Who considers themselves opposed to the teaching of Vatican II?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 06, 2003

Answers

It would be nice to know exactly what the new teaching of Vatican II is first.

I've been kind of wondering, but, you know, nobody seems to really know.

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

I agree with Vatican II in all that Vatican II agrees with previous Church teaching.

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

OK, I surrender.

Who is opposed to the pastoral changes made by Vatican II?

Emerald, I count you as opposed.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 06, 2003.

LOL!

Don't expect an answer John. You see, the schismatics are trying to BE disobedient, but not PROCLAIM disobedience, which would mean incriminating themselves as schismatic or heretics. Don't hold your breath for ANY of the people who come here to criticize the mass day in and day out to stand up and say "I reject Vatican II and all it teaches, and do not consider myself bound by it's decrees." These guys aren't made of that stern of stuff. They can't quite get up the gumption to be Protestant, but don't have the Fortitude to be Catholic.

Frank

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

-This vague question is but synthesis and or triangulation manifested. The Truth and interpretation thereof is solely the domain of the Magesterium...

Is the 'internal forum solution' a secret 'teaching' of Vatican II that the Magesterium 'pretends' illicit? Apparently on this issue there are two teachings of Vatican II -very confusing -hmmm.... How can one embrace confounded teaching such as this?

Maybe much better to embrace Truth alone as interpreted by the Magesterium alone?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 06, 2003.

"You see, the schismatics are trying to BE disobedient, but not PROCLAIM disobedience,"

Well said, Frank.

Mateo

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

"You see, the schismatics are trying to BE disobedient, but not PROCLAIM disobedience,"

-hmmm... They are a tricky lot -no outward signs of disobedience to the Vatican II 'teachings' -we are all lucky that some members of this forum are adept at reading minds and discerning intent...

How can we draw them plainly out -make them choose between specific teachings? I was always under the impression that Truth alone was the dividing line?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 06, 2003.

It is not that complicated. "Faith before obedience". If that makes us "schismatic protestants", so be it! Athanasius, move over.

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

De internis nec Ecclesia.

-- 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. 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.

-- (Melanie@LaSallete.com), November 06, 2003.

"You see, the schismatics are trying to BE disobedient, but not PROCLAIM disobedience," ...Well said, Frank."

Disobedient to what, Frank?

Still no answer?

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

What do "Post-Vatican II Catholics" support about the teachings of Vatican II? Do they support the document on the Sacred Liturgy in which the Pope states that Latin is to be given "pride of place" in the Liturgy? Huh? Huh?

-- Christina (introibo2000@nospam.com), November 06, 2003.

ALL Catholics now living are "post-Vatican II Catholics". The overwhelming majority of them fully support the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium, and submit to the decisions of the holy Council, made for the good of the universal Church. There are small pockets of extremists however, both on the modernist end of the spectrum and on the so-called "traditionalist" end of the spectrum, who insist on imposing their will on the the hierarchy of the Church, and thereby on the 99%+ of Catholics who do not see things their way.

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

Paul what percentage of Catholics alive today could remember how it was prior to Vatican II?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 06, 2003.

GT, I have no idea. I do. Why is this relevant?

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

As a Traditional Catholic I do not right out know anyone who claims to opposed to Vatican II. Most teachings of V II are inline with every other teaching of many other councils of the Church. However many of the changes that most people use and claim were made by V II were not ie:turning the altar around, trowing out latin, and many other out rages such as Moving the Tabernacal of Our Lord to the side of the Church and countless other abuses... I have studyed latin for 4 years i do not proclaim to know it all but if u realy do know what happened in V II and can find a document that says for these changes to be made you have my email address. To say that Traditional Catholica dont uphold the Pope and the church councils should study what they are talkign about before that start acusing.

Kevin Wisniewski

-- Kevin Wisniewski (Kez38spl@charter.net), November 06, 2003.

Dear Kevin,

The charge that so-called "traditionalists" reject the teachings of Vatican II is not meant to imply that they necessarily reject ALL decisions of that holy Council, or even most, but rather that they reserve the right to judge which teachings are acceptable, and to reject those which they don't like, or more likely don't understand. In saying that you judge "most" teachings of the Council acceptable, you reveal yourself as a member of that small minority.

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

It would be nice to know exactly what the new teaching of Vatican II is first. I've been kind of wondering, but, you know, nobody seems to really know.

It's got something to to with err....why they're right.

I'll tell 'ya that much.

Yup.

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

By most i ment that i do not understand somethings and will not claim to know everything that was said and done at V II, by most i mean that some of the things that are said to be from the Council are not as i stated in my last post. Because something is contributed to the Council does not mean i accept them such as when i go to confession to most of the priests in my town i am told that "Oh you dont need to confess your sins anymore" and when i discuse these things it all comes back to V II None of these changes were made that that Council. SO to calarify my self, yes i accept the VII.

"In saying that you judge "most" teachings of the Council acceptable, you reveal yourself as a member of that small minority."

What my "small minority" does not accept was never officaly changed by the Council.

Kevin wisniewski

-- Kevin WIsniewski (Kez38spl@charter.net), November 06, 2003.

John,

What changes are you referring to?

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 06, 2003.

Jake, there isent any "new changes" in the teaching of the Council. Everything is in line with all other Councils and was upheld by VII

Kevin w

-- Kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 06, 2003.

The changes in the "New" Mass, and changes such as removign latin and Female Comunion servers and thign s of that nature.

Kenin W

-- Kevin W (kez38spl@charter.net), November 06, 2003.

Where in VII dose it say that wee the need a new mass?

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 06, 2003.

My point exaclty.

KevinW

-- Kevin W (kez38spl@charter.net), November 06, 2003.

Paul, because we wouldn't be having this discussion at all if there weren't those among us who remember the old way to compare it with the new way....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 06, 2003.

we wouldn't be having this discussion at all if there weren't those among us who remember the old way to compare it with the new way....

FWIW, Regina, Emerald, Isabel, & myself were all born after the Council was over. The nostalgia card can't be played. Not with us.

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

Jmj

Hi, John P.
You asked: "Who considers themselves opposed to the teaching of Vatican II?"

To this, a lapsed Catholic replied: "It would be nice to know exactly what the new teaching of Vatican II is first."

Do you notice the non sequitur, John?

You asked about "the teaching" -- meaning all the doctrinal statements in all the Vatican II documents. You said nothing about "new teachings."

But the "lapsus," in typically careless (or devious?) fashion wrote that he first needs to know "the new teaching" of Vatican II. You never claimed that there is any "new teaching." You just wanted people with guts to stand up and be counted -- saying either "I am opposed to the Council's teaching" or "I am not opposed to the Council's teachings" or perhaps "I am opposed to some [or 'a few' or 'many'] of the Council's teachings.

Surely, all of us have read the documents and can say whether or not we are opposed to none or some or all of the teachings. I am proud to say that I am NOT opposed to ANY of the teachings in the Conciliar documents. I ask all orthodox Catholics to speak up now and join me in that same profession of assent. I ask all others to make use one of the other formulas I provided above (I am opposed [etc.]) and to stop being a bunch of silent, cowardly little pussies.

But if the "gutless wonders" continue to remain silent or to invent some kind of wishy-washy, wimpish formulas worthy only of geldings, then the only sensible thing for us to do is to realize that, by default, they are expressing their partial or complete opposition to the teachings of the Council.

God bless you.
John

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

"But if the "gutless wonders" continue to remain silent or to invent some kind of wishy-washy, wimpish formulas worthy only of geldings, then the only sensible thing for us to do is to realize that, by default, they are expressing their partial or complete opposition to the teachings of the Council."

Which teachings?

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

Dear Moderator,

As you can see, JFG has resorted to new lows in his recent post. As if the constant, daily ad hominem attacks, mean-spiritedness and the condescending tone of many if not all of his posts from his never- ending bully pulpit weren't enough, he now resorts to using filthy language. As a Catholic, and as a woman I am terribly offended by his public use of vulgarity above. I realize that the opinions of the traditionalists spark many a heated debate around here, but there is still never, *ever* any reason to resort to such vulgarity. I'm asking you to delete at least the sentence of his post which contains the disgusting word.

Thank you kindly.

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

From the Baltimore Catechism

Q. 1239. What is forbidden by the second Commandment? A. The second Commandment forbids all false, rash, unjust, and unnecessary oaths, blasphemy, cursing, and profane words.

Q. 1241. What is blasphemy, and what are profane words?

A. Blasphemy is any word or action intended as an insult to God. To say He is cruel or find fault with His works is blasphemy. It is a much greater sin than cursing or taking God's name in vain. Profane words mean here bad, irreverent or irreligious words.

Q. 1284. What is forbidden by the sixth Commandment? A. The sixth Commandment forbids all unchaste freedom with another's wife or husband; also all immodesty with ourselves or others in looks, dress, words, and actions.

Q. 1285. Why are sins of impurity the most dangerous?

A. Sins of impurity are the most dangerous:

1. (1) Because they have the most numerous temptations;

2. (2) Because, if deliberate, they are always mortal, and

3. (3) Because, more than other sins, they lead to the loss of faith.

Q. 1310. What is forbidden by the eighth Commandment?

A. The eighth Commandment forbids all rash judgments, backbiting, slanders, and lies.

Q. 1311. What are rash judgment, backbiting, slander and detraction? A. Rash judgment is believing a person guilty of sin without a sufficient cause. Backbiting is saying evil things of another in his absence. Slander is telling lies about another with the intention of injuring him. Detraction is revealing the sins of another without necessity.

John:

After the Moderator cleanses this forum by deleting your above post, I strongly urge you to cleanse your soul by a worthy reception of the Sacrament of Pennance.

Hopefully, it's readily available at your parish.

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

Waste of time Regina. The moderator, though to the left of JFG nevertheless countenances his personal diatribes but deletes very legitimate dissent based upon practical experience and not the overt self-serving biases of some on this forum, who REFUSE to even objectively look at evidence which disagrees with their pre- conceptions.

A failure to consider the facts has never been and will never be a part of Catholic scholarship. A failure to follow-up on and further probe inconsistancies in everyday practical Church actions has long been a part of the Church and is a huge contibuting factor regarding discontent among good-hearted, sincerely Magisterial-minded Catholics. Our moderator is a prime example of this "school" of imbedded anti- Catholicism, which indeed is part of, illicitly and illegitimately though, the historical catholic Church. It is rampant among the clergy.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 07, 2003.

Let's try this again.

Who considers themselves "traditionalist catholics"?

Who attends SSPX chapels regularly?

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 07, 2003.

Who considers themselves "traditionalist catholics"?

I do.

Who attends SSPX chapels regularly?

I don't, but I have, and I would, and I will.

You're just asking this for the sake of conversation?

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

No, I'm not asking this for the sake of conversation.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 07, 2003.

Are you hatching a plan to take my words and beat me over the head with them?

OK. I'll bite, if you'll answer some questions of mine, too.

What else do you want to know?

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

-who dissents from the magisterium by advocating an 'internal forum solution' in matters reserved exclusively for the external forum?

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

Who considers themselves "traditionalist catholics"?

(*raises hand*) Meeee. Oh, me, me, me, me. I know, I know.

Who attends SSPX chapels regularly?

*hand flapping wildly through the air*

Come on, john. You've been here long enough, you ought to pretty much know the answers to these questions.

I am a traditionalist. I do not regularyly attend SSPX, except on vacation.

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

Guess you can't stop Novus Ordo's from drinking that Kool Aid. Ihaven't played "follow the leader anywhere", since I was a kid. Anywhere is not also the best places.

-- Glenn (tracker@running.com), November 07, 2003.

"Anywhere" is not always the best place to go; but anywhere that God leads is the ONLY place I want to go. And God clearly said that whoever listens to the Church listens to Him. The schisms, heresies, and other divisions which have been spawned through the centuries by well-meaning individuals or small groups of individuals who, for whatever reason, considered themselves exempt from this divine edict should stand as clear evidence that it does apply to everyone who desires to do the will of God, and to live subject to the truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 07, 2003.

John, Have you attended a SSPX mass? Have you talked with a SSPX priest?

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), November 07, 2003.

John, Would you call your self a traditionalist catholic? Y/N. if not would you call your self?

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), November 07, 2003.

I used to call myself a progressive catholic, until I found I was too orthodox for that label.

I'm probably a left leaning orthodox.

I have attended an SSPX mass. I haven't talked to a SSPX priest.

I attended an Anglican Catholic Church mass that was Tridentine but said in English. I thought it was much more beautiful.

The mass in Latin doesn't bother me. I have studied Latin. (Forgot more than I remembered though.)

Some people I know. Some I don't. I'm just trying to figure out who is who. I don't get to read, due to time, as many posts as I would like.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 07, 2003.

I consider myself a non-practicing Catholic. I do not know enough about the teachings of Vatican II on a "hands on basis" to attempt to evaluate its authenticity. I know what I was taught in Catholic School and what I have read and observed/experienced.

I question no teaching of the Catholic Church as I understand them to be a teaching of the Church, including assent to the Magisterium, when such teachings are actually followed in practice.

I do not attend Mass, although I did for awhile in the aftermath of my divorce. As I watched and learned about what was practiced and what was actually done in our case in our divorce/annulment/wife's adultery/remarriage and I saw how readily she and her lover were accepted everywhere in the Church as husband and wife and parents to OUR CHILDREN I began to become increasingly alienated from the Church, which manifested, among other ways, in a spiritual/emotional/physical aversion to both the Liturgy and the Eucharist, to the point where I could no longer force myself to sit through either and have any peace of mind/spirit as I witnessed the dichotomy of what was preached and what was practiced.

When I saw my wife and her lover receive communion together with OUR CHILDREN, heard of OUR CHILDREN'S confessions violated by their mother and a Catholic priest, saw Canon Law violation after violation ...I could take no more when everyone of my entreaties for action by the local ordinaries were rebuffed, my wife's annulment petition was granted in a travesty of judicial misconduct, and the case dragged on endlessly in Rome being ignored in the US when the Roman decisions were announced.

I do not stand with those who reject any authentic teachings of the Catholic Church or, I guess, who would consider themselves SSPX'ers nor do I stand with those who, I think, misuse that the Holy Spirit being available to the Church would protect the Church from error in practice. I would tend to believe that as meaning any error in "doctrinally infallible teachings" and not in the way I have seen it portrayed herein.

I think the spirit of Satan has indeed inhabited the entire Catholic Church and is a great influence on many, many clerics and laymen, side by side with the Holy Spirit in a battle for truth and authentic Christianity.

I remain terribly torn apart by the tempest in the Church and in my life but, so far, I try my best to keep on the path the nuns and my mother put me on. But I cannot return to practice in the Church as it is now, inspite of the beautiful allocution our Moderator gave regarding the Eucharist, which nearly brought me to tears the other day. Thank you, Paul.

Its reception, to me, is an abomination from the hand of priests who support my destruction, my children's destruction, the families destruction, the destruction of marriage.... This may stand as a contradiction to some, and I certainly can see how and why they feel that way, even from a doctrinal standpoint, which causes me tremendous hurt for my choices. But I feel it is what I must do and is what I firmly believe Jesus would have me do in the face of a Church which openly disregards the teaching in Matthew which relates that to divorce a spouse unjustly(even without a remarriage) is to force them to commit adultery. This clearly is a separate case from remarriage, as adultery, and condemns the act of unjust divorce itself as adultery, on an equal basis with the wrongful remarriage act.

I believe as long as the Church has not punished unjust divorce with excommunication, regardless of wrongful remarriage, it has been in disobedience to the will of its founder and Savior, who condemns unjust divorce.

I cannot return to her until she has a fundamental return to respect for marriage, whci would evidence itself in Canonical sanctions against all who unjustly assail a marriage and until the Church rethinks the, apparently parochially unjust difference between a natural marriage contacted between Catholics outside the "rites" of the Church and a sacramental marriage between Catholics in the Church. Both are sacraments and both should be inviolable and free from nullity considerations.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@htomail.com), November 07, 2003.

I attend the new mass in my home town almost daily and I have attended a SSPX mass, I have friends that are SSPX Priests and I attend a SSPX mass about once or twice a year.

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), November 07, 2003.

John,

In your on words what makes a person a progressive or an orthodox catholic?

SS

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), November 07, 2003.

Why is JFG so awfull in his language?

