on Earth could make me laugh as hard as that asinine statement made me laugh. You probably "hold" only 3/4 of "our own Catholic Faith," if you're lucky.

"We hold all the doctrines of the Catholic Faith ..."

Tweedle-Dumb indeed! Your words would be hilarious, if your impending damnation were not involved.

"Canon 751 definition of schism: 'The refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.'"

Bingo! You qualify!

Mrs. Tweedle-Dee writes: "... I'm trying to make it clear, in terms he can only understand, that his daily hatespeeches are a waste of time on his part, and serve no other purpose to us other than amusement. If he wants to continue to be laughed at, he should continue what he's been doing."

This shows the pride and self-centeredness that could have been predicted in this poor woman. She actually thinks that I write my messages especially to communicate something to her and her fellow street-gang members. Perhaps one or more Catholics have been wrongly thinking the same thing. If so, I would be deeply disappointed that anyone would think that my messages have been primarily, or secondarily, or even tertiarily for these lost souls.

I would be shocked to know that some have never realized that I gave up on three of these people when they were banned for sacrilegious language 1.5 years ago -- and that I gave up on the last one a few months later, when he defended, and failed to condemn, the actions of the other three. Why have I done this? Because I firmly believe in the Gospel, which teaches us two relevant things here: (a) not to cast our pearls before swine, and (b) to shake the dust from our feet as a testimony against those who do not accept the Catholic message. It should be obvious that they are not worthy of the privilege of coming to this forum -- except as silent lurkers (to learn the Catholic Faith).

I always thought that everyone knew that my frequent anti-heretical messages are only ostensibly directed to the Four Schismatic Stooges. I always thought that everyone knew that my messages actually have had the following purposes (in order of importance):

1. To protect lurkers -- especially young Catholics (lest they join schism or heresy) and non-Catholics (lest they think that Regina's Raiders are actually Catholic).

2. To continue the daily reminding of the moderator of his obligation, under pain of sin, to ban Regina's Raiders (as a sort of "medicinal excommunication" of them, for the protection of lurkers, and as an act of justice to us Catholics, so that we needn't waste time on these turkeys).

3. To stir up my fellow Catholics to join me in protesting the Raiders' presence -- and especially to join me in persuading the moderator to do his duty (either addressing him via public messages or private e-mails). Because of what he has told me, I am confident that (unless he is a liar) he will ban them if there is sufficient outcry -- and public outcry would be much better than private. I know that I am not the only person who has asked him to ban the Raiders, but some deplorable weakness has been making him hold back, up to this point. He has banned people who admit to being Protestant, but he has not banned real Catholics -- nor Protestants who pretend to be Catholic (like the Raiders). Maybe he fears that they will try to cause him some harm in his ministry as a deacon or otherwise, if he bans them. I just don't know.

4. Only here, in position #4, can I say that my messages have a purpose related to the evildoers. After I gave up on them, I never had any thought that I could persuade them to change their minds via argumentation. (A lamb cannot reason with a viper.) But maybe someday, the Holy Spirit would succeed in using some little word or phrase of mine as a battering ram to break into the consciousness of one of these lost souls, helping them to take the first step back toward the true Church of Jesus.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

"1. Of building a church without permission: not guilty ... [blah, blah, blah] ... not guilty ... 6. [blah] ... not guilty."

HOWEVER ...
7. Of aiding and abetting, sympathizing with, failing to condemn, and publicly supporting people who are guilty of some of #1 to #6: GUILTY (and therefore de facto schismatic). [Heretical too, but that's another story.]

Q: "If you didn't have an indult locally, would you attend an illicit Mass to avoid the churches in union with the local bishop?"
A: "The Vatican said it was alright to attend, for example, an SSPX."

This is ultra-misleading -- as could be expected from Tweedle-Dumb. My recollection is that an individual in the Vatican expressed an opinion that this could be tolerated on an exceptional basis, for some special reason -- not that Catholics could attend the (illicitly celebrated) SSPX Masses, on a regular basis, as a substitute for licitly celebrated Masses. Regular attendance at SSPX Masses is usually a schismatic act in itself or -- over time will engender a schismatic mentality in the attendee. That is why regular attendance is forbidden.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

Emerald: "Actually, I'm not missing the point"

Emerald, you are missing the point.

Emerald: "Perhaps you can lay out the case as to how they do."

I have. As a true believer in your friends' schism, you just won't listen.

Emerald: "Traditionalist Catholics have not been excommunicated for being Traditionalist Catholics. Except by you, maybe... =) But not by the Roman Pontiff."

First, this is either a lie or ignorance. Here is the truth:

"July 1, 1988, Cardinal Gantin issued a formal decree of excommunication announcing that Lefebvre, Castro Mayer, and the four new bishops had performed a schismatic act and excommunicated themselves in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Canon Law. The following day, July 2, 1988, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" in which he solemnly confirmed both the excommunications and the existence of the schism."

Second, to try to discredit me by saying that I "excommunicate" people is just dumb. Could you provide me the quote where you can support such an accusation?

"I would be incumbent upon you, in that sense, to explain how it is that while traditional Catholics remain believing and praying the same way, that the Conciliar Church is praying and believing more and more Protestant-ly every day."

Sameness does not prove that a group is more Catholic than the pope. If a splinter group of Catholics started consecrating loaves of bread and sending them from home to home, would that be "more Catholic" because that was done way back when? How about if people performed marriages at home instead of at a Catholic church, because way back when, that's how they did things? What if a group preferred worship only in catacombs with bones all over the place? Outward appearances and rituals do not show a group to be more Catholic than the pope. They only show an attachment to specific traditions of the Church.

BTW, there is no "Conciliar Church" or "NewChurch." There is only a Catholic Church.

Part of my list of similarities:

1) Protestants think they are truer Christians than Catholic Christians.

2) Schismatics think they are truer Catholics than Catholic Christians.

Delusions inspired by the same spirit.

Emerald: "As a sidenote, however, I have a hard time understanding how a Mass can be schismatic. I thought people were."

Trying to avoid a direct question with a diversion. Here's the question reworded in the hopes that you don't continue the squirming:

"I have also heard you in complete support with those who attend illicit SSPX masses."

The belief that the SSPX masses are illicit comes from Rome. I can't take the credit for that. Please don't run away from this question by arguing the term "illicit," as if I need to prove it again with the same documents that we are all familiar with.

"It shouldn't hold up long. There are no levels of schism; schism doesn't admit of variation of degree; one is either in schism or isn't. They either reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff, or they don't. Where are you getting the idea that there a levels of schism?"

So based on your input, I'll make the following adjustment: "I believe that people in schism squirm and wiggle to avoid questions that point out the schism." You're just proving me right. Thanks for the help fine-tuning my theory.

"My objective is to support traditional Catholicism, not the SSPX. Whatever the SSPX has in common with traditional Catholicism I would be in agreement with them on. "

Multiplication by division. Welcome to protestantism, Emerald. Who's the "true" traditionalist? Pope Emerald. Everyone else's understanding of traditionalism goes down from Mr. Numero Uno. Congrat's on your coronation. L@L

Thank you, John, for the additional comments.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 11, 2003.

I said: "Traditionalist Catholics have not been excommunicated for being Traditionalist Catholics. Except by you, maybe... =) But not by the Roman Pontiff."

To which you replied:

"First, this is either a lie or ignorance."

It is neither; because as you stated:

"Here is the truth:

"July 1, 1988, Cardinal Gantin issued a formal decree of excommunication announcing that Lefebvre, Castro Mayer, and the four new bishops had performed a schismatic act and excommunicated themselves in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Canon Law.

Even if I never took issue with the adherence of the excommunication itself to the details of canon law, and just handed you this de facto, it still only involves the above mentioned six people.

Six people, Mateo, over a specific act of disobedience. This excommunication did not involve anything other than that act. It did not involve any particular issue which makes up the things that make up what IS a traditionalist Catholic. Not one. Not the Mass of Trent nor the dogged adherence to any of the always-in- force doctrines of the Catholic Church. Not the resistance to novelties, not even the avoidance of the Novus Ordo Missae, not even the questions and concerns over the nature and substance of Vatican Council II.

Nothing; nothing to do with any of these things. Nothing to do with any of the traditionalists that exist who mull such things over in their minds day to day in consideration of the mess that has become of our visible Catholic unity.

It's over one act involving obedience as it's object. Not doctrine, not liturgy, and not tradtion. If I were to hand it to you entirely that this was indeed a real, valid and completely 100% full-force excommunication, this fact alone would not touch traditional Catholics in their core beliefs and would involve no more than the above mentioned persons. Extend it to the resulting preisthoods and it still remains linear in that regard, not touching the substance of traditional Catholicism.

It's not what you know as the traditionalist Catholics that are under fire here Mateo, but the above mentioned act itself.

If they want to fire on us directly, let them do it. They can't, and they won't because they know they can't, because traditional Catholics hold the Faith. But they want to, because it's the Faith that's under attack. Back-door insinuations are as far as things ever go, because it can't be done outright, because the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

Insinuations, I might add, that are not unlike the ones we are constantly defending ourselves against... see here:

"Second, to try to discredit me by saying that I "excommunicate" people is just dumb. Could you provide me the quote where you can support such an accusation?"

Each and every time you refer to tradtional Catholics as schismatics when they most certainly are not. Every time any one of the forumites calls traditional Catholics such labels when even the Roman Pontiff himself has not done so, but has merely excommunicated six people for a particular act, without so much as touching upon the essence of traditional Catholicism in doing so. That's support enough.

"Sameness does not prove that a group is more Catholic than the pope."

"Catholic" does not admit of variation of degree... that is, unless there really are "mysterious relationships" which nonCatholics have to the Church beyond the Mystical Body of Christ synonymous with the Catholic Church as made clear by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi, let alone throughout 2,000 years of tradition. The use of the term "more Catholic" belongs squarely in the domain of the post-conciliar modernist Catholic's deviant-from- doctrine understandings of the borders of the Catholic Church, as evidenced by the continued use of the phrase "fullness of the Faith", unprecedented in it's use througout the Church's history, as well as the Ecumenist movement itself. The very concept of being more Catholic has no place in traditional Catholicism, but finds it's home only in Conciliar Catholicism. And they milk it for all it's worth.

"BTW, there is no "Conciliar Church" or "NewChurch." There is only a Catholic Church."

Why are we at odds, then? The traditional Catholics... they have not moved. They remain fixed. If, then, there is no difference between us, then you must necessarily stand with us.

"Here's the question reworded in the hopes that you don't continue the squirming: "I have also heard you in complete support with those who attend illicit SSPX masses." The belief that the SSPX masses are illicit comes from Rome. I can't take the credit for that."

And I cannot take credit for this. It's a letter from Rome explaining that one can in fact attend an SSPX mass without sinning in doing so.

As long, that is, that they don't "manifest [their] desire to separate [themselves] from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him", the letter states.

And no traditional Catholic would do this anyways, since it would be a denial of the Catholic Faith. So obviously there is more to this question than a series of rhetorical quips. Dig deeper.

I said:

"My objective is to support traditional Catholicism, not the SSPX. Whatever the SSPX has in common with traditional Catholicism I would be in agreement with them on."

You said:

"Multiplication by division. Welcome to protestantism, Emerald. Who's the "true" traditionalist? Pope Emerald. Everyone else's understanding of traditionalism goes down from Mr. Numero Uno. Congrat's on your coronation. L@L"

I don't understand what you mean, and I'm being honest. I don't get it.

"Thank you, John, for the additional comments."

This, I understand. I would like to take this opportunity to tell Isabel that she has my deepest, deepest respect.

It's coming up on one year ago, that in January of this year, I made the commitment, directly as a result of discussions in this forum, to solely attend the Mass of Trent. I've kept it. It's not been an easy year, but by far the best year of my entire life. Jake and his wife have the same respect I accord to Isabel, not to mention Robert and the others.

Ironically, in attending the Mass of Trent, I attend that same Mass which the Holy Father Pope John Paul II himself has given his blessing to, calling for a wide and generous application of in the same document, Ecclesia Dei, that is supposed to be so damning to me and my kind.

With his blessing then, I will continue to get as many people to go to the Mass of Trent as possible.

But more ironically still than all else, has to be this: the Bishops of the conciliar mindset have been disobedient to the Pope in not granting a "wide and generous application" of this Mass of Trent for the people of the Universal Church.

Don't lose sight of us altogether; you may need us traditionalists someday. We'll still be holding the same doctrines and the same liturgy that expresses those doctrines when the time comes when they're needed the most.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.

Emerald,

"July 1, 1988, Cardinal Gantin issued a formal decree of excommunication announcing that Lefebvre, Castro Mayer, and the four new bishops had performed a schismatic act and excommunicated themselves in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Canon Law.

Even if I never took issue with the adherence of the excommunication itself to the details of canon law, and just handed you this de facto, it still only involves the above mentioned six people.

This is as far as I read of your post. It has been covered extensively before. The sad part is you can't even SAY that Lefebvre et. al. were excommunicated, but say "even if". Start there Emerald, again, try and get the strength to give a "yes" or "no" answer, which I know is very hard for you. Was Lefebvre excommunicated or not? Yes or no?

After giving that answer, assuming you can do it, I know you read the rest of Ecclesia Dei, so how do you figure that in contrast to what the document says followers in "formal adherence" to Lefebvre's schism are NOT excommunicated? Well, on second thought, just skip this for now, and try as hard as you can to give a simple "yes or no" to the first question, was Lefebvre excommunicated, or not?