I don't know, but I'm sure he'll be along shortly to pound you into submission for calling him into question.

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

There are too many facets of being Catholic to fit into only one category and I realize that.

I have found that when one uses the term Progressive Catholic, others tend to think of the advocation of ordination of women priests, married priests, pro-abortion, episcopal or national church loyalty, even anti-papacy. You are likened to Hans Kung, and others.

By orthodox I mean accepting the current teachings and policies of the Church.

I am very orthodox in most ways. I regularly pray the Office, I attend mass frequently, confession,etc.

What I tend to go left on is allowing priests to marry, having women serve in a "diaconate" (Note - I haven't worked out the full theological ramifications, I just think women need to be recognized for their contributions more. Intellectually, I think there should be a way to expand the role of women in Church governance.) I believe in the role of Councils in the Church and think the Pope is the spiritual leader more than a monarch.

I feel ecumenical efforts have not gone far enough. I recognize that there has always been difference in the Church and will always be.

I also recognize that this is a very big world and there is room for variety and diversity within the Church.

Sometimes we argue about issues but I do truly wish that we could see that we have much more in common with each other here than 90 percent of the world has with us.

Thanks for allowing me to get on my soap box.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 07, 2003.

Becky,

This is not an *official* Catholic forum, but one of laymen who for the most part are Catholics interested in their faith, but we also get "visits" from people who hate the church for one reason or another, and think there's nothing better in the world than to criticize her and the mass. Sometimes there are lengthy arguments here because of that which spread from thread to thread.

Read what we post and see for yourself if you think this is a Catholic forum, or not. Sometimes it's neither, either or both, LOL!

Frank

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

Was that a John G. imposter?

Moderator?

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 07, 2003.

Why do you think priests should be allowed to marry?

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 07, 2003.

Anybody watch EWTN's news show with Archbishop Hannan and Cardinal Dulles? They are for the teachings of Vatican II!

It was a great show full of questions relevant to the topic. If you haven't seen it, check it out when it is re-aired this weekend!

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Hi Emerald, presuming Paul lets this post stay up...

"Let what you say be simply "YES" or "NO"; anything more than this comes from evil" (Mat 5.37)

-- Kiwi ("I know best"@Ask Deacon Paul.com), November 07, 2003.

Goody goody goody... goody!

Because then I have a question.

Kiwi,

Is there salvation outside the Church?

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

That's not a loaded question, you know.

But the questions that the traditionalists get are loaded questions. Consider the thread topic... I'm still waiting for someone to lay out exactly what the teachings of Vatican II are besides what we already knew as Catholics all along before the council. If they are no different, then I am no different than you. If there is something different...

...I sure would like someone to spell it out. At that time I will be happy to answer the yes-or-no question with a yes or no. It's really pretty simple.

In the mean time, I'm going to continue to practice the Catholic Faith.

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

"we wouldn't be having this discussion at all if there weren't those among us who remember the old way to compare it with the new way...."

I am 17 years old and have choosen the old right over the "New Mass" of my own free will and not my parents

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (Kez38spl@charter.net), November 08, 2003.

I've choosen the "New Mass" over the old right.

Oh, I couldn't resist the temptation...I'm a poor sinner...

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Paul M.,

"In saying that you judge "most" teachings of the Council acceptable, you reveal yourself as a member of that small minority."

We're not the opnly ones who saw problems with the council so did Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani & Cardinal Antonio Bacci who wrote a book on the issue. *in a sarcastic tone* But that is right what would they know, they were only cardinals. †AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 08, 2003.

Emerald,

"Is there salvation outside of the Catholic Church?"

Just out of curiousity, what do you believe happens to the soul of a baby that never made it into this world?(ie. miscarrage, abortion, car accident, etc...)

Sorry if I seem to personal, but I'm just talking of " speaking in general".

Thanks,

-- - (David@excite.com), November 08, 2003.

I would like to beleave that they go to heaven.. But according to our faith if they are not baptised they must go to limbo.. I guess that one would utlimatly be up to God.

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 08, 2003.

Is there salvation outside the Church?

Yes, If God deems it so. That is what the Church teaches.

About limbo. The theology of limbo is no longer taught.

From EWTN: Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 08-30-2003: Dear Eileen, Limbo was a theological conclusion held by many theologians, but was never held as official doctrine of the Church. No, it is not found in the CCC. Original Sin is a defined dogma of the Church and has been held from the beginning. Today we trust all unbaptized babies to the arms of the God who created them and leave them there with confidence. Fr. Bob Levis

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 08, 2003.

The latest heresy is that "could Christ give to aborted children the right to the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Beatific Vision of God for all Eternity?". Even made as a question is a heresy since this question has been addressed by the Church in two Ecumenical Councils and many Saints and Popes. Before stating the teaching of the Church, on the subject of the right to the Beatific Vision of God for all Eternity (or the Kingdom of God) we must address what is meant by the Kingdom of God, Heaven, Paradise, Hell, Purgatory etc.

-- (borstalboy@what.com), November 08, 2003.

Salvation outside the Church? Read infallible document.

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

-- Soaps (9999@444.com), November 08, 2003.

You should read what was ALSO written near the same time, Christians weren't to associate with Jews, Jews were to wear identifying clothing, etc. In order to understand the document, you must understand the times. You apparently don't do either.

Frank

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

Whooooo tough one Emerald, never heard that one before! Answer: NO!

I cant even be bothered explaining why, I and many others have done so in great detail DOZENS of times before.Please do not derail yet another thread with your pet schismo theories, dig up one of the many salavtion threads where you have been corrected so often in the past.The meaning of the Church is simply wider and more mysterious than your "conscience" can cope with.

Your turn...

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

Becky,

That's the BEST metaphor for this place I've ever heard! Like a downtown bar. Very appropriate, but you're welcome to post here like everyone else if you can put up with it.

Frank

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

Yes Frank strange security staff at this bar though, people are ejected for blunt words or navy jokes but should you wish to urinate/defecate all over the bar the bouncer turns a blind eye. Im just pissed with him deleting me, how dare he delete ME, im the good guy!!! LOl I need to get over myself.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

Frank:

"In order to understand the document, you must understand the times."

Modernism.

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

"I cant even be bothered explaining why, I and many others have done so in great detail DOZENS of times before."

Good. Because nobody has explained anything, because they do not even understand the question, let alone the answer. All explanations to date have been, in substance, an unwillingness to submit the the supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church. They've one and all been denials of the Catholic Faith.

"Please do not derail yet another thread with your pet schismo theories, dig up one of the many salavtion threads where you have been corrected so often in the past."

I haven't been corrected; the Catholic Faith has been attacked.

"The meaning of the Church is simply wider and more mysterious than your "conscience" can cope"

Actually it's not. The Mystical Body of Christ is synonymous with the Catholic Church, as explained not for the first time but most recently by Pope Pius XII in the document Mystici Corporis Christi:

14. That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church."[13] If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ."[14] But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body.[15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.

So, all the explanations I was supposed to have bowed down before are actually errors. Good thing I didn't listen!

Read it and see for yourself that the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same.

It may perhaps be the case that ya'll may have to just drop it and come into line with Catholic doctrine.

What a novel thought.

But hey, I don't hold it against you. It's not like I never thought something similiar to you and the others... things just change, you know, and one begins to wonder what the truth really is and how to run after it and find it.

You said you didn't want to get into this topic though... so let's turn it back on itself and have you explain to me what the specific teachings of Vatican II are that traditionalists are supposed to be so woefully out of line with, so that we may be able to give a yes or no answer to? The ones that if I said "no" to, would render me latae sentenciae schismatic?

First possibility: there aren't any, at least none that can be formulated into anything specific or intelligable.

Second possibility: people know that if they say what they think are the teachings of Vatican II, they'll lay themselves up for a nice rebuking based on 2,000 years of Catholic doctrine and tradition. It wouldn't be a pretty sight.

As a side note, regarding yes's and no's, read in the Scriptures where Jesus before Pilate, when He is asked whether He is the King of the Jews.

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

That's the BEST metaphor for this place I've ever heard! Like a downtown bar.

Except that, at a bar, if you fight, you get thrown out.

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

"Just out of curiousity, what do you believe happens to the soul of a baby that never made it into this world?(ie. miscarrage, abortion, car accident, etc...) Sorry if I seem to personal, but I'm just talking of " speaking in general"."

No problem at all; my wife had two miscarriages. I don't know the actual situation of those souls obviously, but I can tell you what's theologically not possible and then provide a happy speculation.

First, they cannot see the Beatific Vision; this much even the new CCC will tell you, because Baptism, as a sacrament, is a real thing and is necessary. It's real. I don't know how to get across what I'm thinking when I say real except that it exists, whether we see it or understand it or not. It happens, and things are different when it happens. The knowledge we have of this comes from God by way of Divine Revelation, and it's held by Faith to be even more certain than that two and two equal four.

However... those baby's souls are not suffering for any actual sins because they have not committed any; none at all.

I can safely speculate, from here then, any number of happy conclusions which if adopted by the mind will not violate the precepts of the Faith. There are valid speculations which have nothing to do with these baby's souls roasting in Hell but being in a natural state of happiness better than our best days on earth.

Nothing, really, is known though.

God is merciful, God is just, and we just have to trust that He is good.

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

"... so let's turn it back on itself and have you explain to me what the specific teachings of Vatican II are that traditionalists are supposed to be so woefully out of line with, so that we may be able to give a yes or no answer to? The ones that if I said "no" to, would render me latae sentenciae schismatic? "

OK, I'll bite. If schismatics are in total agreement with Vatican II docs, why do they complain about them and claim that their words aren't binding/doctrinal?

We can't hunt down the dissent from traditionalist schismatics. It's a little like a protestant demanding to be told where they differ from scripture.

Personal interpretation of Tradition...

Personal interpretation of Scripture...

I think these twin heresies both fall under the heresy of protestantism...but that's just me.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Emerald,

"In order to understand the document, you must understand the times."

Modernism

Error.

Frank

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

Modernism.

Error.

Exactly.

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

Mateo, where's that doctrine, that, thing, that... whatever... that traditionalists are not lending their assent to?

What in the world is it? It's easy; here:

"Vatican II teaches ____________________ . The traditionalist were asked if they have given their assent to ___________________ . Since they have given their assent to this teaching of Vatican II about ________ , then they are clearly not in line with the teachings of the Church."

Can you fill in the blanks?

By the way, do you realize that it can't be the Novus Ordo? Because people are always saying we don't lend assent to the teachings of Vatican II. The word teachings means something, and it doesn't mean the Novus Ordo Mass.

You did think of that before, right?

But at any rate, people always say "in dissent against the teachings of Vatican II", so let's go with that.

Can you fill in the blanks? Because if you can't, and nobody else can... and if nobody knows precisely what these teaches are or how to express them in words that indicate anything other than an attitude, then how could we lend assent anyways? Is this getting any clearer?

In the mean time, I'm just going to continue to practice the Catholic Faith.

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

_______off.

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

Um; the above "italics off" was not meant to be what it looks like; sorry. Moderator! lol.

Correction:

"Vatican II teaches ____________________ . The traditionalist were asked if they have given their assent to ___________________ . Since they have not given their assent to this teaching of Vatican II about ________ , then they are clearly not in line with the teachings of the Church."

I really, really wish someone would fill in these blanks, Mateo. Please give it shot. Somebody... anybody?

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

Here's the question again, Emerald. I'm going to type reaaaaaaaly slowly:

"If schismatics are in total agreement with Vatican II docs, why do they complain about them and claim that their words aren't binding/doctrinal?"

It's a simple question. Take your time.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

No.

You're going to answer mine first.

What are the specific teachings of Vatican II that you would say that the traditionalists do not lent their assent to?

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

We are called protestants time and again, by the people on this web.

Question; Who had 6 protestant ministers advising athem at their council?

We did not, so you must be the real protestants. You are the ones cozying up to them.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 08, 2003.

Modernism is such a wicked heresy for the precise reason that it does not explicitly deny anything. That's the reason it's survived so well and its stench has reached such heights in the Church.

The blanks can't be filled in. You'll try & fill them with insults. Please, go ahead. You're doing more for the truly Catholic position on things than you realize. All over the world, Traditional breezes are starting to blow.

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

Read that link everyone, and thanks for it jake, because while I've heard the news of the last couple days in Fatima, until you posted that I had no idea concerning all the details.

Well, there you have it. Behold the Process and the direction, the spirit of the age and the Cult of Man.

It doesn't get any more apparent than this. Or does it? That's my concern at this point.

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

[Me, last time]: "But if the 'gutless wonders' continue to remain silent or to invent some kind of wishy-washy, wimpish formulas worthy only of geldings, then the only sensible thing for us to do is to realize that, by default, they are expressing their partial or complete opposition to the teachings of the Council."
[A gutless wonder, in reply]: "Which teachings?"

Well, gee, Mr. Brainless ... How about reading with your eyes open, so you can see the answer to your question and not have to ask for it. I wrote (in the same post): "You [John P] asked about 'the teaching' -- meaning all the doctrinal statements in all the Vatican II documents." It that doesn't satisfy the gutless wonder, nothing could.

Wait a minute, the gutless wonder is also nearly brainless, so maybe I have to spell a bit out for him -- just an example, for starters. The opening and closing paragraphs (#1 and #69) of "Lumen gentium" are introductory and concluding in nature. But the entire text of articles 2 through 68 of this Dogmatic Constitution consists of doctrinal statements, none of which are we permitted to oppose. We must give one level or another of adherence/submission/assent to these doctrinal statements -- but never any rejection/rebellion/dissent.

[Another gutless wonder]: "JFG has resorted to new lows in his recent post. ... he now resorts to using filthy language ... public use of vulgarity ..."

Just what in the heck is this harpy whining about now?! Good grief! I just went over my post and could not find anything that could have triggered such a complaint except one word that was misinterpreted -- pussies. The whiner, either from ignorance or malice, does not know or pretends not to know that I used this word with its innocent meaning of "kittens -- immature and weak little animals." Now she can go back and read the sentence again and understand it properly. Everyone with a lick o' sense knows that I have been posting here for almost four years without ever using "filthy language" that would offend a woman. What next are we to expect from these banned turkeys?

Aha! I just continued reading and found that another gutless wonder is pretending that I used improper language. These goofballs are just like the political ultra-liberals who latch onto some innocent thing said or done by an opponent -- which they misinterpret and twist every which way, for days on end, with the help of their media accomplices. The pseudo-trads are no better than the ultra-lib fakers!

Back with more later (maybe).
God bless you.
John

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

Jmj
Hi, Becky. Welcome to the forum.

You wrote: "It's not so much a forum with an ideal of being catholic, rather a discussion forum open to all like a downtown bar."

You're partly right and partly wrong. It IS a CATHOLIC forum, not a public religious forum. And the ideal IS that of being fully, truly, orthodox Catholic ... or at least that WAS the ideal when I first came here in January of 2000. I have been reading and writing here almost every day since then. So you can imagine how incredibly sickened I am at how several brigades of mindless anti-Catholic jerks -- of various kinds -- have been badly damaging the forum since early in 2002.

You asked about my "awful language." If you too thought I was using a vulgarity, you realize now that I wasn't (if you read my post just above). But I do admit to using extremely firm and critical language -- directly at a few of the many trouble-makers that have been ruining the forum for almost two years. I have had to resort to stronger and stronger language in the past year to expose to ridicule and punish the evildoers in every small way that I can, but I will never use obscenities and curse words.

We have a moderator here, but he has not yet banned some of the worst culprits. As long as I continue to come here, I will always smash to smithereens the heretical and obnoxious posts left here by admitted anti-Catholics and by phonies who only pretend to be Catholics, and I will keep asking the moderator to ban them.

Now, after having said all that unpleasant stuff, I can say this -- that I hope you noticed, in the list of active threads or archives, that there is not just controversy and bickering, but also plenty of sweetness and light -- prayer request threads, threads about the saints of the day, respectful information threads, and so on. I hope that you will decide to return and grace the forum with your presence if you are a genuine, faithful Catholic (or even a respectful non-Catholic inquirer).

God bless you.
John

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

Well, gee, Mr. Brainless ... How about reading with your eyes open, so you can see the answer to your question and not have to ask for it. I wrote (in the same post): "You [John P] asked about 'the teaching' -- meaning all the doctrinal statements in all the Vatican II documents."