Frank

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

Mr. Tweedle-Dee writes:

Dang! Can't I be Tweedle Dumb? You already gave "Moe" away to Isabel, leaving me stuck with "Larry." The name-calling scale is tipped against me.

Perhaps I should implore the Moderator's intervention to obtain a more equitabe distribution of insults. Lord knows he doesn't seem to be listening to anything you say.

The "future of" Protestantism may be yours, but not "of the Church."

I disagree. Given the rate at which Novus Ordos are contracepting, aborting, and sterilizing themselves (Traditional Catholic families are growing, because they're doing what God told them to do in the bringing up of children), and the rate at which the horribly formed post-Conciliar priesthood is dying, retiring, and being defrocked for perversion (Traditional seminaries have no shortage of vocations), your New Springtime pipe dream is doomed to failure. You went to college, do the math.

Ah, but maybe one of you will outlive your wife

Statistically unlikely, but admittedly possible. If that happens, I hope to be too old by then to entertain any thought of marriage, since the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children.

Another possibility is that your Heaven-sent lightning bolt might come through and wipe me off the face of the earth at an early age, thereby leaving my wife a widow. Re-work your equation for that variable, willya?

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

"This is as far as I read of your post. It has been covered extensively before."

Then perhaps, Frank, you should opt yourself out of the conversation, because I explained why and told the truth.

You need to go back upthread and read what I said.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.

Emerald,

You STILL can't answer a yes or no question: Was Lefebvre excommunicated or not? Emerald, why should ANYONE read through your lengthy posts when you can't or won't even answer a simple question? If you don't have the honesty to simply state what you believe, why should I wade through your lengthy deceptions of what you may or may not believe?

Frank

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

Another possibility is that your Heaven-sent lightning bolt might come through and wipe me off the face of the earth at an early age, thereby leaving my wife a widow. Re-work your equation for that variable, willya?

Well, I can tell ya' right now, I'm not marrying Regina. No offense, Regina, you understand.

My friends, thank you for your compliments. You know who you are, and so does everyone else by now. lol. I don't think John will be accidentally put in that group. Really, I am truly humbled.

I see you there John. You are quite entertaining. Haven't laughed that hard in a while. Be back to you soon. Can't resist, you see. Even though I'm sure you will say you don't want me to respond, I can see you now, checking this thread everyday to see if I've responded, so you can have an excuse to go on another long, childish, name-calling tirade. Come on, my children can think of better insults than that. Would you like me to give you some pointers? I learned much from them.

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

You know Isabel, if you ever return to the faith it will be a real bonus for us.

Frank

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

Somehow, it's OK to worship under an excommunicated hierarchy, as long as one doesn't get a personal letter from Rome excommunicating them. Is this the logic? If so, it's right in line with other heretics and schismatics. They believe that not getting such a letter is somehow justification for their dissent.

"Don't lose sight of us altogether; you may need us traditionalists someday."

Schismatics delude themselves into thinking they are saving Tradition in much the same way that protestants delude themselves into thinking that they are saving the Bible. According to the protestant propoganda, the Catholic Church hated the Bible so much that it burned it to keep it from Christians. Who knows what propoganda the schismatics will invent. I'm sure that they are well on their way to establishing a Jake Chick website. Schismatic traditionalists aren't saving tradition. They are forming their own NewChurch.

Going back to some old stuff:

Emerald: "It shouldn't hold up long. There are no levels of schism; schism doesn't admit of variation of degree; one is either in schism or isn't. They either reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff, or they don't. Where are you getting the idea that there a levels of schism?"

We could look at schism in this way: a group who pretends to have its own pope (as some schismatics do) is "more schismatic" than a group that establishes churches without the permission of their bishop. And the latter is "more schismatic" than someone who supports such a schismatic act. But in a sense, you are still correct: it's all fruit from the same tree. It's all schism.

Emerald: "My objective is to support traditional Catholicism, not the SSPX. Whatever the SSPX has in common with traditional Catholicism I would be in agreement with them on."

It's clear that it is your personal opinion which guides you to measure what true "traditional Catholicism" is. Your statement begs the question: when is the SSPX at odds with "traditional Catholicism?"

In my view, one who holds traditional Catholicism is obedient to the pope. Obedience seems to have slipped away from traditionalist schismatics.

Emerald: "I would be incumbent upon you, in that sense, to explain how it is that while traditional Catholics remain believing and praying the same way."

It would be incumbent upon you to prove that Catholics have a long tradition of disobedience to prove that traditional Catholics are "true" Catholics.

Emerald: "As a sidenote, however, I have a hard time understanding how a Mass can be schismatic. I thought people were."

If I said that I lived in a happy home, would you respond, "I have a hard time understanding how a home can be happy"? If so, I would have a hard time believing that English was your native language. It's statements like this that show that you are not being honest in your dialog (not to mention the previous things I've already mentioned). You've really gotten into a mode of stealthy, evasive responses. I'm just not too interested in playing these games with you.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 11, 2003.

One last thing:

"It's over one act involving obedience as it's object. Not doctrine, not liturgy, and not tradtion. If I were to hand it to you entirely that this was indeed a real, valid and completely 100% full- force excommunication, this fact alone would not touch traditional Catholics in their core beliefs and would involve no more than the above mentioned persons."

Hence, schism is accurate, and not heresy. One must use appropriate terms.

I like the isolation technique you use. Somehow, assenting to the authority of an excommunicated bishop and the men he attempted to consecrate is OK?

Here's a true/false question for you:

Every act of establishing a church in the diocese of a Catholic bishop without the bishop's permission is a violation of Canon Law. (True/False)

"If I were to hand it to you entirely that this was indeed a real, valid and completely 100% full-force excommunication..."

Was it a fake excommunication?

Was it an invalid excommunication?

Was it a 50% excommunication?

Was it a partial-force excommunication?

Wait a second, I'm beginning to post like you. Dang!

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 11, 2003.

You're not interested, I would speculate, because you know that it isn't a game, you know that I'm being very serious and being as honest as I can be, and because it just might be too darn much trouble on your end to really, really try to figure out what the trouble is in the Church at this time. Basically, imho you're settling for the explanation to our crisis that is most readily available. My contention is that that explanation does not represent the truth.

If you've had enough, then I can go along with that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.

so how do you figure that in contrast to what the document says followers in "formal adherence" to Lefebvre's schism are NOT excommunicated?

I'll leave Emerald to answer the question you asked of him, Frank. I've got a couple of questions for you though: Would you please define "formal adherence" for me? If a person wishes to attend the Traditional Mass out of "preference" but cannot find an indult within a reasonable distance, is he "formally adhering" to "schism" if he attends an SSPX Mass for no reason other than to assist at the Mass he prefers? Or does the "formal adherence" to "schism" apply to people who attend an SSPX Mass for the sole purpose of separating himself from the Holy Father? If so, I'm sure they become most disapointed to discover that the Pope is prayed for at every SSPX Mass.

Now, if the "formal adherence" to "schism" can be defined by our resistance to the new Mass, why then, does history not regard as schismatics the *violent* resistance of the people of Milan to *papal* efforts to eliminate the Ambrosian rite of the Mass?

You can read this very long, but very interesting story about it here at New Advent.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 11, 2003.

"You're not interested, I would speculate, because you know that it isn't a game, you know that I'm being very serious and being as honest as I can be,"

You speculate wrongly. Your posts have become a game of "hide and go seek" to find what you really believe and what the extent of your faithfulness to the Catholic Church is. I've given straight-forward answers and asked straight-forward questions. You have

*) evaded questions

*) ignored questions

*) attempted to change questions after I answered them to show me wrong

*) answered questions I didn't ask

*) quoted an imaginary interlocutor, as if successfully answering an imaginary argument proves a point

*) made false accusations against me

Is this the honest, serious dialog that you're talking about? To me, these are the techniques of someone playing a game. True debate is fine. Playing games is tiresome.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 11, 2003.

Indeed it is.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.

Jakie does his private pronouncement on all Catholics post- Vatican II:

''Given the rate at which Novus Ordos are contracepting, aborting, and sterilizing themselves (Traditional Catholic families are ''growing'', because they're doing what God told them to do in the bringing up of children),''

Yeah, and from your private armory of factual info, I'm sterilized, every wife had an abortion, nobody except the elite rears families, and all our priesthood is tainted or unfrocked.--? ? ?

Our presence in this forum, in fact, offends Jake. He's Catholic, not me.

I marvel at his capacity to judge who gets abortions nowadays. Who is sterilized. Most of all, I marvel at Jake's summary judgment of the Catholic Church. What are Novus Ordos ? -- Savonarola brought to perfection in a later reincarnation; lighting up this forum's vanities in the ''trad'' bonfire? He has the capacity! No authority; just chutzpa. Pharisee ! ! !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

Hi, Gene.

JFG called you a "quadruple jackass" earlier today.

Just so's you know.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

If he does, I can take it.

Just by informing me in this insidious manner you prove my best point.

I have to ask; what is Jake? Is he truly a fervent Catholic, at the end of his tether? But he has none.

He is now doing exactly what God's enemies do, tempting us to sin. I never thought of him before as a tool of the devil. But by his fury at us, Jake starts to remove any doubts. Honestly, I never thought I'd meet a Catholic hate-monger in this forum. May God forgive him his iniquity.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

I don't know what "New Orders" are either, but hopefully no-one is so naive as to think that no couples who attend a Latin Mass are practicing birth control? And hopefully no-one is so out of touch with reality as to imagine that contraception, abortion, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, child molestation, or any other type of sin was unheard of in the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II?

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

If he does, I can take it.

Like you have a choice.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

''Never thought I'd meet a Catholic hate-monger in this forum.'' Repeated /

We know you hate John. Is it necessary to incite others to that hatred? You do that, you know. I forgive you. I forgive John. I don't hate you OR him. I feel sorry for you, today.

I feel sorry for him; in that his anger is out of control. But he'll come to his senses, Jake. You never will; you suffer from self-love and egotistic ill-will. a poisonous defect in most men. More so in men of passing intelligence, because they won't answer to anybody. Again; I'm sorry about what's happened to you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

I guess that's fair enough. Thank you.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Halloween Mass and Under-Educated Priests

"Pastor Brian Joyce" (that's "Fr. Joyce" to you old pre-Vatican II dinosaurs) published a letter to his parishoners on the parish website for the week of 10/19/03. A few paragraphs are of special interest. Regarding John Paul II, "Pastor Brian" says:

"As the first Pope ever to visit a Jewish Synagogue in Rome, to publicly pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem and to visit a mosque in Morocco, he twice convened the leaders of other world religions to pray together in Assisi and together to denounce acts of war and terrorism carried out in the name of religion."

Get that? He "twice convened the leaders of other world religions to pray together in Assisi." As one astute visitor to the Novus Ordo Watch site pointed out, it seems poor Pastor Brian didn't get the memo: the world religions did not "pray together" in Assisi, they "came together to pray."

Of course, if even parish priests, who are supposed to be "in the know," are getting confused as to what really happened in Assisi, one wonders exactly how the common layman is supposed to naturally grasp the finer nuances of this event that neo-Catholic apologists insist should be clear. If even Pastor Brian mistakenly thought the religious leaders were actually praying together at Assisi, what about the millions of faithful Catholics all over the world? And Traditionalists are being scoffed at for taking offense to the scandal?

Pastor Brian ends his parish letter with the following fun tid-bit:

"Next weekend we celebrate Halloween with special costumed liturgies at 5:00 pm Saturday and 9:15 am Sunday. Young and old are invited to wear their favorite Halloween costumes."

You can either laugh or cry, I guess. Or just puke. I'm trying to envision now the sight of hundreds of becostumed folks, making their way to the front of the Sanctuary to present themselves to Our Holy Savior dressed as... you name it. Dracula? Frankenstein? The Wolf- Man? How about a zombie, a witch, a goblin, a ghoul, or (gasp) Britney Spears?

How do you spell reverence?

-- Denny (Denton Flagg@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003.

Why are you ''traditionist'' and the priest in question somebody you must puke at? Is it traditional practice to puke at the Mass?

The thought of this travesty is certainly sad. But why must we hate that gathering of revelers, as if they were being sacreligious? Why would you call them devils, instead of what they were-- odd- balls?

The very observance of Halloween is a tradition going back some centuries. Mardi Gras was celebrated long before the coming of Vatican II. Do we lay the blame for that on the Tridentine Rite, or on Tradition ? ? ?

No. They are just some of the liberties frequently taken by stupid people all over this world. Some are unfortunately Catholics. (Tell you a secret: some Catholics go to hell. Some Catholics steal and murder. Are we to blame our faith?)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

The All Souls Day Mass in my parish is followed by a time of safe fun and games for the children, clean entertainment, and indoor trick-or-treating from room to room in the parish school. The children do wear their costumes to mass. However, there are no ghosts, goblins, ogres, skeletons, vampires, etc. These are not allowed. The kids are encouraged to dress as a saint, but other costumes like angel, priest, nun, bishop, doctor, nurse, etc are also permitted.

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

"[Emerald,] You've really gotten into a mode of stealthy, evasive responses."

It breaks my heart that I am the only one who realized that he was already in this "mode" a year ago. And that is one of the reasons I have steadfastly called for him to be banned. We have no use for the deceptive E-demon.