The Vatican II documents contain many reiterations of what the Church has always taught.

Obviously, what I'm getting at is what new doctrines are contained therein that demand our assent?

I'm not getting anyone to spell it out for me. Please. Below this post, write out just one, just one new doctrine that Vatican II puts for to us Catholics as a matter of binding assent.

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

Esmeralda once again drops the ball. Concerning his earlier question ("Is there salvation outside of the Catholic Church?") he moans: "All explanations to date have been, in substance, an unwillingness to submit to the supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church. They've one and all been denials of the Catholic Faith."

The statement is completely incorrect -- and sickeningly ironic. The nerve of this ex-Catholic, wrongly stating that we orthodox Catholics are doing the thing that he has made a career of doing -- "unwillingness to submit to the supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church"!!! We orthodox Catholics DO so submit, while he is too proud or stupid or sick-in-the-head to submit, to the Church's magisterium. It is HE and his accomplices who have "deni[ed] ... the Catholic Faith" on a dogmatic matter related to salvation, making them de facto heretics.

Esmeralda fumbles it again, saying: "[Babies who die unbaptized] cannot see the Beatific Vision; this much even the new CCC will tell you, because Baptism, as a sacrament, is a real thing and is necessary."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says nothing of the sort (i.e., that these babies "cannot see the Beatific Vision). But what can we expect from a guy who spends insufficient time in the CCC and who actually believes that it contains doctrinal errors!!! Yet he would try to deceive you into thinking that he is a Catholic.

God bless you.
John

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

After reading my post, in which I spoke about "Lumen gentium" #2 through #68, Esmeralda writes: "The Vatican II documents contain many reiterations of what the Church has always taught. Obviously, what I'm getting at is what new doctrines are contained therein that demand our assent?"

Previously I had written: "Wait a minute, the gutless wonder is also nearly brainless, so maybe I have to spell a bit out for him -- just an example, for starters."

I guess I was wrong. He is not "nearly brainless." He is "wholly brainless." He can't even figure out what to do, when even a first-grader could figure it out. The dimwit obviously needs to read #2 through #68 of the document and needs to make a note of each thing that he considers a new teaching. Then he must report whether he assents to each noted item or not. If he has nothing to report, then we will (happily) have nothing to talk about. If he reports something and assents to it, then he will be congratulated. If he reports something and dissents from it, then we will show him why he is wrong.

God bless you.
John

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

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church says nothing of the sort (i.e., that these babies "cannot see the Beatific Vision)."

The text from the CCC being disussed:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

The CCC clearly cannot say that these unbaptised babies see the Beatific Vision, and it is obvious from the above text that those who wrote the CCC know this. They do set up, however, an occasion for the comfort of hope, but nothing is definitively set laid out requiring assent. We are not forced here to lend assent to any one of various possible interpretations as to what we might pin this hope to.

In fact, if you back up a bit to a couple paragraphs before, you'll find this:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. [59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The bolded parts are restatements of existing Church doctrine held for 2,000 years.

The underlined parts are speculations which people can take in any number of ways according to their own private interpretation. The text conveniently sets up the reader to choose either to accept the Faith or opt a way out on his own.

There's an easier way to approach this matter though, and that is for all Catholics to lend their assent to an ex cathedra declaration from Pope Eugene IV in Bull Cantate Domino in the 1400's (truth never changes):

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Believe it, or deny the Catholic Faith.

Unbaptised babies cannot see the Beatific Vision if they die. But they are not guilty of actual sins, and as such, will not experience punishment for what they have not done.

Their current situation may be very well better than the happiest man on this earth at this time. Compared to most of us, that's pretty dang happy; it's good enough for most people if you offered it to them.

I know that God always does the right, good, just and merciful thing, and that we are absolutely not to worry as if God would be doing wrong by these babies.

But again, that doesn't mean they have the Beatific Vision. I have no business as a Catholic deciding what the right thing for God to do with these souls when the Catholic Church itself has not even rendered a conclusion regarding there actual status.

I don't know their actual condition, and as the CCC states, neither does the Church.

I will not deny my Catholic Faith because I'm over-anxious about things that are beyond my comprehension.

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

Let's have those new doctrines laid out in Vatican II that are supposed to be there, to which traditionalists have not lent their assent.

Pretty please.

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

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. [59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61]

Instead of calling the bolded part a speculation, it would actually be more accurate to call it a qualifier that implies something without actually stating it, leaving the reader the possibility of drawing conclusions over and above perrenial Church doctrine.

In other words, it gives rise to a certain kind of ambiguity.

This statement:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

...is certainly true. But it's actually the case that baptism is also necessary for all the rest of the people too, besides "those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

While the text does not speak a non-truth or a denial of doctrine, it leaves the reader open to the possibility of concluding that there might be some impossible-to-overcome impediment to receiving the Sacrament and that in these cases, baptism is not required to attain the Beatific Vision.

But if one does not recieve the Sacrament, according to the CCC's text, one cannot attain the Beatific Vision. Again, here it is:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

It's like this example:

"Drinking water every day is necessary to keep a person alive who does a lot of excercise everyday and works real hard."

Does that mean that it isn't necessary for everyone else? One could easily take the part in place of the whole if it weren't that common sense would dictate otherwise.

What's doctrine:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

What's not doctrine:

That unbaptised babies can see the Beatific Vision.

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

Quick response...

Emerald: "No. You're going to answer mine first. What are the specific teachings of Vatican II that you would say that the traditionalists do not lent their assent to?"

Now this is just plain silly, Emerald. The problem is this: your imaginary interlocutor has told you that traditionalist schismatics don't assent to specific teachings of Vatican II. Let me set you straight: it is the traditionalist schismatics who have said that they have problems with Vatican II! Do you get it? If they have a problem, then it makes sense for them to share what problem they have with it.

Let's get rational and not be so defensive.

Emerald: "The Vatican II documents contain many reiterations of what the Church has always taught."

It sounds like you 100% assent to the documents of Vatican II.

Bubbles"Question; Who had 6 protestant ministers advising them at their council? "

Hi Bubbles, there were 6 protestant ministers who were observers at the Vatican II Council. Continuing in the "History of Catholic Ecumenism" class, I have some questions for you:

Question #1: What priest encouraged his brother priests not to discuss the areas of difference between protestant and Catholic teachings during their attendence at a Church council?

Question #2: What was the first Catholic council where protestant representatives were invited to attend?

The truth is out there, Bubbles.

Jake: "Modernism is such a wicked heresy for the precise reason that it does not explicitly deny anything."

To quote the Dread Pirate Roberts, "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."

Regarding Jake's Fatima link:

Emerald: "Well, there you have it. Behold the Process and the direction, the spirit of the age and the Cult of Man."

Catholics influencing pagans at a meeting in Fatima? Or pagans influencing Catholics? I don't know the details? But the schismatic vote has been cast: this must be bad stuff. Hold on for a second.

Only a couple days ago, I mentioned the Catholic Church's establishing the Nativity celebration roughly at the time of the winter solstice. Jake affirmed that this had to do with "erradication of the pagan feasts celebrated at the same time of the year." The potential result of such an action is the syncretization of the pagan feasts with the Christian. But, for some reason, the traditionalist schismatics give a free pass to the ancient Catholic Church, while their conspiracy-theorist brethren in certain protestant sects go bananas lambasting the Church. And they would accuse the Catholic Church of polluting the purity of Christianity with paganism. Syncretism...modernism...guilty until proven innocent.

Christian and pagan feasts: Catholics influencing pagans...or pagans influencing Catholics?

If one truly is skeptical of the Catholic Church, then one should judge the early days with skepticism as much as these past few decades. In this way, a true conspiracy theorist can prove that modernism began back in the early days of Christianity.

In fact, if one were so inclined, one could take a negative view of many "innovations" of Catholic Christianity.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Nice work Mateo hows things?

Hi John after a while one just gets tired of the stupidity of some people , and I see the same frustration in you as in me. Ive been reading my Bible and would like your advice, do we as Christians have any justification for being dismissive of our fellow man, no matter how stupid, belligerent, obstinate and foolish, deceptive, devious and dishonest they are about the Church and her teachings?

“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” Mat 5:22

John I say this for both of us in that I believe maybe we should change our approach, we should point out the faults of our fellow man and if they choose to ignore our advice we should forgive them Luke 17:3

Perhaps if we do this the moderator might be more willing to enforce the forum rules more stringently. What say you good Sir?

Emerald my dear friend every bone in my body says “ridicule humiliate lampoon “ but for once Ill try a different tack( equally ineffectual Id imagine). I think youre a dreamer in denial, feeding off your “experiences” and trying desperately to explain them so they fit inside your preconceived ideological nostalgic notions .Please take Apostles Pauls advice regarding mystical experiences as he “heard things which must not and can not be put into words” . I pray for the day when all I hear from you is “The Good News” but for the life of me I cant last remember when that happened.

Why don’t you read the documents yourself, clearly you haven’t done so, its absurd to contest we have to post every teaching of the Council online, its simply not practical although given your latest posting this one teaching struck a chord:

“For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.”

Do you agree with this Emerald YES or NO?

Ok lets get doen to business

Frank: "In order to understand the document, you must understand the times." Emerald “Modernism”

I believe this single comment shows just how bereft you are of even the most basic theological understandings. Id love in my heart for you recognize the contribution you could make to the Church and the destruction you are causing but I truly believe you have lost the ability to keep perspective just as we find many other “single issue” groups (like our own Rota blowhards). Its tragic but we must remember “Gods will be done!” What is required is not pious enthusiasm or pure interiority but OBEDIENCE in DEED and DISPOSITION, God demands your heart Emerald and you’re denying him it while rationalizing your way out of error. That’s modernism in action my friend.

Anyway I ranting and Frank is OTM as usual, theology must seek in the words of the Vatican II Council “ a profound understanding of revealed truth without neglecting contact with its own time”

>>>>I haven't been corrected; the Catholic Faith has been attacked.

Oh dear.This will be interesting as per usual “contradiction number ???” For those not aquatinted with our Emerald he sadly spends his life seeking out contradictions he sees in current teachings vs pre Vatican II. He has failed in every attempt of course.

Re Pope Pius XII in the document Mystici Corporis Christi:

>>>So, all the explanations I was supposed to have bowed down before are actually errors. Good thing I didn't listen!

Yeah right. Lord what have I done to deserve this? Listen to yourself please snap out of it man …these “explanations” I have given to you are not mine they come from our Holy Fathers yet YOU contend (with your very basic understanding) to know better than them. YOU contend that they contradict previous Church teachings yet JESUS told us this is impossible. Emerald put aside your pride and rejoin the Catholic Church as member of FAITH, there is no contradiction with current teachings on salvation and this document.

>>>Read it and see for yourself that the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same.

Ive read it, how about you do the same yourself .Properly mate this time so you understand it beyond the sound bite you’ve cribbed off some anti Catholic website(don’t lie please).

Pope Pius XII specifically makes the contrast between the Catholic Church and the Mystical body of Christ

. . . “even for those who are separated from the body of the Catholic Church, what we shall soon have to say about the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ will not be displeasing . . .”

He also clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire . . . he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire, and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation.

>>>>It may perhaps be the case that ya'll may have to just drop it and come into line with Catholic doctrine. What a novel thought. But hey, I don't hold it against you. It's not like I never thought something similiar to you and the others... things just change, you know, and one begins to wonder what the truth really is and how to run after it and find it.

Normally Id amuse myself by mincing your arrogant words and humiliate and ridicule you into hiding but I m trying a new approach. I FORGIVE YOU Emerald. I forgive your words and I forgive your errors. You can be saved by the grace available to you, that’s not equating the Catholic structure of dogma and belief with Protestant beliefs. The Bible teacjes us both things. It teaches broad ecumenism and so does the Church. It teaches that there is one truth and that divisions are very sinful, so does the Church. I though it was obvious and the level of your understanding is so wooden, shallow, literal, and legalistic it continues to surprise me . God Bless

Ps John/Mateo if you could please make a link for Emerald and anyone wishing to understand properly Church teachings on Salvation from renowned and respected theologian Father Most. http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 09, 2003.

Hi all,

Here's something to assent to in Vatican II. Does this "fill in the blank" for traditionalist schismatics?

I can't credit the reference to myself. It was actually our priest who mentioned it today during his homily. The italics are mine. This is from Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith"

Sounds pretty Catholic to me.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Kiwi's link:

Is there Salvation Outside the Church.

It's good to hear from you, Kiwi. How's it going?

For my part, God is still blessing me with gifts of joy and little crosses. It seems that he never tires teaching His children humility! ;-) My wife and I are enjoying new parenthood, so most of my joy is focused on the little princess.

God bless you,

Mateo

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

The council was convened Dec. 8, 1869, in St. Peter’s, and it was attended by some 600 of the higher clergy (patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots, generals of orders, and theologians) from all over the world. The Eastern Churches in schism were invited, and the Protestants were officially informed. Late in 1870 the council was brought to a halt by the entrance of Italian soliders into Rome, and a month later the pope prorogued the council indefinitely; it was never reconvened.

Note Mateo; Eastern churches invited, Protestants, "informed". You surely must know the difference between, invited, and informed.

An aside; Can you dig up a picture of any pre vatican 2 pope, hob nobbing with protestant leaders. That might get you a tidy sum, in one of those fancy auctions.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 09, 2003.

Below are the entry paragraphs taken from Kiwi and Mateo's link to the Fr. Most article, which I promise I will read in it's entirety. But skimming through the first couple paragraphs, the setup for the modernist method of Hegelian synthesis can be scoped out instantly. All it takes is a little practice.

Remember; what you are looking for is to see if, instead of saying exactly what the truth is exactly as Holy Mother Church teaches, the article ends up making estimates of the truth, or proposing that the truth lies in a gray area. I want to know if Catholic Truth is being proposed to us as a blurry perspective of the truth.

Here; the first paragraph in a series:

From merely popular level mission magazines to more scholarly works, one so often finds mere despair about this requirement of membership. For example, a seminar on Christology at the 1984 convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America shows not a few participants not only thought the Church could be dispensed with, but even Christ Himself. Doubt was even raised over the "non- contradictory notion of truth" with a tendency to think that "truth is always perspectival."[2]

In this paragraph, the progessive extremity is laid out; that is, one of doubt and denial of doctrine or truth. The existence of doubt or denial is treated in the paragraph just a matter of fact, that some people doubt the truth or the clarity of it. While the paragraph does not condone such doubt or denial, it does convenient not condemn the doubts or denials, allowing speculation concerning them some place in the matter.

Let's call this paragraph, then, the antithesis

Now for the second paragraph in the series, which directly follows:

At the other end of the spectrum, one finds the pessimistic notion of St. Augustine that most persons are lost without really a chance and--though Augustine did not seem to share this second facet--the fundamentalistic understanding of the membership requirement, leading to heroic missionary zeal on the part of not a few Saints, anxious to rescue pagans from otherwise certain eternal ruin.

Alright now, here's your thesis. It lays out the truth of the matter and does not deny it outright, but in direct opposition to the non-condemnation found in the first paragraph, this paragraph does not necessarily affirm the truth. It casts it in the light of a rigidity that is presumed to be inaccurate.

So we have the non-condemnation of a known falsity in paragraph, the antithesis, and the non-support of a known dogma of Faith in the second paragraph, the thesis.

The sprectrum is laid out, then, for the reader; the synthesis is being set up. It even states it in the second paragraph, as plain as day:

At the other end of the spectrum, one finds the pessimistic notion of St. Augustine that most persons are lost without really a chance and... etc.

See the bolded part? He says it outright. There's a spectrum, and the he has laid out the extremities of this spectrum for us, and has called neither extremity the truth. The process of Modernist, Hegelian synthesis is right here for you to witness!

So then we have the setup up for the synthesis to take place. What the author is going to do now is to make the truth appear to lie in the mean, or in the gray area between these to extremities that he has set up. Watch:

Yet, the Fathers of the first centuries, on closer study, reveal the start of a way out of this impasse. They did not, it seems, reach the complete solution, but they pointed in the right direction.

Touche.

They pointed in the right direction, the author says. They didn't point at the truth, he says, but in the direction of the truth.

What have we got then? An estimate of the truth.