"We know you hate John. Is it necessary to incite others to that hatred?"

Thank you for seeing through the ploy of Tweedle-Dee, the squashable dung-beetle. You gave him a substantive post, and the only reply he could make was to give you the "quadruple jackass" line. Typical of a demoniac -- playing the "divide-and-conquer" game, because he lacks substantive arguments. Gene, it is true that I swatted you with those words (because you packed four errors into one sentence, a sentence that gave aid and comfort to the enemy). However, I think that those were my first "discouraging words" to you in two months -- quite a contrast from my having to swat down Tweedle-Dee an average of twice a day during those same two months. I knew that you could "take it." But you were wrong to say of me, "I feel sorry for him; in that his anger is out of control." I have my anger fully under control. It is a righteous anger, like that exhibited in Sunday's Gospel by Jesus.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

John,
Let me say that of the many here who have experienced your lengthy diatribes over time, I'm the only one who wants to please you. I'm the only one who takes things with a grain of salt.

If you think the vinegar is somehow going to catch these pesky flies, think again. Before you knock the ''four errors'' that I MAY have committed, examine your own conscience. If you're a man devoted to God, and I think you are, come down off the pedestal you've assumed for yourself. Let Our Saviour temper your boasting; He expects you to be Christ-like; if you're ever going to serve Him worthily. That isn't to say you shouldn't lower the boom on a brood of vipers. No, Sir!

But not from the throne. You aren't ruling this forum; just serving it.

I assume no rights; I only throw down challenges and accept the consequences. If i'm insulted, I don't cry. You have to be the same, impervious and charitable to a fault. Otherwise, you're another Savonarola, like they want to be. We aren't here to massacre the opponent. We reprehend the sinner. We offer him good counsel. We never think of ourselves, because we too, are sinners /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

For too many years, too many Catholics were willing to buy the excuse that some inevitable and mysterious "cultural shift" had resulted in tens of thousands of souls consecrated to Christ abandoning their vocations. This same unexplainable trend led to seminaries and monasteries closing by the hundreds while the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass became a stage for the "creative expression" of feminists and modern "liturgists." But it was the haunting exposure of hundreds of priests raping and molesting children and the systematic ecclesial attempts to cover it all up which became just too much to excuse or ignore. The general optimism that these are glorious times for the Church — the "Springtime of Vatican II" — seemed, now more than ever, scandalously naïve. The Neo's, however put on those rose colored glasses, and suddenly, all's right with the world.

-- Arnold G. (golderone@earthlink.com), November 12, 2003.

Thanks Arnold,

Take a bow.

So nice to see that one person has it all figured out. I guess I ought to go to your confessional, and have you absolve me of all my Neo-sins? I'm about to turn sixty. The nature of things tells me I might be serving short time from now on. Wouldn't it be awful; my day may come before you have a chance to hear all my numerous Neo- sins. Then I'll go down to the abyss without your absolution! But we can't give up!

Get out your super- cape, Arnold. Fly to Northern California, and look for the white smoke-signal rising in the horizon. HERE I AM, ARNOLD ! ! ! Come down! Oh! --SHUCKS! I think I'm having a heart attack! Oh, No! I'll die in my Neo-sins! Nothing I can do; Arnold is over Sacramento now. Just my luck!!! (Hundreds of devils rise up from the abyss. Good-by, Gene! Poor Neo!)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

Modern day Catholics don't need rose-colored glasses, for they trust in the promises of Christ to His Church. He never promised that life in His Church would be rosy. Therefore rose-colored glasses would present as deformed a view as the dark glasses worn by so-called "traditionalists". But He did promise that He would be with His Church until the end of time, that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to all truth, that evil would never prevail over His Church, and that whatsoever His Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. I believe Him, so life in His Church is beautiful. Do you?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

I suppose, that I should be offended by the sarcasm directed at me. The facts still stand, as you have not refuted even one.Just platitudes, thats all.

Someone once told me, "When I walked into the Church for Mass one Sunday morning, and saw a table therein place of the Holy altar, I knew it was time to leave". The Protestant church across the street would do just as well. Course he didn't go to that Protestant church.

-- Arnold G. (Golderone@Earthlink.com), November 13, 2003.

So the words of God Himself are "platitudes"? I ask again, do you accept these statements from the lips of God, or don't you?

Incidentally, an altar is, by definition, a table - in remembrance of the first Mass. Over time, some of those tables have become very elaborate - but that is not necessary in order to have a valid altar and a valid Mass. The table Jesus used was not made of sculptured marble. If your friend defines the Mass, the Eucharist, or the Church in terms of furniture, it is time he did some serious study. Otherwise he might just as well leave.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

Arnold G.-->
''Someone once told me,'' So that; ''I knew it was time to leave". The Protestant church across the street would do just as well.''

Yes; very true. If you have no faith any church will do you!

But if the catholic has faith, his own Church gives him:

The seven holy sacraments; available now since 33 A.D; and I presume Arnold knows something about these; forgiveness of sin, the Holy Eucharist, and so on; avenues to God's grace.

The Creed of the apostles where all a Catholic will attest to confidently is written,

Our saints and angels and blessed ancestors; who have gone to be with Jesus Christ in glory; who all pray for Arnold and me, and our families.

Our Blessed Mother, who is venerated with great devotion by her children; IN THIS CHURCH --

The Word of God, its complete truth inerrantly explained to her faithful,

And the immense number of her works all over the world. Every one, from the donations of poor people in every collection basket, to help for the poor and dying, to care for the sick & elderly, to the prayers and intercession of our living saints, to the charities, hospitals, schools, and missions the Church has made us all holy participants and supporters of; and our Holy Father and his followers in the clergy.

These are my treasures and Arnold's too. These are God's glory and man's consolation, all over the world, for 2,000 years and running.

Yet, Arnold concentrates more on the sins of a depraved minority; on his hatred for a certain ''protestant'' idea which he says is taking over all of the above. Arnold can't see ANYTHING good about Christ's people! He's now gone elitist on them; they're just plebeians. I'm a plebe, and so are we all, who don't run away from the Church. We're like the ''rabble'' was, in the eyes of the Pharisees. The rabble clamored after Jesus; and the Pharisees considered them dogs. And now, Arnold G. won't have any more to do with them!

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

Does it really matter dear people. The Church now teaches that Protestants, [in some mysterious way], are in the Church, and can be saved. That is, even without the Sacraments.

-- Arnold G. (Golderone@Earthlink.com), November 14, 2003.

...not to mention Jews, even without Christ!

-- jake (j@k.e), November 14, 2003.

If the catholic Church taught this, it would be bad news. There is nothing in her taeching says anything like that. These are the usual calumnies told about the Church by malcontents and Pharisees.

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

The Church does not teach that Protestants are "in the Church". It teaches that they can be saved by virtue of the portion of Christian truth they hold and profess, having received that truth from the Holy Catholic Church, the sole repository of the fullness of truth; and by virtue of the redemptive grace of the Cross, made manifest to the world through the Holy Catholic Church alone. The Church thereby sustains and continues to proclaim forever the unchangeable and absolute dogmatic truth that "salvation is only through the Catholic Church". All praise to the Holy Spirit for guiding His Church to a fuller and richer appreciation of this sacred dogma, freed from the primitive interpretations which led our forefathers in the faith to condemn those of God's children who did not have their names on the roster of a Catholic parish.

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

Jesus IS the Church. He is the Saviour of Mankind. He prophesied of His Crucifixion that once He was lifted up on the cross, He would ''draw all men'' to Himself. These words are mysterious and we have no way of sounding them perfectly. He is certain His death will be the salvation of MANY. Not just who I select, or you. Our Lord is All-Powerful; although He acts in and through His Holy Church; and we are aware of that. He has already done the impossible over and over. Why do men doubt Him?

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

Paul M. I am glad that you cleared up the problem. Those "primitive interpretations" of Bonifice VIII, Eugene IV, and Innocent III. Those poor fellas thought that they were declaring something ex-cathedra. How wrong they were. What was that you were saying, about obeying the pope and magesterium?

-- Bubbles. (9999@444.com), November 14, 2003.

Jmj

Gene, you wrote to me:
"If you think the vinegar is somehow going to catch these pesky flies, think again. ... Our Savior ... expects you to be Christ-like, if you're ever going to serve Him worthily. ... We aren't here to massacre the opponent. We reprehend the sinner. We offer him good counsel. We never think of ourselves, because we too, are sinners."

I would like to give you the benefit of some doubt, but you are not due any at all. Your comments are totally inexcusable. Why do I even bother to explain things, when what I say are going to go in one of your ears and out the other? Did you shut off your brain when you read what I wrote, above, on this thread? It sure seems so. Otherwise, you could never have thought I was trying to "catch these pesky flies."

Please read again -- this time attentively, what I stated above:

"I would be shocked to know that some have never realized that I gave up on three of these people when they were banned for sacrilegious language 1.5 years ago -- and that I gave up on the last one a few months later, when he defended, and failed to condemn, the actions of the other three. Why have I done this? Because I firmly believe in the Gospel, which teaches us two relevant things here: (a) not to cast our pearls before swine, and (b) to shake the dust from our feet as a testimony against those who do not accept the Catholic message. It should be obvious that they are not worthy of the privilege of coming to this forum -- except as silent lurkers (to learn the Catholic Faith)."

Now do you understand, Gene? They are LOST and don't belong here. I am not trying to convert them. Only God can do that.

It is YOU, not I, who are failing to heed what the Bible tells us.

YOU are continuing to cast pearls before swine -- and insisting that I do the same.

YOU are failing to shake the dust from your sandals.

YOU are failing to support my insistence that these horrors be banned. Which is to say that YOU are failing to imitate Jesus's righteous anger, which resulted in the scum being booted out of the temple -- just as the schism-hereticals must be booted out of here. You tell me to be "Christ-like," but that is what I AM being, while you are being nothing but an overly-tolerant, pampering wimp, who would have let the animal-sellers and money-changers remain in the Temple until the day the Romans took it down, more than 35 years later!

God bless you.
John

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

You're right John,
Let's just do everything that eases your pain, that won't be wimping out to your opinion, will it?

My post is constructive criticism, John. Asking you to sooner or later tone down the vitriol. Now, YOU read again -- this time attentively, what I stated above:

Let Our Saviour temper your boasting; He expects you to be Christ-like; . . . That isn't to say you shouldn't lower the boom on a brood of vipers. No, Sir!

But not from the throne. You aren't ruling this forum; just serving it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

''you are being nothing but an overly-tolerant, pampering wimp, who would have let the animal-sellers and money-changers remain in the Temple,'' >>>

I'm toleranr as well of your repeated hitting below the belt John. While always giving you the benefit of the doubt. Ostensibly, all you care about is the truth. If so, when are you going to quit playing victim and treat the matters at hand? All we hear now is your petty annoyance over personal slights. As if you were owed for --What?

Agian: We reprehend the sinner. We offer him good counsel. We never think of ourselves, because we too, are sinners /

If you can't abide this, YOU ought to leave this forum, before you suffer an apoplexy over your hurt pride!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

Maybe you two should relax on this fine Sunday. Put the hostilities aside for a bit. Watch a good movie. Enjoy yourselves, enjoy your Sunday.

I love Sunday.

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

I'm well-relaxed, myself. Hostility is in the eye of the beholder. I'm off to Mass this afternoon; a Mass to be celebrated devoutly and flawlessly in English; with Our Divine Saviour enthroned amongst His people. We are very fortunate not to suffer division or friction as we worship. What's not to like about Sundays?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

I absolutely love that movie, Emerald!!!! I have it on tape. My children love it, as well. My copy is getting poor though, from overusage probably. Need to get a new copy.

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

Sink me!

Your tailors... have betrayed you.

Ain't that da truth, huh?

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

Gene, what in God's Name is wrong with your brain? Are you a complete and utter imbecile???

You wrote: "If so, when are you going to quit playing victim and treat the matters at hand? All we hear now is your petty annoyance over personal slights."

Given all that I have been saying, for days on end -- even plainly enough for a kindergartner to understand -- how can you stupidly conclude that I am complaining about being "victim[ized]" or experiencing "petty annoyance over personal slights."

ARE YOU NUTS??!!!

Get your head out of the sand, Ostrich Chavez! EVERYTHING I have been saying has been about the destruction of the FORUM (not of "slights" to me) by evildoers. It has been about people who are corrupting LURKERS (not me). It has been about people who need to be punished and send away for besmirching this little "temple" of a forum -- just as Jesus send the violators away.

This is NOT ABOUT ME. GOT IT??? NOT ABOUT ME.

It's about the Stooges destroying the forum with their schism and heresy! It's about them keeping you and Paul M and Kiwi and paul h and Mateo and who-knows-how-many-others from using your time productively. I need the help of all of you on LEGITIMATE threads at the forum, which I am ending up replying on almost single-handedly, because all of you debating addicts are mindlessly playing games (to satisfy some sick craving for victory) with these evildoers. I'M SICK OF THEM AND SICK OF YOU AND THE MODERATOR RUINING THIS FORUM!!!

NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND???????????!!!! HAVE YOU GOT IT YET, OR DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT AGAIN TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL????!!!

May God bless and forgive you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.

''Because all of you debating addicts are mindlessly playing games (to satisfy some sick craving for victory) with these evildoers. I'M SICK OF THEM AND SICK OF YOU AND THE MODERATOR RUINING THIS FORUM!!!''