But the Catholic Church does not teach estimates of the truth; it teaches Truth.

What have we lost? The Catholic Truth.

That's all I've read so far, but I do promise I will read the whole thing.

But believe or not, I'm not going to let this get into an extra ecclesiam nulla solus discussion, but instead I'm willing to take on the whole ball of wax and take aim at the synthesis of all heresies. I'm going to take this most excellent example you have provide me with and move it over the the "How Modernism Operates" thread where it belongs and procede from there.

I will also answer each and every items that both of you, kiwi and Mateo, have asked so far. It might take some time, but I'll get it done... I'm not leaving this discussion and I'm standing my ground, not budging an inch away from the doctrines of Holy Mother Church.

I am under absolutely no obligation to doubt my Faith, and with the grace of God I absolutely will not allow myself to doubt my Faith.

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

These are some of the things that the pope has gone far off base. He cannot apoligize for anyone else's sins, but only his own.

According to news articles Pope John Paul II wants to make a sweeping apology for 2,000 years of church violence, persecution, and blunders. He seems not to understand that people commit sin, not the Church. The Church, an instrument of God, is incapable of doing evil. Only people have the ability to sin. If he wants to apologize for someone's personal sins he should understand that only the individual can ask for forgiveness. One cannot be baptized or forgiven sin after death. Is he trying to establish a precedent for someone to apologize for, or forgive his sins after he dies?

-- (keylargoman@floridasunshine23.com), November 09, 2003.

It must be the pervasive marijuana smoke in the southern California air that leads Emerald to his total incapacity to think clearly!

Last time, I said -- denying an error posted by Esmeralda: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church says nothing of the sort (i.e., that these babies 'cannot see the Beatific Vision')."
For clarity, let me repeat the Esmeraldine error, in his own words, and with my emphasis added: "[Babies who die unbaptized] cannot see the Beatific Vision; this much even the new CCC will tell you, because Baptism, as a sacrament, is a real thing and is necessary."

What happened next, after I told him that he was wrong about the CCC? Instead of Esmeralda checking the CCC, finding out that I was right, and admitting he was wrong, this lunatic actually tried to play a con game to save face. He actually quoted the CCC and pretended that he didn't contradict it! [Don't just take my word for it. Scroll up and see for yourself.]

Not only is he unqualified to say, from his own minuscule theological knowledge, that babies who die unbaptized "cannot see the Beatific Vision," but also he falsely stated that the CCC "will tell" us that this is a fact!
But instead of admitting that he was wrong, he now whines: "The CCC clearly cannot say that these unbaptised babies see the Beatific Vision ..."

NO KIDDING! No one ever said that the CCC made such a claim. The whole point here was that Emerald's original claim was false -- i.e., that the CCC claims that the babies cannot have the Beatific Vision!

Lord Jesus, I beg you to preserve us from these pernicious heretics!
JFG

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

Jmj
Hello, Kiwi.

I understand your comments, and they don't surprise me. We've all had these thoughts from time to time ... "How about if we try this other tactic? Maybe it would sway So-and-So if I stop giving him a hard time and start treating him with kid gloves, etc., etc."
Sorry, Kiwi, but long experience has shown that these ideas never work.

You are mistaken about something though. I am no longer "frustrated" by the pseudo-traditionalists. I gave up on them 1.5 years ago. Now I fight them only to show lurkers that they mustn't buy their devilish wares. My "frustration" is not with the pseudo-trads, but with the moderator, who is failing EVERYONE (lurkers, pseudo-trads, and orthodox Catholics alike).

He is sinning by failing to punish persistent heretical proselytizers -- gross evildoers -- by banning them.
He is sinning by allowing our innocent, untrained lurkers to be exposed to the pseudo-trad claptrap.
And he is sinning by forcing us and himself to waste vast amounts of time refuting the pseudo-trad turkeys -- who, the moderator himself states, would comprise far less than 1% of Catholics, if they still were Catholic.

No, Kiwi, your suggestion is not what we should do at this forum. The exact thing that is needed here is what we heard about in this morning's Gospel reading. Please note:
Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, "Take these out of here,and stop making my Father's house a marketplace."

The moderator MUST play the role of Jesus and drive out the riffraff from the "temple" that is this forum. And without another moment's delay! Who, at the forum, is playing the roles of those to be driven out? Two groups of people are ...

(1) The money-changers are played by the three guys who are obsessed with their marriage/nullity cases, having publicly rehashed the same tired, nauseating facts about 187 times, never failing to bash the pope and the Church in the process. Maybe you'll recall that, about twice a week, some poor confused or ignorant person would come here to ask for simple help with his/her marriage/nullity situation -- seeking just some basic facts or advice. Now, we almost never see such threads, because the Nullity Numb-Nuts (Karl, Daniel, Pat) have jammed the thread-lists and archives with their garbage, apparently scaring off almost all the ordinary folks who want to ask their personal questions.

(2) The sellers of animals are played by the Pseudo-Trads, who try to "sell" their animalistic heresies here ("Emerald," Regina, "Isabel," and Jake -- plus their score or so of fast-evaporating minions).

If I could fashion a "cord" and drive all these evildoers out, I would, because I want to imitate Jesus. Oh, if only the moderator would receive the gifts of Fortitude and Wisdom to imitate his Master too!

God bless you.
John

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

John,

I do not understand why you think some of the people in this form should go just because you do not agree with them, please explain.

SS

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), November 09, 2003.

I think they should go voluntarily. They never will, of course; they think we need them. John Gecik doesn't bother them clearly. They laugh when he posts. I think he plays right into their hands.

My response is I'll debate with them if I feel interested. They're often dull debators, so I limit myself.

The same goes for other intruders on this forum. The heretical and fanatical non-Christians. They bore us stiff. But I consdider the task of replying to a lot of nonsense a true spiritual work of mercy.

Father Damien served lepers. I want to serve boring know-nothings. Even Masons. Gays and lesbians are happy to engage in conversation as long as they're not corrected for their sin. But there's nothing exciting about them, really. Let's try to serve them too-- with a spoonful of sugar and hard medicine.

The so called traditionists are just Cathoics with a bucket over their heads. They're already being punished by Our Lord, IMHO; for their Pharisaical blubbering. He never lets them share in joyful Catholicism; only the tedious kind.

Deleting them is useless. Just as we tolerate John's bad temper we must tolerate their carping. We have to realise; in another age they would have been lepers. Can we fail them? No-- we have to serve them the way Fr. Damien served. With patience and love. Even if they ooze all over the landscape. Have pity on them all. God really loves them! ! ! Hear me, John ? ? ?

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

That's interesting, John and Eugene.

Mateo:

I said "No. You're going to answer mine first. What are the specific teachings of Vatican II that you would say that the traditionalists do not lent their assent to?"

To which you said "Now this is just plain silly, Emerald."

"You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?" Actually, it's not silly at all; far from it... it's you getting out of the clearest path to resolving this dispute. It's right in front of you...

...you claim that traditionalists are in dissent. I ask, once again, the long-standing question-never-answered which is this:

To what doctrines are traditionalists in dissent?

But no... see, you want to ask another question. Forget that noise, I want my question answered first! lol! =)

No way. You see, it's because the question will put you in a corner, and so you avoid it. It goes like this in any anti-traditionalist's head:

"I know the traditionalists are in dissent against Vatican II, but I've got this problem... see, I can't say how. If I say there's nothing new in Vatican II, I'm one of them. But I'm not, and I certainly don't want to be one of them! I want to be different than them. So there must be a way in which I'm different, so Vatican II just has to be telling us something different. Problem is, if I actually say Vatican II says something different than what has always been taught, or something new, they're going to nail me for being inconsistant with tradition and existing doctrine. This is a real pickle for me! I've got an idea. Let's mock the Trads and pretend they can't think straight, and perhaps in the mean time, ask another question instead."

But you know better. So Mateo, please...

Answer the question. What do traditionalist Catholics need to lend their assent to.

After all, they're called schismatics and heretics. This better be good in order to justify the claims, and clear as well.

Very, very clear and precise, and very obvious. So no, It's not silly, I'm sticking to my guns and I'm going to make you tell me what it is that the traditionalists are in dissent to.

Get cracking. =)

"You seem a decent fellow; I hate to die."

Kiwi, I want Mateo to answer this before moving on, but I saw your post; thanks. If you can tell me what it is, specifically, that traditionalist do not lend their assent to, by all means, jump in and provide it.

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

Lord Jesus, I beg you to preserve us from these pernicious heretics!

Don't blame God for your failures. This is our forum now, and you can't have it back.

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

plus their score or so of fast-evaporating minions

Well, we are losing one, but he's entering religious life; and so we're more than happy to let him go. He can do infinitely more for poor souls like ours where he's going than you could ever dream of doing by another decade (or however long you've got left) of insulting strangers with a keyboard. By the grace of God, you'll outlive this feeble server, but any way you look at it, your party's over.

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

"If I could fashion a "cord" and drive all these evildoers out, I would, because I want to imitate Jesus."

Heaven is way ahead of you; it's called the Rosary.

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

Kiwi, you've got a lot of good stuff in your last post and I want to address it all, but if I do it here, it'll turn into a debate about the borders of the Catholic Church, and inside/outside and you know the rest of the story.

But for the here and now on this thread, since it directly and unambiguously relates to the stated topic of this thread, I'm serious about this pinning Mateo down. Or anyone else. I'm not trying to be mean, I just really want to know what he thinks traditional Catholics are in dissent against; I want him to be clear and specific and not dodge the question.

It's gotta be a doctrinal item, because the opposition to tradtional Catholicism themselves tells us so... they all say this: "do you traditional Catholics accept the teachings of Vatican II".

Right?

So naturally, I speak the truth, which is that I in fact really do accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

To which they respond "but what about the teachings of Vatican II?"

...which, naturally, leads me to believe there are new teachings in Vatican II.

This nabs my attention, needless to say. I would like to know what these new teachings are, if they exist. That way, I can answer the opposition's question, which is whether or not traditional Catholics accept the teachings of Vatican II.

I feel the need to answer their question, since based on their claim that traditionalist Catholics are in dissent against the teachings of Vatican II, they are drawing HUGE conclusions of the most grave variety:

They say we're all in schism. Wow! That's some big stuff.

Sometimes they even say us traditional Catholics are heretics. Now this might seem far fetched, by I think some people might not even like us that much; maybe it's my imagination. Probably. =)

But at any rate, you'd think that the opponents of traditional Catholicism would be able to jump right in there and lay out the new teachings of Vatican II in a heart beat and scream for a yes or no.

After all, I could do it in a heartbeat for the Protestants, no problem. So they should be able to do it for me, especially since they like to call traditional Catholics "Protestants".

I think you might have one good question, kiwi, in your post up there, demanding a yes or no answer. I want to answer it now in this thread, but I want to see it isolated so that I can address it with clarity. Can you repost it below so I can answer? Plus any other new doctrines of Vatican II they you have ready to go as well.

One, two, fifteen, fifty new doctrines... all just as good. One would be fine.

Waiting.

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

italics off

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

> 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".Where is the angry voice of the one who occupies the chair of Peter. Silence, in this case, signifies assent.

-- (Keylargoman@floridasunshine23.com), November 09, 2003.

Some of you ask others if they accept V II and some of you state that you accept V II. But what are you accepting besides the word “Vatican II”?

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003.

Keymanlargo:
Quoting your quote:

''converging of religions in a universal Christ,''

Sounds to me curiously like, ''There shall be one flock and One Shepherd,'' a concept like the Catholic religion calling every human soul to unity in Jesus Christ before His second coming.

Unless you say that can't ever be so, what does a Catholic have to object to? Is your flock better than Christ's flock?

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

Hi Mateo great to to see you back, a baby girl! I never knew or at least I cant remember you telling us. Shes certainly got herself a fine Dad. Im doing all right thanks, drink too much sometimes, but otherwise fine. I just cant decide if I want to be a missionary or a mercenary in life! Blessings and best wishes to you and your young family.

John thanks for the Scripture, I see where you’re coming from though Im going to make more of an effort

Emerald no real time tonight lets try and get this sorted though once and for all as you seem more focused than normal and you appear to be “digging your heels in” and actually making a stand . This could be fun for a change: please no poetry/lyrics/ mysticism/ language structure criticisms/philosophy 101 word games etc etc as much as they have their place, just speak the plain old truth as you see it.

You accept the validity of the Second Vatican Council and understand the level of assent needed obviously. You understand that tradition is a living tradition and that in each age the Church will bring out with greater CLARITY the proper teaching of the Catholic Church. You must accept as a Catholic that no authentic pre-Conciliar teaching of the Church can be, nor ever was, at variance with the true teachings of Vatican II. Yet more is required., Vatican II is more than a sum-total of teachings but that’s going a step too far we can get to that later.

Re teachings heres a few which we can get speficic on, theres many others but this will do for a start

1. Salvation 2. The Hierarchical Nature of the Church 3. The Magisterium, 4. Ecumenism 5. The Teaching Authority of the Church; and the Primacy of the Catholic Church 6. The Special Nature of the Ministerial Priesthood 7. The Pro-Creative Purpose of the Sacrament of Matrimony 8. The Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy 9. Religious Liberty etc etc

Feel free to post specific Vatican II teachings on any of these or other teachings while I get together a few quotes on salvation and get back to you probably not until the weekend as Im busy.. Ive clearly missed something in your logic what is difficult about your request? Its very easy to do this isnt it? You’ve been bleating on about teachings for ages, why is the rest of board including the moderator so gun shy about it, it makes me nervous I admit it!Ill have a crack though of course call me naive.

WHAT AM I MISSING? As I see it teachings have always been clarified since day one and always will be that doesn’t change the essence of the teaching or the truthfulness of a teaching, it just means we understand it better. WHATs the problem? Till the weekend then

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

Emerald Ive just read your reply to Fr Most, most unfortunate IMHO Ill reply to that as well but please dont post your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of this great Catholic man elsewhere until I at least have time to reply later in the week. Thankyou.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

Alright.

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

"Emerald no real time tonight lets try and get this sorted though once and for all as you seem more focused than normal and you appear to be “digging your heels in” and actually making a stand . This could be fun for a change: please no poetry/lyrics/ mysticism/ language structure criticisms/philosophy 101 word games etc etc as much as they have their place, just speak the plain old truth as you see it."

This is the absolute truth; you nailed it on the head.

Whatever cooperation you need from me to lay the matter out and really get down to the truth of Catholicism, I'll give it.

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

Uless, of course, it requires you to give a simple yes or no answer to anything.

Frank

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

Excerpts from the Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Excerpt from CCC:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Savior. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.

My brief encounter here has been interesting, but in my departure from here I came across this thread. In the thread I was involved in, "Trolling for Objective Answers", this question of who can and cannot be saved was a primary theme. The above two quotes, one from the Athanasian Creed, and one from the CCC, are in direct conflict with each other in language.

I have learned much in my brief encounter here. Primarily, I find it ironic that I have been "chastized" for not being Catholic, to the tune of being called an obnoxious barely human idiot that is lost. After reading threads like this one, I'm not sure which unified Catholic Church I have been chastised to join! Yup, the unity of the spirit is overwhelming, and the edifying words of encouragement by people such as Eugene have inspired me alright.

To one who is looking for the brotherhood of the saints, I've found the equivalent of sibling rivalry, who create undo stress in the home, and bring dishonor to the Parents. No thank you. If I wanted this, I'd hook up with my overbearing demeaning brothers who stripped me and sent me off naked in the middle of daylight. I speak this to your shame, not theirs.

Still looking for the lively stones who are called by His name, who exhibit the fruits of the Spirit, who receive all those whom He has received.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 10, 2003.

Emerald,

I answered your question about assent (even though it was really an accusation from your imaginary interlocutor). Now, answer my question.

"Quid pro quo, Dr. Lector."

AMDG,

Mateo

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

I wrote to Bubbles:

"Question #1: What priest encouraged his brother priests not to discuss the areas of difference between protestant and Catholic teachings during their attendence at a Church council?

Question #2: What was the first Catholic council where protestant representatives were invited to attend? "

Quid pro quo, Bubbles.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Emerald,

I can't believe that you've actually begun quoting your imaginary Catholic interlocutor. Can I start making up schismatic quotes, too? It's an interesting way to debate a topic, I'll give you that...

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Emerald: "No way. You see, it's because the question will put you in a corner, and so you avoid it."

Emerald, even though I answered your question, I "avoided" it because I never accused you (or the schismatic gang) of not assenting to the documents of Vatican II.

Another couple quid pro quo questions for any schismatic:

If a priest got married, could he still serve at his parish as a priest? If not, what doctrine would he be breaking?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Eric H. seems unhappy about his burden, ''I have been chastized for not being Catholic to the tune of being called an obnoxious, barely human idiot that is lost.'' // Followed by, ''words of encouragement by people such as Eugene have inspired me alright. (Sniff.) Hate to see a grown man cry. I never called anybody ''barely human,'' and my words to you only said what's true:

You're a heretic. By this grave fault, you are truly lost. Christ said to us that He, the Good Shepherd, searches for the lost lamb; and you are one of these. Not by our choice; by the facts. Catholic truth states very emphatically, Jesus Christ is God; second Person of the Holy Trinity, with the Almighty Father and the Holy Spirit, ONE GOD.

To DENY that article of faith, for whatever reason, is heresy. To reject the truth because you plumb the depths of scripture looking for ''proof'' - -Merely to please your own discriminating gospel, is to deny as well the authority Christ placed in His Holy Church. Not such formal heresy, but still, preference for the wilderness over Christ's sheepfold. You place yourself outside the faith.

I state what's evident. You're a heretic by choice. A lost sheep by your false convictions. Not because these are terms of abuse but because you have a serious deficiency to overcome-- a sad fact! This has been your first wake-up call.

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

Mateo,

If the schismatics are only posting to reinforce their beliefs to themselves, but have no INTENT of changing them or absorbing anything contrary to them, they will not give you satisfactory answers to anything other than that they hate the mass. If you can get a straight answer out of Emerald, my hat's off to you.

Frank

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

The council was convened Dec. 8, 1869, in St. Peter’s, and it was attended by some 600 of the higher clergy (patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots, generals of orders, and theologians) from all over the world. The Eastern Churches in schism were invited, and the Protestants were officially informed. Late in 1870 the council was brought to a halt by the entrance of Italian soliders into Rome, and a month later the pope prorogued the council indefinitely; it was never reconvened. Note Mateo; Eastern churches invited, Protestants, "informed". You surely must know the difference between, invited, and informed.

An aside; Can you dig up a picture of any pre vatican 2 pope, hob nobbing with protestant leaders. That might get you a tidy sum, in one of those fancy auctions.

Mateo; The answer to question 1. is the pope himslf. To the greeks; "Icome not to procelytize" Doesn't sound much like St, Paul

Question 2. Still as above. Fry it, boil it or bake it. The answer is still Vatican II. they not only invited protestants, they gave them input.

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

Eugene,

My concern is the double-minded teachings, as my post points out. You must not be an adherent to CCC, otherwise you wouldn't continue to speak as you do, thinking to be my judge. Just the same, you have been invaluable in instructing me of the rigidity of your thinking, whether proven or not. Sometimes the best teacher is the one that shows you the way NOT to be by their own example.

Thanks Teach. I'm moving on to greener pastures. Sheep weren't meant to be penned up. Enjoy your corral.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 10, 2003.

Is a Catholic writing this ? ? ? ''a picture of any pre Vatican 2 pope, hob nobbing with protestant leaders. That might get you a tidy sum, etc.''

Here's my sum. --The Pope can ''hob-nob with sinners-- Definitely! Jesus Christ did it, and --GUESS WHO?--

The Pharisees hated Him for ''consorting with prostitutes & publicans ! ! !''

I can't understand why so many so called Catholics today are Pharisees, by any description of the term. Listen to this evil spirit:

''Fry it, boil it or bake it. The answer is still Vatican II. They (notice the pejorative ''THEY'') not only invited protestants, they gave them input.'' -- Holy COW !!! Protestants had INPUT !

We can't have input from a protestant! We'll go to hell for that!!! That damned protestant! Instead of saying, ''Agnus Dei qui tollit peccata mundi;'' we would say, ''Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,''--! ! ! All for those protestant sinners! Are you kidding? Lol!

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

Hi Bubbles,

I appreciate that you tried to answer my questions, though your answers were not correct.

In answer to the first question, it was Saint Ignatius of Loyola who implored his priests to avoid discussing issues that divide protestant and Catholic teachings. He wrote to those members of the Society who were attending the Council of Trent.

The second question's answer: protestants were invited to attend the Council of Trent. They (though guaranteed safe passage to attend by the Pope) refused the invitation.

I appreciate that you attempted to answer the questions, though. Thanks.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Good pick up on the choice of wording Gene, "they" implies someone other than you. It's not "we" (Catholics) invited them, this schismatic must be admitting on some level at least they aren't part of the church anymore.

Frank

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

One last comment regarding Emerald's question:

"To what doctrines are traditionalists in dissent?"

If I were explicitly accusing them of doctrinal dissent, I would call SSPX et al "heretics," not "schismatics." As I don't make such an accusation, I believe "schismatic" is the most appropriate term.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"If I were explicitly accusing them of doctrinal dissent, I would call SSPX et al "heretics," not "schismatics." As I don't make such an accusation, I believe "schismatic" is the most appropriate term."

No kidding... which makes it even more puzzling why the traditionalists are so often said to be not in adherence to the teachings of Vatican II. If it's all schism and no heresy, than what's the about a problem with teachings?

But most of the time traditionalists are called dissenters, a term so loose that it's not even confined to discussions of the Catholic Faith, let alone a word that's not really even official Church terminology.

Take your pick, though; I don't care. Either one... both; makes no difference. And no, you tell me exactly what the traditionalists are in schism, heresy or dissent against.

If you can't tell me, then the charges are dropped. Right Frank? Maybe you could give it a shot, Frank.

What are the teachings of Vatican II that traditionalists are denying?

Steven said something earlier, and it's something I haven't even thought of really, and it makes complete sense to ask. I would hate to see this overlooked:

"Some of you ask others if they accept V II and some of you state that you accept V II. But what are you accepting besides the word “Vatican II”?"

Maybe you could answer that as well.

Hey look, traditionalists are being called schismatics, and I want to know EXACTLY why, and I mean exactly.

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

Emerald,

You must have missed my post quoting Lumen Gentium. Any thoughts?

Also, how is breaking numerous Canon Laws and applauding others who break Canon Law acceptable to someone who is "faithful" to the Catholic Church?

Come on, Dr. Lector. "Quid pro quo." Are you avoiding my simple question?

"If schismatics are in total agreement with Vatican II docs, why do they complain about them and claim that their words aren't binding/doctrinal?"

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Hey look, traditionalists Catholics are being called schismatics Neos and modernists;

and I want to know EXACTLY why, and I mean exactly YOU, or SOMEBODY, tell me!

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

"You must have missed my post quoting Lumen Gentium. Any thoughts?"

I didn't miss it. Or course I have thoughts on it.

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

Keep squirming, Emerald. What happened to your ability to dialog? It seems to have disappeared. Why must you play diversionary games instead of taking a question or topic head-on? Is this your path to finding truth?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Well Mateo, you can't say you exactly laid it out.

I asked this:

"Hey look, traditionalists are being called schismatics, and I want to know EXACTLY why, and I mean exactly."

You referenced upthread the text you posted from Lumen Gentium which, I suppose, is supposed to show exactly how traditionalists are in schism. Here it is again:

Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith"

Can you lay out the case for me?

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

Shalom Emerald,

You asked those here to fill in the blanks in your question, so we will hazard our own attempt. Our answers by the way are in brackets ...{}...:

Vatican II teaches...{"the Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the Baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter". Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly Baptized are put in a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio, respectively). It also seems that she claimed a brotherhood with Jews and decried anti-Semitism calling for dialogue (Nostra Acetate). Lastly, she gave the salvation of non-Christians to G-d alone, something also found in Nostra Acetate and Lumen Gentium. Thus we do not see "there is no salvation outside the Church", but rather presupposes that people who cannot, through no fault of their own (i.e. culture), see the truth of our Church may still be among His saved, if they like our father Abraham seek G-d with what they do know and come to find Him (though this is a harder path). This teaching also was drawn from Vatican II, however it is well explained (far better than we can) in Cat.846-848., going on}...Traditionalists were asked if they have given their assent to ...{Vatican II and the full authority of the Holy See as is defined by our Catholic faith, Cat.882, and 891} ... Since they ...{or at least some}... have not given their assent to this teaching of Vatican II about ...{Trusting in the authority of Peter even when they do not fully understand what our Church teaches}, then they are clearly not in line with the teachings of the Church, {though we suspect this may be a simple error like those whom our Church is trying to bring under her canopy of faith through staffs of mercy and pledges, and we believe Rad-Trads fit in the same category if they also "through no fault of their own" "do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" because having "been properly Baptized [they] are put in a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Churc" whether they or others see this or not}."

Hopefully this clarifies our position on these matters to you.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), November 10, 2003.

`Mr. Foegen; You quote copiously from documents from Vatican 2, but are strangely silent about quoting from anything prior to Vatican 2.

Why don't you. If you can find anything that backs up those V2 documents, I would appreciate seeing it. It only strengthen the idea, of a "new church".

To Mateo: I'm still waiting for that picture.

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

For the first time in the 86-year history of Fatima all of the Pagan and Christian delegates were invited to participate in the Ecumenical celebrations. One of the principal 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.

I must obey this to be a Catholic in good standing? Even Protestants would get a bit seasick on this one. No Gaia for me, for you maybe, but not me.

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

Hi Bubbles you asked C and C for supporting documents for Vatican II. Heres a few refrences/notes to get you started on Lumen Gentium alone. Let me know when youve finished, theres plenty more.:-)

1 Cf. Mk. 16, 15.

2 Col. 1, 15.

3 Rom. 8, 29.

4 Cf. Eph. 1, 4-5 and 10.

5 Cf. Jn. 19, 34.

6 Jn. 12, 32.

7 1 Cor 5, 7.

8 Cf. 1 Cor. 10, 17.

9 Cf. Jn. 17, 4.

10 Cf Eph. 1, 18.

11 Cf Jn. 4, 14; 7, 38-39.

12 Cf. Rom. 8, 10-11.

13 Cf. Cor. 3, 16; 6, 19.

14 Cf. Gal. 4,6; Rom. 8, 15-16 and 26.

15 Cf. Jn. 16, 13.

16 Cf. Eph. 1, 11-12; 1 Cor. 12, 4 Gal. 5 22.

17. 22, 17

18. Mk. 1, 15; cf. Mt. 4, 17.

19. Mk. 4, 14.

20 Lk. 12, 32.

21 Cf. Mk. 4, 26-29.

22 Lk. 11, 20; cf. Mt.12, 28.

23 Mk. 10, 45.

24 Cf. Act. 2, 36; Hebr. 5, 6; 7, 17-21.

25 Cf. Act. 2, 33.

26 Jn. 10, 1-10.

27 Cf. Is. 40, 11; Ex. 34, llf.

28 Cf Jn. 10, 11; 1 Pet. 5, 4.

29 Cf. Jn. 10, 11-15.

30 l Cor. 3, 9.

31 I Rom. 11, 13-26.

32 Mt. 21, 33-43; cf.15, 5, 1f.

33 Jn. 15, 1-5.

34 1 Cor. 3, 9.

35 Mt 21, 42; cf. Act. 4, 11; 1 F 2, 7; Ps. 117, 22.

36 Cf. 1 Cor. 3, 11.

37 1 Tim. 3, 15.

38 Eph. 2, 19-22.

39 Apoc. 21, 3.

40 1 Pet. 2, 5.

41 Apoc. 21, 16.

42 Gal. 4, 26; cf. Apoc. 12, 17.

43 Apoc. 19, 7; 21, 2 and 9; 22, 17

44 Eph. 5, 26.

45 Eph. 5, 29.

46 Cf. Eph. 5, 24.

47 Cf. Eph. 3, 19.

48 Cf. 2 Cor. 5, 6.

49 Cf. Col. 3, 1-4.

50 Cf Gal. 6, 15; 2 Cor. 5,17.

51 Cor. 12, 13.

52 Rom. 6, 15.

53 1 Cor. 10, 17.

54 Cf 1 Cor 12, 27.

55 Rom. 12, 5.

56 Cf. 1 Cor. 12, 12.

57 Cf. 1 Cor. 12, 1-11.

58 Cf. 1 Cor. 14.

59 Cf. l Cor. 12, 26.

60 Cf. Col. 1, 15-18.

61 Cf. Eph. 1, 18-23.

62 Cf. Gal. 4, 19.

63 Cf. Phil. 3, 21, 2 Tim. 2, 11; Eph. 2, 6; Col. 2, 12 etc.

64 Cf. Rom. 8, 17.

65 Col. 2, 19.

66 Cf. Eph. 4, 11-16.

67 Cf. Eph. 4,23.

68 Cf. Eph. 5, 25-28.

69 Ibid. 23-24.

70 Col. 2, 9.

71 Cf. Eph. 1, 22-23.

72 Cf. Fph. 3,19.

73 Cf. Eph. 4, 16.

74 Jn. 21, 17.

75 Cf. Mt. 28, 18, f.

76 1 Tim. 3, 15.

77 Phil. 2, 6.

78 2 Cor. 8, 9.

79 Lk. 4, 18.

80 Lk. 19, 1O.

81 Hebr. 7, 26.

82 2 Cor. 5, 21.

83 Cf. Hebr. 2, 17.

84 Cf. 1 Cor. 11,26.

85 Cf. Acts 10, 35.

86 Jer. 31, 31-34.

87 Cf. 1 Cor. 11, 25.

88 Cf. 1 Pet. 1, 23.

89 Cf. Jn. 3, 5-6.

90 1 Pet. 2, 9-10.

91 Rom. 4, 25.

92 Cf. Jn. 13, 34.

93 Cf. Col. 3, 4.

94 Rom. 8, 21.

95 Cf. Mt. 5, 13-16.

96 2 Esdr 13, 1; cf. Deut. 23 1 ff; Num. 20, 4.

97 Cf. Heb. 13, 14.

98 Cf. Matt. 16,18.

99 Cf. Acts 20, 28.

100 Cf. Heb. 5, 1-5.

101 Cf Apoc. 6,cf.S. 9-10

102 Cf. 1 Pet.2, 4-10.

103 Cf. Acts 2, 42, 47.

104 Cf. Rom. 12, 1.

105 Cf 1 Pet. 3, 15

107 Cf. Rom; 8,17 Col. 1, 24; 2 Tim. 2, 11-12; 1 Pet. 4, 13.

108 Cf. Eph. 5, 32.

109 Cf. 1 Cor. 7, 7.

110 Cf. Heb. 13, 15.

111 Cf. Jn. 2, 20, 27

112 Cf. 1 Thess. 2, 13.

113 Cf. Jud. 3

114 1 Cor. 12, 11.

115 Cf. 1 Thess 5, 12, 19-21.

116 Cf. Jn. 11, 52.

117 Cf. Heb. 1, 2.

119 Cf. Acts 2, 42.

120 Cf. Jn. 18, 36

121 Cf. Ps. 2, 8.

122 Cf. Ps. 71 (72), 10; Is. 60, 4-7; Apoc. 21, 24.

123 1 Pet. 4, 10.