John:
(''to satisfy some sick craving for victory'') John: The one who craves victory here is YOU. The forum isn't ruined by debating, nothing but good is coming of it. Lurkers aren't ''corrupted'' they're shown the impotence of Catholic-bashers all the time!

It's unfortunate you have no stomach for it. Those you detest are having no problem debating with you, you carry such a chip on your shoulder you help them look good by comparison. Think of what some lurker is concluding from your last few posts. The man's raving! All the while calling other people ''evil-doers''--!

Take a vacation for a while, John. Go on a retreat, or take a pledge. You're over-wrought.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.

Dear Emerald:
I marvel at your cold blood as you write:

You two should relax on this fine Sunday. Put the hostilities aside for a bit. Watch a good movie. Enjoy yourselves, enjoy your Sunday.
I love Sunday.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 16, 2003.

Place that following the hysterics of John Gecik: ''This is NOT ABOUT ME. GOT IT??? NOT ABOUT ME!!!!!
It's about the stooges destroying the forum -- etc.''

You have fun endlessly blowing smoke here at the expense of the forum; and THAT much John has correctly. His one obssession is to have you and the other rude Pharisees banned, and he can't find any way to contrive it; so he's fuming at the faithful Catholics in this forum. You are a divider. You always will be, Emmie. And a shameless one.

Personally, you're small potatoes to me. How could your hot-dogging destroy this forum, anyway? You would have to pay Catholics to log onto your personal website, so you squat in this one. Jake would have to pay double what you paid. He would have to sell all his belongings! This forum is a place for you all to get panned every day. Fat lot of ''traditional movement.'' --Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.

Attending the Mass of Trent is not a crime.

Defending the doctrine that the Catholic Church is the only way of salvation is not a crime.

Identifying Modernism is not a crime.

The cause of division is Modernism.

I am NOT the cause of division for merely pointing this out.

If so, it is incidental and not causal.

Falsely accusing other Catholics of heresy and schism is one cause of division.

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

"The cause of division is Modernism. "

So this is what inspires schismatic traditionalists. At least we know their motivations to division. I pray that they find their way out of the clutches of this heresy.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

Who caused more division than Our Lord. He came to bring a sword. Father against son, mother against daughter , etc. Division is not all bad.

-- Bubbles (9999@333.com), November 17, 2003.

This misguided man loves attention; and there it is: he'll say his words are not divisive, --''Identifying modernism is not a crime.''

No, and I haven't accused Emmie of being a criminal, just a divider. What's more, HE is a modernist. Before the so called trads rose up in our forum, no one was divided; all were Catholics. Theirs is the ''new wave,'' or reaction against their fellow Catholics. The faithful who honestly revere and obey the Pope and the Church at large (Novus) are actually more traditional! Dissent isn't tradition.

But what hurts is their cynicism. In one line Emmie says why not ''Enjoy Sunday; like I do-- '' because due to his ridiculous presence in the forum, one Catholic has gone postal on us! Emerald LOVES this! Then he says ''modernism causes division.'' WHAT? Not in the True Church! Because with all her troubles in this era, the Church hasn't gone in a different direction. She continues an advance which started in the era of the Caesars.

She still preaches the Holy Gospel of love
Love of God and neighbor; and even Love our enemies! Is that radical?
She still guards the family, the truth, the Creed
She still gives me & you (and Emerald) the sacraments, untainted by anything ''modern''-- No different from sacraments in pre-Vatican II and ancient history.
She still protects and gives us the Word of God; giving us EVEN GREATER UNDERSTANDING today, than in any past era!

Is the Blessed Virigin Mary gone from the Catholic Church today ? ? ? --She has never been closer to us --
We have more love for the saints in home and the Church than in past ages; because we have greater communication; including the Internet. The Church is best in this medium over all other pretend religions. We have an active and exciting forum right here; and I'd like to see Jake Regina and Emerald contradict me. They won't get far, I promise.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.

Jmj

Gene, the "conventional wisdom" is that diamonds are the hardest substance known to man. But you have put the lie to that by showing that your head is the hardest thing on Earth. (Unless it is some pseudo-trad's heart that has you beat.)

I call you hard-headed because you said this:
"The one who craves victory here is YOU."
No. I care nothing about victory, but only the truth. What I "crave" is a Catholic forum, not a "religious" forum, which the over-tolerance shown by you and the moderator have caused this dump to become.

You also wrongly stated: "The forum isn't ruined by debating, nothing but good is coming of it."

You are so hard-headed that you can't see the difference between "debating" (for a limited time with a sensible opponent) and "spinning your wheels" (for two years with complete morons). Don't you have any gray cells left in that old cranium of yours? Didn't you get the Seven Gifts at Confirmation? You and moderator show NO Prudence whatsoever!

You messed up again here: "Lurkers aren't 'corrupted' they're shown the impotence of Catholic-bashers all the time!"

Some are corrupted -- such as Robert P, now entering a schismatic monastery, because of Regina's Raiders! You seem to know NOTHING about ANYTHING, Gene. Your arguments to me are worthless.

You wrongly went on: "It's unfortunate you have no stomach for it."

Are you crazy? For almost four years, you have seen that I have plenty of "stomach" for REAL debating. But I won't waste my time on worthless enterprises -- as you senselessly do. You are a debating addict -- who doesn't know when to quit and needs his daily "fix" of victory. (Ditto for moderator.)

You wrongly went on: "Those you detest are having no problem debating with you, you carry such a chip on your shoulder you help them look good by comparison."

First, I don't "detest" THEM. I detest their actions. [I have explained this more than once before, so how can you make the same idiotic mistake again?] Second, I have no "chip on my shoulder." Third, I make them look terrible by condemning their actions day after day. YOU "help them look good" by treating them as serious, respectable opponents who have a right to be here. [LORD, help this guy to open his squinting eyes!]

Then you wrote: "Think of what some lurker is concluding from your last few posts. The man's raving! All the while calling other people 'evil-doers'--!"

No. They see that what I am saying is right, and they thank me for trying to protect them from the EVIL-DOERS (and right now you and moderator are lumped with them under that designation, because you are SINNING).

You closed by saying: "Take a vacation for a while, John. Go on a retreat, or take a pledge. You're over-wrought."

Clearly something is wrong here, but it won't be fixed by ME going away. It is the ineligible pseudo-trads that you should be chasing away, you dummy, not me!

Overnight, I decided to put the Forum "on probation" for about three months. If the place is not cleaned up to my satisfaction by the end of February, I will be leaving permanently. I would have to leave, because I would then know that the forum's label -- "Catholic" -- has become a fraud, has become false advertising.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.

J. F. Gecik: "Overnight, I decided to put the Forum "on probation" for about three months. If the place is not cleaned up to my satisfaction by the end of February, I will be leaving permanently."