124 Cf. Mc 16, 16; Jn. 3, 5.

125 Cf. Rom. 9, 4-5

126 Cf. Rom. 1 l, 28-29.

127 Cf. Acts 17,25-28.

128 Cf. 1 Tim. 2, 4.

129 Cf Rom. 1, 21, 25.

130 Mk. 16, 16.

131 Cf. ln. 20, 21.

132 Mt. 21,18-20.

133 Cf. Acts 1, 8.

134 I Cor. 9 16.

135 Mal. 1, 11

136 Jn. 20, 21.

137 Mk. 3, 13-19; Mt. 10, 1-42.

138 Cf Lk. 6, 13.

139 Cf. Jn. 21, 15-17.

140 Rom. 1, 16.

141 Cf. Mt. 28, 16-20; Mk. 16, 15; Lk. 24, 45-48; Jn. 20, 21-23.

142 Cf. Mt. 28, 20.

143 Cf. Acts 2, 1-26.

144 Acts 1, 8.

145 Cf. Cf. Mk. 16, 20.

146 Cf. Apoc. 21, 14; Mt. 16, 18; Eph. 2, 20.

147 Cf. Mt. 28, 20.

148 Cf. Act. 20, 28.

149 Cf. Lk. 10, 16.

150 Cf. 1 Cor. 4, 15.

151 Cf. 1 Cor. 4, 1.

152 Cf. Rom. 15, 16; Act. 20, 24.

153 Cf. 2 Cor. 3, 8-9.

154 Cf Acts 1, 8 2 4, Jn. 20, 22-23.

155 Cf 1 Tim. 4 14; 2 Tim. 1, 6-7.

156 Cf. Mt. 16, 18-19.

157 Cf. Jn. 21, 15 ff.

158 Mt. 16, 19.

159 Mt. 18, 18; 28, 16-20.

160 Cf . Mt. 5, 10.

161 Cf. Mt. 28, 18; Mk. 16, 15-16; Acts 26,17 ff.

162 Cf Acts 1, 8- 2, 1 ff; 9, 15.

163 Cf Acts 1 17, 25; 21, 19; Rom. 11, 13; i Tim. 1, 12.

164 Cf. Mt. 13, 52.

165 Cf.2 Tim. 4, 1-4.

166 Cf. Lk. 22, 32.

167 Cf. 1. Thess. 1, 5.

168 Cf. Rom. 1, 16.

169 Cf. Lk. 22, 26-27.

170 Cf. Mt. 20, 28; Mk. 10, 45.

171 Cf. Jn. 10, 11.

172 Cf. Heb. 5, 1-2.

173 Cf. Heb. 13,17.

174 cf Rom.. 1, 14-15.

175 Cf 1 Cor. 4, 15.

176 Jn. 10.36.

177 Heb. 5, 1-10; 7,24; 9, 11-28.

178 1 Tim. 2, 5.

179 Cf. 1 Cor. 11, 26.

180 Cf. Heb. 9, 11-28.

181 Heb. 5, 1-4.

182 ln. 4, 24.

183 Cf. 1 Tim. 5, 17.

184 Cf. Eph. 4, 12.

185 Cf. Jn. 15, 15.

186 Cf. 1 Cor. 4, 15; 1 Pet. 1, 23.

187 1 Pet. 5,3.

188 Cf 1 Cor. 1, 2; 2 Cor. 1, 1.

189 Cf Lk. 15, 4-7.

190 Eph. 4, 15-16.

191 1 Rom. 12, 4-5

192 cf Eph. 4, 5.

193 Gal. 3, 28; cf. Col. 3, 11.

194 Cf. 2 pt. 1,1.

195 1 Cor. 12, 11.

196 Cf. Mt. 20, 28.

197 Eph. 4, 7.

198 Cf. Phil. 4, 3; Rom. 16, 3ff.

199 Pet. 2, 5.

200 Cf. Act. 2, 17-18; Apoc. 19, 10.

201 Cf. Eph. 5, 16; Col. 4, 5.

202 Cf. Rom. 8, 25.

203 Eph. 6, 12.fi3

204 Cf. Apoc. 21, 1.

205 Cf. Heb. 11-1

206 Cf. Phil. 2, 8-9.

207 Cf 1 Cor. 15, 27

208 Cf. Rom. 6, 12.

209 Cf Rom. 8, 21.

210 I Cor. 3, 23.

211 Cf. Heb. 13, 17.

212 Cf. Gal. 5, 12.

213 Cf Mt. 5, 3-9.

214 Cf Eph. 5, 25-26.

215 l Thess. 4, 3; Eph.

216 Mt. 5, 48.

217 Cf. Mc. 12, 30.

218 Cf Jn. 13, 34; 15, 12.

219 Eph. 5, 3.

220 Col . 3, 12.

221 Cf. Gal. 5, 22; Rom. 6, 22.

222 Cf. Jas. 3, 2.

223 1 Mt. 6, 12.

224 Cf. 1 Pet. 5, 3.

225 Cf. 1 Tim. 3,, 8-10 and 12-1

226 1 pt 5, 10.

227 1 Jn. 4, 16.

228 Cf. Rom 5. 5.

229 Cf. Col. 3, 14; Rom. 13, 10.

230 Cf. 1. Jn. 3, 16; Jn. 15, 13.

231 Cf 1 Cor. 7, 32-34.

232 Cf Mt. l9, 11; 1 Cor.7,7.

233 Phil. 2, 7-8.

234 2 Cor. 8, 9.

235 Cf 1. Cor. 7, 31ff.

236 Ezech. 34, 14.

237 Acts 3, 21.

238 Cf Eph. 1, 1O; Col. 1, 20; 2 3, 10-13.

239 Cf. Jn. 12, 32.

240 cf. Rom. 6, 9.

241 Cf. Phil. 2, 12.

242 Cf 1 Cor. 10. 11.

243 Cf. 2. Pet. 3, 13.

244 Cf. Rom. 8, 19-22.

245 Eph. 1, 14.

246 Cf. 1 Jn. 3, 1.

247 Cf. Col- 3. 4

248 Cf. 1 Jn. 3, 2

249 2 Cor. 5, 6.

250 Cf. Rom. 8, 23.

251 Cf. Phil. 1. 23.

252 Cf. 2 Cor 5, 15.

253 Cf. 2 Cor. 5, 9.

254 Cf.Eph.6, 11-13.

255 Cf. Heb 9, 27.

256 Cf. Mt. 25, 31-46.

257 Cf. Mt. 25, 41.

258 Cf. Mt. 25, 26.

259 Mt. 22, 13 and 25. 30.

260 2 Cor. 5, 10.

261 Jn. 5, 29; Cf. Matt. 25, 46.

262 Ram. 8, 18; cf. 2 Tim. 2, 11-12.

263 Tit. 2, 13.

264 Phil. 3, 21.

265 2 Thess. 1, 10.

266 Cf. Mt. 25, 31.

267 Cf. 1 Cor. 15, 26-27.

268 Cf. Eph. 4, 16.

269 Cf. 1 Cor. 12, 12-27.

270 Cf. 2 Cor. 5, 8.

271 Cf. 1 Tim. 2, 5.

272 Cf. Col. 1, 24.

273 2 Mach. 12, 46.

274 Cf. Heb. 13, 14; 11, 10.

275 cf. 2 Cor. 3, 18.

276 Cf. Heb. 12, 1.

277 Cf Eph 4, 1-6.

278 Cf. Apoc. 5, 9.

279 Cf. Heb. 3, 6.

280 Cf. Apoc. 21, 24.

281 Apoc. 5, 12.

282 Apoc. 5, 13-14.

283 Gal. 4, 4-5.

284 Cf. Gen. 3. 15.

285 Cf Is 7, 14; cf. Mich. 5, 2-3; Mt. 1, 22-23.

286 Cf. Lk. 1, 28.

287 Lk. 1 , 38.

288 Cf. Lk. 1, 41-45.

289 Cf. Lk. 2, 34-35

290 Cf. Lk. 2, 41-51.

291 Cf. Jn. 2, 1-11.

292 Cf. Mk. 3. 35; 27-28.

293 Cf. Lk. 2, 19, 51.

294 Cf. Jn. 19, 25.

295 Cf. Jn. 19, 26-27.

296 Acts 1, 14.

297 Cf Apoc. 19. 16

298 1 Tim. 2, 5-6.

299 Rom. 8, 29.

300 Cf. Eph 5, 27.

301 Lk. 1, 48.

302 Cf. Col. 1, 15-16.

303 Col 1, 19.

304 Cf. 2 Pet. 3, 10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES (*)

Chapter I

(1) Cfr. S. Cyprianus, Epist. 64, 4: PL 3, 1017. CSEL (Hartcl), III B p. 720. S. Hilarius Pict., In Mt 23, 6: PL 9, 1047. S. Augustinus, passim. S. Cyrillus Alex., Glaph in Gen. 2, 10: PG 69, 110 A.

(2) Cfr. S. Gregorius M., Hom in Evang. 19, 1: PL 76, 1154 B. S Augustinus, Serm. 341, 9, 11: PL 39, 1499 s. S. Io. Damascenus, Adv. Iconocl. 11: PG 96, 1357.

(3) Cfr. S. Irenaeus, adv. Haer, 111 24, 1: PG 7, 966 B; Harvey 2, 13i, ed. Sagnard, Sources Chr., p 398.

(4) S. Cyprianus, De Orat Dom. 23: PL 4, 5S3, Hartel, III A, p. 28S. S. Augustinus, Serm. 71, 20, 33: PL 38, 463 s. S. Io. Damascenus, Adv. Iconocl. 12: PG 96, 1358 D.

(5) Cfr. Origenes, In Matth. 16, 21: PG 13, 1443 C, Tertullianus Adv. Marc. 3, 7: PL 2, 357 C, CSEL 47, 3 p. 386. Pro documentis liturgicis, cfr. Sacramentarium Gregorianum: PL 78, 160 B.Vel C. Mohlberg, Liber Sactamentorum romanae ecclesiae, Romao 195O, p. 111, XC:.Deus, qui ex omni coaptacione sanctorum aeternum tibi condis habitaculum..... Hymnus Urbs Ierusalem beata in Breviario monastico, et Coclest urbs Ierusalem in Breviario Romano.

(6) Cfr. S. Thomas, Sumtna Theol. III, q. 62, a. 5, ad 1.

(7) Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl Mystici Corporis, 29 iun. 1943 AAS 35 (1943), p. 208.

(8) Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl Divinum illud, 9 maii 1897: AAS 29 (1896-97) p. 6S0. Pius XII, Litt Encyl. Mystici Corporis, 1. c., pp 219-220; Denz. 2288 (3808).S. Augustinus, Serm. 268, 2: PL 38 232, ct alibi. S. Io. Chrysostomus n Eph. Hom. 9, 3: PG 62, 72. idymus Alex., Trin. 2, 1: PG 39 49 s. S. Thomas, In Col. 1, 18 cet. 5 ed. Marietti, II, n. 46-Sieut constituitur unum eorpus ex nitate animae, ita Ecelesia ex unil atc Spiritus.....

(9) Leo XIII, Litt. Encycl. Sapientiae christianae, 10 ian. 1890 AAS 22 (1889-90) p. 392. Id., Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitium, 29 iun. 1896; AAS 28 (1895-96) pp. 710 ct 724 ss. Pius XII, Litt. Eneyel. Mystici Corporis, 1. c., pp. 199-200.

(10) Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mystici Corporis, 1. c., p. 221 ss. Id., Lin. Encycl. Humani genesis, 12 Aug. 1950: AAS 42 (1950) p. 571.

(11) Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitum, 1. c., p. 713.

(12) Cfr. Symbolum Apostolicum: Denz. 6-9 (10-13); Symb. Nic.-Const.: Denz. 86 (150), coll. Prof. fidei Trid.: Denz. 994 et 999 (1862 et 1868).

(13) Dieitur. Saneta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecelesia .: in Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c. et Concl. Vat. I, Sess. III, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001).

(14) S. Augustinus, Civ. Dei, XVIII, 51, 2: PL 41, 614.

Chapter II

(1) Cfr. S. Cyprianus, Epist. 69, 6: PL 3, 1142 B; Hartel 3 B, p. 754: inseparabile unitatis sacramentum ..

(2) Cfr. Pius XII, Alloc. Magnificate Dominum, 2 nov. 1954: AAS 46 (1954) p. 669. Litt. Encycl. Mediator Dei, 20 nov. 1947: AAS 39 (1947) p. 555.

(3) Cfr. Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Miserentissimus Redemptor, 8 maii 1928: AAS 20 (1928) p. 171 s. Pius XII Alloc. Vous nous avez, 22 sept. 1956: AAS 48 (1956) p. 714.

(4) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 63, a. 2.

(5) Cfr. S. Cyrillus Hieros., Catech. 17, de Spiritu Sancto, II, 35- 37: PG 33, 1009-1012. Nic. Cabasilas, De vita in Christo, lib. III, de utilitate chrismatis: PG 150, 569-580. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 65, a. 3 et q. 72, a. 1 et 5.

(6) Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mediator Dei 20 nov. 1947: AAS 39 (1947), paesertim p. 552 s.

(7) I Cor. 7, 7: . Unusquisque proprium donum (idion charisma) habet ex Deo: alius quidem sic alius vero sic .. Cfr. S. Augustinus, De Dono Persev. 14, 37: PL 45, 1015 s.: Non tantum continenti Dei donum est, sed coniugatorum etiam castitas.

(8) Cfr. S. Augustinus, D Praed. Sanct. 14, 27: PL 44, 980.

(9) Cfr. S. Io. Chrysostomus, In Io. Hom. 65, 1: PG 59, 361.

(10) Cfr. S. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III, 16, 6; III, 22, 1-3: PG 7, 925 C-926 Aet 955 C - 958 A; Harvey 2, 87 s. et 120-123; Sagnard, Ed. Sources Chret., pp. 290-292 et 372 ss.

(11) Cfr. S. Ignatius M., Ad Rom., Praef.: Ed. Funk, I, p. 252.

(12) Cfr. S. Augustinus, Bapt. c. Donat. V, 28, 39; PL 43, 197: Certe manifestum est, id quod dicitur, in Ecdesia intus et foris, in corde, non in corpore cogitandum. Cfr. ib., III, 19, 26: col. 152; V, 18, 24: col. 189; In Io. Tr. 61, 2: PL 35, 1800, et alibi saepe.

(13) Cfr. Lc. 12, 48: Omni autem, cui multum datum est, multum quaeretur ab eo. Cfr. etiam Mt. 5, 19-20; 7, 21-22; 25 41-46; Iac., 2, 14.

(14) Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Apost. Praeclara gratulationis, 20 iun. 1894; AAS 26 (1893-94) p. 707.

(15) Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitum, 29 iun. 1896: ASS 28 (1895-96) p. 738. Epist. Encycl. Caritatis studium, 25 iul. 1898: ASS 31 (1898-99) p. 11. Pius XII, Nuntius radioph. Nell'alba, 24 dec. 1941: AAS 34 (1942) p. 21.

(16) Cfr. Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Rerum Orientalium, 8 sept. 1928: AAS 20 (1928) p. 287. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl Orientalis Ecclesiae, 9 apr. 1944: AAS 36 (1944) p. 137

(17) Cfr. Inst. S.S.C.S. Officii 20 dec. 1949: AAS 42 (1950) p.142.

(18) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3, ad 1.

(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

(20) Cfr. Eusebius Caes., Praeparatio Evangelica, 1, 1: PG 2128 AB.

(21) Cfr. Benedictus XV, Epist. Apost. Maximum illud: AAS 11 (1919) p. 440, praesertim p. 451 ss. Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Rerum Ecclesiae: AAS 18 (1926) p. 68-69. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Fidei Donum, 21 apr. 1957: AAS 49 (1957) pp. 236-237.

(22) Cfr. Didache, 14: ed. Funk I, p. 32. S. Iustinus, Dial. 41: PG 6, 564. S. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV 17, 5; PG 7, 1023; Harvey, 2, p. 199 s. Conc. Trid., Sess. 22, cap. 1; Denz. 939 (1742).

Chapter III

(1) Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Sess. IV, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus. Denz. 1821 (3050 s.).

(2) Cfr. Conc. Flor., Decretum pro Graecis: Denz. 694 (1307) et Conc. Vat. I, ib.: Denz. 1826 (3059)

(3) Cfr. Liber sacramentorum S. Gregorii, Praefatio in Cathedra S. Petri, in natali S. Mathiae et S. Thomas: PL 78, 50, 51 et 152. S. Hilarius, In Ps. 67, 10: PL 9, 4S0; CSEL 22, p. 286. S.Hieronymus, Adv. Iovin. 1, 26: PL 23, 247 A. S. Augustinus, In Ps. 86, 4: PL 37, 1103. S. Gregorius M., Mor. in lob, XXVIII, V: PL 76, 455-456. Primasius, Comm. in Apoc. V: PL 68, 924 BC. Paschasius Radb., In Matth. L. VIII, cap. 16: PL 120, 561 C. Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Et sane, 17 dec. 1888: AAS 21 (1888) p. 321.

(4) Cfr. Act 6, 2-6; 11, 30; 13, 1, 14, 23; 20, 17; 1 Thess. 5, 12- 13; Phil. 1, 1 Col. 4, 11, et passim.

(5) Cfr. Act. 20, 25-27; 2 Tim. 4, 6 s. coll. c. I Tim. 5, 22; 2 Tim. 2, 2 Tit. 1, 5; S. Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 44, 3; ed. Funk, 1, p. 156.

(6) S. Clem. Rom., ad Cor. 44, 2; ed. Funk, I, p. 154 s.

(7) Cfr. Tertull., Praescr. Haer. 32; PL 2, 52 s.; S. Ignatius M., passim.

(8) Cfr. Tertull., Praescr. Haer. 32; PL 2, 53.

(9) Cfr. S. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III, 3, 1; PG 7, 848 A; Harvey 2, 8; Sagnard, p. 100 s.: manifestatam.

(10) Cfr. S. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III, 2, 2; PG 7, 847; Harvey 2, 7; Sagnard, p. 100: . custoditur ,., cfr. ib. IV, 26, 2; col. 1O53, Harvey 2, 236, necnon IV, 33, 8; col. 1077; Harvey 2, 262.

(11) S. Ign. M., Philad., Praef.; ed. Funk, I, p. 264.

(12) S. Ign. M., Philad., 1, 1; Magn. 6, 1; Ed. Funk, I, pp. 264 et 234.

(13) S. Clem. Rom., 1. c., 42, 3-4, 44, 3-4; 57, 1-2; Ed. Funk. I, 152, 156, 171 s. S. Ign. M., Philad. 2; Smyrn. 8; Magn. 3; Trall. 7; Ed. Funk, I, p. 265 s.; 282; 232 246 s. etc.; S. Iustinus, Apol., 1, 6S G 6, 428; S. Cyprianus, Epist. assim.

(14) Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitum, 29 iun. 896: ASS 28 (1895-96) p. 732.

(15) Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. 23, ecr. de sacr. Ordinis, cap. 4; enz. 960 (1768); Conc. Vat. I, ess. 4 Const. Dogm. I De Ecclesia Christi, cap. 3: Denz. 1828 (3061). Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mystici Cororis, 29 iun. 1943: ASS 35 (1943) p. 209 et 212. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 29 1.

(16) Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Et sane, 17 dec. 1888: ASS 21 (1888) p. 321 s.

(17) S. Leo M., Serm. 5, 3: PL 54, 154.

(18) Conc. Trid., Sess. 23, cap. 3, citat verba 2 Tim. 1, 6-7, ut demonstret Ordinem esse verum sacramentum: Denz. 959 (1766).

(19) In Trad. Apost. 3, ed. Botte, Sources Chr., pp. 27-30, Episcopo tribuitur primatus sacerdotii. Cfr. Sacramentarium Leonianum, ed. C. Mohlberg, Sacramentarium Veronense, Romae, 195S, p. 119: ad summi sacerdotii ministerium... Comple in sacerdotibus tuis mysterii tui summam.... Idem, Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae Romae, 1960, pp. 121-122: Tribuas eis, Domine, cathedram episcopalem ad regendam Ecclesiam tuam et plebem universam.. Cfr. PL 78, 224.

(20) Trad. Apost. 2, ed. Botte, p. 27.

(21) Conc. Trid., Sess. 23, cap. 4, docet Ordinis sacramentum imprimere characterem indelebilem: Denz. 960 (1767) . Cfr. Ioannes XXIII, Alloc. Iubilate Deo, 8 maii 1960: AAS S2 (1960) p. 466. Pall1us VI, Homelia in Bas, Vaticana, 20 oct. 1963: AAS 55 (1963) p. 1014.

(22) S. Cyprianus, Epist. 63, 14: PL 4, 386; Hartel, III B, p. 713: Saccrdos vice Christi vere fungitur .. S. Io. Chrysostomus, In 2 Tim. Hom. 2, 4: PG 62, 612: Saccrdos est symbolon . Christi. S. Ambrosius, In Ps. 38, 25-26: PL 14, 105 1-52: CSEL 64, 203- 204. Ambrosiascr In I Tim. S 19: PL 17, 479 C ct in Eph. 4, 1;-12: col. 387. C. Theodorus Mops., from. Catech. XV, 21 ct 24: ed. Tonneau, pp. 497 et 503. Hesychiu Hieros., In Lcv. L. 2, 9, 23: PG 93, 894 B.

(23) Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. ecl., V, 24, 10: GCS II, 1, p. 49S; cd. Bardy, Sources Chr. II, p. 69 Dionysius, apud Eusebium, ib. VII 5, 2: GCS 11, 2, p. 638 s.; Bardy, II, p. 168 s.

(24) Cfr. de antiquis Conciliis, Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 23-24: GCS 11, 1, p. 488 ss.; Bardy, 11, p. 66 ss. et. passim. Conc. Nicaenum. Can. S: Conc. Oec. Decr. p. 7.

(25) Tertullianus, de Iciunio, 13: PL 2, 972 B; CSFL 20, p. 292,lin. 13-16.

(26) S. Cyprianus, Epist. 56, 3: Hartel, 111 B, p. 650; Bayard, p.154.

(27) Cfr. Relatio officialis Zinelli, in Conc. Vat. I: Mansi S2,1 109 C.

(28) Cfr. Conc. Vat. 1, Schema Const. dogm. 11, de Ecclesia Christi, c. 4: Mansi S3, 310. Cfr. Relatio Kleutgen de Schemate reformato: Mansi S3, 321 B - 322 B et declaratio Zinelli: Mansi 52 1110 A. Vide etiam S. Leonem M. Scrm. 4, 3: PL 54, 151 A.

(29) Cfr. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 227.

(30) Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const.Dogm. Pastor aeternis: Denz. 1821 (3050 s.).

(31) Cfr. S. Cyprianus, Epist. 66, 8: Hartel 111, 2, p. 733: .. Episcopus in Ecclesia et Ecclesia in Episcopo ..

(32) Cfr. S. Cyprianus, Epist. SS, 24: Hartel, p. 642, line. 13: . Una Ecclesia per totum mundum in multa membra divisa .. Epist. 36, 4: Hartel, p. 575, lin. 20-21.

(33) Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Fidci Donum, 21 apr. 1957: AAS 49 (1957) p. 237.

(34) Cfr. S. Hilarius Pict., In Ps. 14, 3: PL 9, 206; CSEL 22, p. 86. S. Gregorius M., Moral, IV, 7, 12: PL 75, 643 C. Ps.Basilius, In Is. 15, 296: PG 30, 637 C.

(35) S. Coelestinus, Epist. 18, 1-2, ad Conc. Eph.: PL 50, 505 AB- Schwartz, Acta Conc. Oec. 1, I, i, p. 22. Cfr. Benedictus XV, Epist. Apost. Maximum illud: AAS 11 (1919) p. 440, Pius XI. Litt. Encycl. Rerum Ecclesiae, 28 febr. 1926: AAS 18 (1926) p. 69. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Fidei Donum, 1. c.

(36) Leo XIII, Litt. Encycl. I Grande munus, 30 sept. 1880: ASS 13 (1880) p. 14S. Cfr. Cod. Iur. | Can., c. 1327; c. 13S0 2.

(37) De iuribus Sedium patriarchalium, cfr. Conc. Nicaenum, I can. 6 de Alexandria et Antiochia, et can. 7 de Hierosolymis: Conc. I Oec. Decr., p. 8. Conc. Later. IV, anno 1215, Constit. V: De dignigate Patriarcharum: ibid. p. 212.-| Conc. Ferr.-Flor.: ibid. p. 504.

(38) Cfr. Cod. luris pro Eccl. I Orient., c. 216-314: de Patriarchis; c. 324-399: de Archiepiscopis I maioribus; c. 362-391: de aliis dignitariis; in specie, c. 238 3; 216; 240; 251; 255: de Episcopis a Patriarch nominandis.

(39) Cfr. Conc. Trid., Decr. de I reform., Sess. V, c. 2, n. 9; et Sess. I XXlV, can. 4; Conc. Oec. Decr. pp. 645 et 739.

(40) Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. dogm. Dei Filius, 3: Denz. 1712l (3011). Cfr. nota adiecta ad Schema I de Eccl. (desumpta ex.S. Rob. Bellarmino): Mansi 51, I 579 C, necnon Schema reformatum I Const. II de Ecclesia Christi, cum I commentario Kleutgen: Mansi 53, 313 AB. Pius IX, Epist. Tuas libener: Denz. 1683 (2879).

(41) Cfr. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 1322-1323.

(42) Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. dogm. Pastor Aecrnus: Denz. 1839 (3074).

(43) Cfr. ecplicatio Gasscr in Conc. Vat. I: Mansi 52, 1213 AC.

(44) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1214 A.

(45) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1215 CD, 1216-1217 A.

(46) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1213.

(47) Conc. Vat. I, Const. dogm. Pastor Aesernus, 4: Denz. 1836 (3070) no. 26

(48) Oratio consecrationis cpiscopalis in ritu byzantino: Euchologion to mega, Romae, 1873, p. 139.

(49) Cfr. S. Ignatius M. Smyrn 8, 1: ed. Funk, 1, p. 282.

(50) Cfr. Act. 8, 1; 14, 22-23; 20, 17, et passim.

(51) Oratio mozarabica: PL 96 7S9 B

(52) Cfr. S. Ignatius M., Smyrn 8, 1: ed. Funk, I, p. 282.

(53) S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 73, a. 3.

(54) Cfr. S. Augustinus, C. Faustum, 12, 20: PL 42, 26S Serm. 57, 7: PL 38, 389, etc.

(55) S. Leo M., Serm. 63, 7: PL 54, 3S7 C.

(56) Traditio A postolica Hippolyti, 2-3: ed. Botte, pp. 26-30.

(57) Cfr. textus examinis in initio consecrationis episcopalis, et Oratio in fine vissae eiusdem consecrationis, post Te Deum.

(58) Benedictus XIV, Br. Romana Ecclesia, 5 oct. 1752, p 1: Bullarium Benedicti XIV, t. IV, Romae, 1758, 21: . Episcopus Christi typum gerit, Eiusque munere fungitur. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mystici Corporis, 1. c., p. 211: . Assignatos sibi greges singuli singulos Christi nomine pascunt et regunt.

(59) Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitum, 29 iun. 1896: ASS 28 (1895-96) p. 732. Idem, Epist. Officio sanctissimo, 22 dec. 1887: AAS 20 (1887) p. 264. Pius IX itt. Apost. ad Episcopol Geraniae, 12 mart. 1875, et alloc. onsist., 15 mart. 187S: Denz. 112-3117, in nova ed. tantum.

(60) Conc. Vat. I, Const. dogm. Pastor aeternus, 3: Denz. 1828 ( 3061) . Cfr. Relatio Zinelli: Mand 1 2, 1114 D.

(61) Cfr. S. Ignatius M., ad ephes. 5, 1: ed. Funk, I, p. 216.

(62) Cfr. S. Ignatius M., ad phes. 6, 1: cd. Funk, I, p. 218.

(63) Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. 23, sacr. Ordinis, cap. 2: Denz. 958 (1765), et can. 6: Denz. 966 (1776).

(64) Cfr. Innocentius I, Epist. d Decentium: PL 20, 554 A; sansi 3, 1029; Denz. 98 (215): Presbyteri, licet secundi sint sa erdotcs, pontificatus tamen api em non habent.. S. Cyprianus, Epist. 61, 3: ed. Hartel, p. 696.

(65) Cfr. Conc. Trid., l. c., Denz. 962-968 (1763-1778), et in specie l an. 7: Denz. 967 (1777). Pius l II, Const. Apost. Sacramentum ordinis: Denz. 2301 (38S7-61).

(66) Cfr. Innocentius I, 1. c. S. Gregorius Naz., Apol. II, 22: PGS, 432 B. Ps.-Dionysius, Eccl. ier., 1, 2: PG 3, 372 D.

(67) Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. 22: Denz. 940 (1743). Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mediator Dei, 20 nov. 1947: AAS 39 (1947) p. 553; Denz. 2300 (3850).

(68) Cfr. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22: Denz. 938 (1739-40). Conc. Vat.II, Const. De Sacra Liturgia, n. 7 et n. 47.

(69) Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mediator Dei, 1. c., sub. n. 67.

(70) Cfr. S. Cyprianus, Epist. 11, 3: PL 4, 242 B; Hartel, II, 2, p. 497.

(71) Ordo consecrationis sacerdotalis, in impositione vestimentorum.

(72) Ordo consecrationis sacerdotalis in praefatione.

(73) Cfr. S. Ignatius M. Philad. 4: ed. Funk, I, p. 266. S. Cornelius I, apud S. Cyprianum, Epist. 48, 2: Hartel, III, 2, p. 610.

(74) Constitutiones Ecclesiac aegyptiacae, III, 2: ed. Funk, Didascalia, II, p. 103. Statuta Eccl. Ant. 371: Mansi 3, 954.

(75) S. Polycarpus, Ad Phil. 5, 2: ed. Funk, I, p. 300: Christus dicitur . omnium diaconus factus .. Cfr. Didache, 15, 1: ib., p. 32. S.Ignatius M. Trall. 2, 3: ib., p. 242. Constitutiones Apostolorum, 8, 28, 4: ed. Funk, Didascalia, I, p. 530.

Chapter IV

(1) S. Augustinus, Serm. 340, 1: PL 38, 1483.

(2) Cfr. Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Quadragesimo anno 15 maii 1931: AAS 23 (1931) p. 121 s. Pius XII, Alloc. De quelle consolation, 14 oct. 1951: AAS 43 (1951) p. 790 s.

(3) Cfr. Pius XII, Alloc. Six ans se sont ecoules, 5 oct. l9S7: AAS 49 (19S7) p. 927. De mandato et missione canonica, cfr. Decretum De Apostolatu laicorum, cap. IV, n. 16, cum notis 12 et 15.

(4) Ex Praefatione festi Christi Regis.

(5) Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl. Immortale Dei, 1 nov. 188S: ASS 18 (188S) p. 166 ss. Idem, Litt. Encycl. Sapientae christianae, 10 ian. 1890: ASS 22 (1889-90) p. 397 ss. Pius XII, Alloc. Alla vostra filfale. 23 mart. l9S8: AAS S0 (145R ) p. 220: Ia Iegittima sana laicita dello Stato ..

(6) Cod. Iur. Can., can. 682.

(7) Cfr. Pius XII, Alloc. De quelle consolation, 1. c., p. 789: Dans les batailles decisives, c'est parfois du front que partent les plus heureuses initiatives..Idem Alloc. L'importance de la presse catholique, 17 febr. 1950: AAS 42 (1950) p. 256.

(8) Cfr. l Thess. S, 19 et 1 lo. 4, 1.

(9) Epist. ad Diogneum, 6: ed. Funk, I, p. 400. Cfr. S. Io.Chrysostomus, In Matth. Hom. 46 (47) 2: PG 58, 78, de fermento in massa.

Chapter V

(1) Missale Romanum, Gloria in excelsis. Cfr. Lc. 1, 35; Mc. 1, 24, Lc. 4, 34; Io. 6, 69 (ho hagios tou theou); Act. 3, 14; 4, 27 et 30;Hebr. 7, 26, 1 Io. 2, 20; Apoc. 3, 7.

(2) Cfr. Origenes, Comm. Rom. 7, 7: PG 14, 1122 B. Ps.- Macarius, De Oratione, 11: PG 34, 861 AB. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. II-II, q. 184, a. 3.

(3) Cfr. S. Augustinus Retract. II, 18: PL 32, 637 s. Pius XII Litt. Encycl. Mystici Corporis, 29 iun. 1943: AAS 35 (1943) p. 225.

(4) Cfr. Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Rerum omnium, 26 ian. 1923: AAS 15 (1923) p. 50 ct pp. 59-60. Litt. Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930: AAS 22 (1930) p. 548. Pius XII, Const. Apost. Provida Mater, 2 febr. 1947: AAS 39 (1947) p. 117. Alloc. Annus sacer, 8 dec. 1950: AAS 43 (1951) pp. 27-28. Alloc. Nel darvi, 1 iul. 1956: AAS 48 (1956) p. 574 s.

(5) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. II-II, q. 184, a. 5 et 6. De perf . vitae spir., c. 18. Origenes, In Is. Hom. 6, 1: PG 13, 239.

(6) Cfr. S. Ignatius M., Magn. 13, 1: ed. Funk, I, p. 241.