That's the best piece of news I've heard today. But why wait until February? Do us all a favor and leave now. You're out of control.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.

"So this is what inspires schismatic traditionalists. At least we know their motivations to division. I pray that they find their way out of the clutches of this heresy."

That's Mateo's claim that the traditionalists are actually the ones guilty of falling into Modernism. Gene says the same thing:

"No, and I haven't accused Emmie of being a criminal, just a divider. What's more, HE is a modernist."

What I'm missing here is your definition of Modernism. Do you have one you can throw out there, or any examples? What I've come to in looking into all these things is represented in a skeleton sort of form in the first post of this thread. What are your thoughts on the original post? Do you agree or disagree with it, in part or in whole?

The very thought of traditional Catholics being Modernists themselves is a little beyond bizarre... could you imagine Pope St. Pius X condemning himself? Pope Leo XIII thinking that he himself was going to be doing battle with St. Michael the Archangel?

If you could explain what you mean, I would be most appreciative. Because honestly, I have no clue. This one is red-lining my open mindedness.

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

The Traditional Catholic is a faithful devout Catholic who loves and worships Our Lord in the Church you-- erroneouly call ''neo''. Tradition is the ONGOING faith, as always kept in communion with one another and our Pope. There has been no departure from living Tradition in this Church after the last Council.

You have no claim on the idea of traditional, other than as part of the communion I've just described.

It was you, not the Popes who brought charges of ''modernism'' against the post-conciliar Catholic Church. Post-conciliar doesn't allow of 'modern'' except in the sense of contemporary. In that sense, you are also modern, since no one but you was flirting with heresy and schism prior to this time. That makes you a modernist, not the faithful. The followers of our Holy Father John Paul II are the true Traditional Catholics.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.

I'm going to need a good working definition, or description, of modernism here.

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

Just consider; we are both modern since we're contemporaries. Neither one of us is ahead. We are both believing Catholics, therefore both traditionalist. You just won't come off the elitist kick.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.

I don't think that's it at all, Gene. Look upthread to the original post; all I'm doing is trying to layout my understanding so far of this thing called Modernism, this synthesis of all heresies.

What I have started with first are the admonitions of several papacies relating to the problem, the heresy of Modernism, and read them. I then looked to see who was responsible for much of the more recent documentation, and where they're philosphical loyalties lie. I match such things against the known Deposit of the Faith, the Saint's writings, the Doctors of the Church, and the documents of the Church. I observe the phenomena of the loss of Faith around me... I examine the ways I myself used to think about the Faith, and what's different now that I actually care about the Faith.

So I think I've found at least something to show for an examination of this Modernism problem in the title post. Right or wrong, there it is.

But now, traditionalist Catholics are said to be a Modernist without any consideration of the original post. It's merely posited, but not explained.

I just want yours or Mateo's concept of what Modernism is, that's all, and how it might be similiar or different to mine, or how mine's right or wrong.

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

This is Modenism. The Church today has changed yet something else, since the Council.

If this is not Modernism, what is?

"No one comes to the Father" but through Jesus. John 14:6 "There is no other Name given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12 "The free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

Not only is the Scripture clear that Jesus is the only way to heaven, it is even more specific when referring to the Jews. Jesus told Nicodemus, a good, religious Jew, that he would not see the Kingdom of God unless he was born-again. John 3:1-3 NOTE WELL! Paul's heart was broken that his kinsmen, the Jews, were separated from God because they did not believe in Jesus (Romans 9:1-3) and his heart-felt prayer was for their salvation (Romans 10:1-3). Over and again Paul taught that the gospel was "for the Jew first" and also for the gentile (Romans 1:16-17, etc).

This declaration springs from the spirit of tolerance that rules our culture -- and unfortunately, has infiltrated our churches. No one wants to appear judgmental; no one wants to say someone else is wrong; no one wants to appear harsh; and certainly, no one wants to advocate someone is going to hell because they believe differently. And yet, this is exactly what we are taught in the Book we claim to believe. When confronted with this "spirit of tolerance," Christians must decide which they value more: God's truth or society's approval. Too often, we have made the wrong choice.

-- Moish the convert (Morris 24@earthnet.com), November 17, 2003.

"The very thought of traditional Catholics being Modernists themselves is a little beyond bizarre... could you imagine Pope St. Pius X condemning himself? Pope Leo XIII thinking that he himself was going to be doing battle with St. Michael the Archangel?"

Emerald,

I'm trying to understand at what point in the history of the Church you were appointed as official spokesman for both Pope Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X? Did I miss the announcement?

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

A rhetoric reply.

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

You'd think I could have proofread three words.

A rhetorical reply. Mateo, that's not going to help.

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

So you aren't their spokesman? Oh...OK. In that case, I guess I'll just disregard your post in which you pretended to speak for them.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

"That's Mateo's claim that the traditionalists are actually the ones guilty of falling into Modernism."

Where did I say that traditionalist Catholics are guilty of Modernism? Unless disregarding the authority of the Pope is part of the Catholic tradition. Is it?

The schismatic NewSpeak is getting old. L@L

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

I'm sorry... where did I do that?

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

With the reproduction of your html tags as you had them in your post above:

_____

"The cause of division is Modernism." So this is what inspires schismatic traditionalists. At least we know their motivations to division. I pray that they find their way out of the clutches of this heresy. _____

Right there.

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

You did actually say we were guilty of Modernism, as traditional Catholics.

Let's talk about submission to the Roman Pontiff though.

Where did you fall on the Iraq War issue?

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

Oh. You're talking about schismatics, now. I thought you were talking about traditionalists Catholics.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

Mateo says (paraphrased slightly):

You only think your a traditional Catholic. That's what's so funny! I switched definitions while your back was turned, haha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous, is never get involved in schism with antipope from Washington State. But only slightly less well known is this: never go up against modernist, when ambiguity is on the line! Ahahahahaha...

We're fighting over the definition of the word tradtional, aren't we? Maybe we better clear that one up first. Does that sound right?

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

"We're fighting over the definition of the word tradtional, aren't we? Maybe we better clear that one up first. Does that sound right?"

The problem with this debate is the problem of all debates. The divergence of words' definitions form the trenches of each side.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Yeah, I had the opposite problem today with someone over consubstantiation vs. transubstantion, insisting it was the same thing.

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

I'm thinking more of examples such as "pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion" vs. "anti-choice." Or "patriot" vs. "terrorist."

Stuff like that...

AMDG,

Mateo

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

But those are uniquely American terms. They're the very types of terms that are employed in the right/left/center game; I don't even really like to use them anymore.

It's not wonder they're so argued over; they never really hit on the essence of anything... loaded with ambiguities.

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

Though I don't think that these terms are all ambiguous (anti-abortion is a pretty clear term), they were just examples of terminology battlegrounds.

AMDG,

Mateo

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