(7) Cfr. S. Pius X, Exhort. Haerent animo, 4 aug. 1908: ASS 41 (1908) p. 560 s. Cod. Iur. Can., can. 124. Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Ad catholici sacerdotii, 20 dec. 1935: AAS 28 (1936) p. 22 s.

(8) Ordo consecrationis sacerdotalis, in Exhortatione initiali.

(9) Cfr. S. Ignatius M., Trall. 2, 3: cd. Funk, l, p. 244.

(10) Cfr. Pius XII, Alloc. Sous la maternclle protection, 9 dec. 1957: AAS 50 (19S8) p. 36.

(11) Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Castf Connubii, 31 dec. 1930. AAS 22 (1930) p. 548 s. Cfr. S. Io Chrysostomus, In Ephes. Hom. 20, 2: P. 62, 136 ss.

(12) Cfr. S. Augustinus, Enchir. 121, 32: PL 40 288. S. Thomas Summa Theol. II-II, q. 184, a. 1. Pius XII, Adhort. Apost. Menti nostrae, 23 sept. 1950: AAS 42 (1950) p. 660.

(13) De consiliis in genere, cfr. Origenes, Comm. Rom. X, 14: PG 14 127S B. S. Augustinus, De S. Viginitate, 15, 15: PL 40, 403. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. I-II, q. 100, a. 2 C (in fine); II-II, q. 44, a. 4 ad 3

(14) De praestantia sacrae virginitatis, cfr. Tertullianus, Exhort. Cast. 10: PL 2, 925 C. S. Cyprianus, Hab. Virg. 3 et 22: PL 4, 443 B et 461 A. A. S. Athanasius (?), De Virg.: PG 28, 252 ss. S. Io. Chrysostomus, De Virg.: PG 48, 533 u.

(15) De spirituali paupertate et oboedientia testimonia praccipua S.Scripturae et Patrum afferuntur in Relatione pp. 152-153.

(16) De praxi effectiva consiliorum quae non omnibus imponitur, cfr. S. Io. Chrysostomus, In Matth. Hom. 7, 7: PG S7, 8 I s. 5. Ambrosius, De Vidu s, 4, 23: PL 16, 241 s.

Chapter VI

(1) Cfr. Rosweydus, Viqae Patrum, Antwerpiae 1628. Apophtegmata Patrum: PG 65. Palladius, Historia Lausiaca: PG 34, 995 ss.; ed. C. Butler, Cambridge 1898 (1904). Pius XI, Const. Apost. Umbratilem, 8 iul. 1924: AAS 16 (1924) pp. 386-387. Pius XII, Alloc. Nous sommes heureux, 11 apr.1958: AAS 50 (1958) p. 283.

(2) Paulus VI, Alloc. Magno gaudio, 23 maii 1964: AAS 56 (1964) p. 566.

(3) Cfr. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 487 et 488, 40. Pius XII, Alloc. Annus sacer, 8 dec. 1950, AAS 43 (1951) p. 27 s. Pius XII, Cons. Apost. Provida Mater, 2 Febr. 1947: AAS 39 (1947) p. 120 ss.

(4) Paulus VI, 1. c., p. S67.

(5) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. II-II, q. 184, a. 3 et q. 188, a. 2. S. Bonaventura, Opusc. X, Apologia Pauperum, c. 3, 3: cd. Opera, Quaracchi, t. 8, 1898, p. 245 a.

(6) Cfr. Conc. Vat. I. Schema De Ecclesia Christi, cap. XV, et Adnot. 48: Mansi 51, 549 s. et 619 s. Leo XIII, Epist. Au milieu des consolations, 23 dec. 1900: AAS 33 (1900-01) p. 361. Pius XII, Const. Apost. Provida Mater, 1. c., p. 1145.

(7) Cfr. Leo XIII, Const. Romanos Pontifices, 8 maii 1881: AAS 13 (1880-81) p. 483. Pius XII, Alloc. Annus sacer, 8 dec. 1950: AAS 43 (1951) p. 28 8.

(8) Cfr. Pius XII, Alloc. Annus sacer, 1. c., p. 28. Pius XII, Const. Apost. Sedes Sapientiae, 31 maii 19S6: AAS 48 (1956) p. 355. Paulus VI, 1. c., pp. 570-571.

(9) Cfr. Pius XII Litt. Encycl. Mystici Corporis, 19 iun. 1943: AAS 35 (1943) p. 214 s.

(10) Cfr. Pius XII, Alloc. Annus sacer, 1. c., p. 30. Alloc. Sous la maternelle protecrion, 9 dec. l9S7: AAS 50 (19S8) p. 39 s.

Chapter VII

(1) Conc. Florentinum, Decretum pro Graecis: Denz. 693 (1305).

(2) Praeter documenta antiquiora contra quamlibet formam evocationis spirituum inde ab Alexandro IV (27 sept. 1958), cfr Encycl. S.S.C.S. Officii, De magne tismi abusu, 4 aug. 1856: AAS (1865) pp. 177-178, Denz. 1653 1654 (2823-2825); responsioner S.S.C.S. Offici, 24 apr. 1917: 9 (1917) p. 268, Denz. 218 (3642).

(3) Videatur synthetiea espositi huius doctrinae paulinae in: Piu XII, Litt. Encycl. Mystici Corporis AAS 35 (1943) p. 200 et passilr

(4) Cfr., i. a., S. Augustinus, Enarr. in Ps. 85, 24: PL 37, 1095 S. Hieronymus, Liber contra Vigl lantium, b: PL 23, 344. S. Thomas In 4m Sent., d. 45, q. 3, a. 2. Bonaventura, In 4m Sent., d. 45, a. 3, q. 2; etc.

(5) Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mystici Corporis: AAS 35 (1943) p. 245.

(6) Cfr. Plurimae inseriptione in Catacumbis romanis.

(7) Cfr. Gelasius I, Decretalis De libris recipiendis, 3: PL 59, 160, Denz. 165 (353).

(8) Cfr. S. Methodius, Symposion, VII, 3: GCS (Bodwetseh), p. 74

(9) Cfr. Benedictus XV, Decretum approbationis virtutum in Causa beatificationis et canonizationis Servi Dei Ioannis Nepomuecni Neumann: AAS 14 (1922 p. 23; plures Allocutiones Pii X de Sanetis: Inviti all'croismo Diseorsi... t. I-III, Romae 1941-1942, passim; Pius XII, Discorsi Radiomessagi, t. 10, 1949, pp 37-43.

(10) Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl : Mediator Dei: AAS 39 (1947) p . 581.

(11) Cfr. Hebr. 13, 7: Eccli 44-50, Nebr. 11, 340. Cfr. etia Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mediati Dei: AAS 39 (1947) pp. 582-583

(12) Cfr. Cone. Vaticanum Const. De fide catholica, cap. 3 Denz. 1794 (3013).

(13) Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mystici Corporis: AAS 35 (1943) p. 216.

(14) Quoad gratitudinem erga ipsos Sanctos, cfr. E. Diehl, Inscriptiones latinae christianae vereres, 1, Berolini, 1925, nn. 2008 2382 et passim.

(15) Conc. Tridentinum, Sess. 25, De invocatione... Sanctorum: Denz. 984 (1821) .

(16) Breviarium Romanum, Invitatorium infesto Sanctorum Omnium.

(17) Cfr. v. g., 2 Thess. 1, 10.

(18) Conc. Vaticanum II, Const. De Sacra Liturgia, cap. 5, n. 104.

(19) Canon Missae Romanae.

(20) Conc. Nicaenum II, Act. VII: Denz. 302 (600).

(21) Conc. Florentinum, Decretum pro Graecis: Denz. 693 (1304).

(22) Conc. Tridentinum Sess. 35, De invocatione, veneratione et reliquiis Sanctorum et sacris imaginibus: Denz. 984-988 (1821-1824); Sess. 25, Decretum de Purgatorio: Denz. 983 (1820); Sess. 6, Decretum de iustificatione, can. 30: Denz. 840 (1580).

(23) Ex Praefatione, aliquious dioecesibus concessa.

(24) Cfr. S. Petrus Canisius, Catechismus Maior seu Summa Doctrinae christianae, cap. III (ed. crit. F. Streicher) pas I, pp. 15-16, n. 44 et pp. 100-1O1, n. 49.

(25) Cfr. Conc. Vaticanum II Const. De Sacra Liturgia, cap. 1 n. 8.

Chapter VIII

(1) Credo in Missa Romana: Symbolum Constantinopolitanum: Mansi 3, 566. Cfr. Conc. Ephesinum, ib. 4, 1130 (necnon ib. 2, 665 et 4, 1071); Conc. Chalcedonense, ib. 7, 111-116; Cow. Constantinopolitanum II, ib. 9, 375-396.

(2) Canon Missae Romanae.

(3) S. Augustine, De S. Virginitate. 6: PL 40, 399.

(4) Cfr. Paulus Pp. VI, allocutio in Concilio, die 4 dec. 1963: AAS 56 (1964) p. 37.

(5) Cfr. S. Germanus Const., Nom. in annunt. Deiparae: PG 98, 328 A; In Dorm. 2: col. 357. Anastasius Antioch., Serm. 2 de Annunt., 2: PG 89, 1377 AB; Serm. 3, 2: col. 1388 C. S. Andrcas Cret. Can. in B. V. Nat. 4: PG 97, 1321 B. In B. V. Nat., 1: col. 812 A. Hom. in dorm. 1: col. 1068 C. - S. Sophronius, Or. 2 in Annunt., 18: PG 87 (3), 3237 BD.

(6) S. Irenaeus, Adv. Hacr. III, 22, 4: PG 7, 9S9 A; Harvey, 2, 123.

(7) S. Irenaeus, ib.; Harvey, 2, 124.

(8) S. Epiphanius, Nacr. 78, 18: PG 42, 728 CD; 729 AB.

(9) S. Hieronymus, Epist. 22, 21: PL 22, 408. Cfr. S. Augwtinus, Serm. Sl, 2, 3: PL 38, 33S; Serm. 232, 2: col. 1108. - S. Cyrillus Hieros., Catech. 12, 15: PG 33, 741 AB. - S. Io. Chrysostomus, In Ps. 44, 7: PG SS, 193. - S. Io. Damasccnus, Nom. 2 in dorm. B.M.V., 3: PG 96, 728.

(10) Cfr. Conc. Lateranense anni 649, Can. 3: Mansi 10, 1151. S. Leo M., Epist. ad Flav.: PL S4, 7S9. - Conc. Chalcedonense: Mansi 7, 462. - S. Ambrosius, De inst. virg.: PL 16, 320.

(11) Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mystici Corporis, 29 iun. 1943: AAS 35 (1943) pp. 247-248.

(12) Cfr. Pius IX, Bulla Ineffabilis 8 dec. 1854: acta Pii IX, I, I, p. 616; Denz. 1641 (2803).

(13) Cfr. Pius XII, Const. Apost. Munificensissimus, 1 no. 1950: AAS 42 (1950) ú Denz. 2333 (3903). Cfr. S. Io. Damascenus, Enc. in dorm. Dei gcnitricis, Hom. 2 et 3: PG 96, 721-761, speciatim col. 728 B. - S. Germanus Constantinop., in S. Dei gen. dorm. Serm. 1: PG 98 (6), 340-348; Serm. 3: col. 361. - S. Modestus Hier., In dorm. SS. Deiparae: PG 86 (2), 3277-3312.

(14) Cfr. Pius XII Litt. Encycl. Ad coeli Reginam, 11 Oct. 1954: AAS 46 (1954), pp. 633-636; Denz. 3913 ss. Cfr. S. Andreas Cret., Hom. 3 in dorm. SS. Deiparae: PG 97, 1089-1109. - S. Io. Damascenus, De fide orth., IV, 14: PG 94, 1153-1161.

(15) Cfr. Kleutgen, textus reformstus De mysterio Verbi incarnati, cap. IV: Mansi 53, 290. cfr. S. Andreas Cret., In nat. Mariac, sermo 4: PG 97, 865 A. - S. Germanus Constantinop., In annunt. Deiparae: PG 98, 321 BC. In dorm. Deiparae, III: col. 361 D. S. Io. Damascenus, In dorm. B. V. Mariae, Hom. 1, 8: PG 96, 712 BC-713 A.

(16) Cfr. Leo XIII, Litt. Encycl. Adiutricem populi, 5 sept. 1895: ASS 15 (1895-96), p. 303. - S. Pius X, Litt. Encycl. Ad diem illum, 2 febr. 1904: Acta, I, p. 154- Denz. 1978 a (3370) . Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Miserentissimus, 8 maii 1928: AAS 20 (1928) p. 178. Pius XII, Nuntius Radioph., 13 maii 1946: AAS 38 (1946) p. 266.

(17) S. Ambrosius, Epist. 63: PL 16, 1218.

(18) S. Ambrosius, Expos. Lc. II, 7: PL 15, 1555.

(19) Cfr. Ps.-Petrus Dam. Serm. 63: PL 144, 861 AB. Godefridus a S. Victore. In nat. B. M., Ms. Paris, Mazarine, 1002, fol. 109 r. Gerhohus Reich., De gloria ct honore Filii hominis, 10: PL 194, 1105AB.

(20) S. Ambrosius, l. c. et Expos. Lc. X, 24-25: PL 15, 1810. S.Augustinus, In lo. Tr. 13, 12: PL 35 1499. Cfr. Serm. 191, 2, 3: PL 38 1010; etc. Cfr. ctiam Ven. Beda, In Lc. Expos. I, cap. 2: PL 92, 330. Isaac de Stella, Serm. 51. PL 194, 1863 A.

(21) Sub tuum praesidium

(22) Conc. Nicaenum II, anno 787: Mansi 13. 378-379; Denz. 302 (600- 601) . Conc. Trident., sess. 2S: Mansi 33, 171-172.

(23) Cfr. Pius XII, Nunius radioph., 24 oct. 1954: AAS 46 (1954) p. 679. Litt. Encycl. Ad coeli Reginam, 11 oct. 1954: AAS 46 (1954) p. 637.

(24) Cfr. Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Ecclesiam Dei, 12 nov. 1923: AAS 15 (1923) p. 581. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Fulgens corona, 8 sept. 1953: AAS 45 (1953) pp. 590-591.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

AHH MOderator I just cut and pasted this using "select all" option, I didnt realsie it was THIS long could you please delete it and ill just provide a link for Bubbles.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

"I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary , destroy the universal flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments, and smite her with remorse for her historic past ." Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII , to Count Enrico P. Galeazzi

"I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary , destroy the universal flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments, and smite her with remorse for her historic past ." Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII , to Count Enrico P. Galeazzi

Thanks for the lead Kiwi. I came up with this. Altar gone, Table in, Statues, altar rails. sanctuary, red lamp, tabernacle.... all gone. My! how Pius 12 would have loved this.

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

Again Im a little dumb struck, a litle wary, what am I missing here, what is so difficult? Emerald, salvation was first on the list from memeory and C and C have made a start, I was going to spend hours reading over theological summaries of Vatican II but I know no mater how respected theologians they are (even Pope John Paul II) you will dispute and deny their words as not part of the magisterium, or just opinion, not binding etc etc or something similar. SO lets keep it simple. Lets see if youre as good as your word.

Here is what Vatican II teaches on salvation, its clear and unambiguous, do you accept the Catholic Church’s full teachings as explained below on salvation, YES or NO?

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*) Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth. 16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, (127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", (130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

For those who would like to explore what the Popes thoughts are, please read Pope John Paul II words on this link. EVERY Catholic should read this wonderful book IMHO!

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/chap21.html

Id also like to remind those of us who would like to somehow diminish Vatican II teachings just how important they are to Catholics…

In his Apostolic Letter, Novo Millennio Ineunte (At the beginning of the New Millennium), our Holy Father has written once again of the lasting significance of the Vatican Council and the incomparable beauty of its documents:

“What a treasure , is, dear brothers and sisters, in the guidelines offered to us by the Second Vatican Council . . . With the passing of the years, the Council documents have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium. Now that the Jubilee has ended, I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century. There we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

offered? DESTRUCTION OF ALTARS, DESTRUCTION OF THE LITURGY

The rite of Mass which had once been celebrated in the devastated sanctuaries was destroyed by the Protestant Reformers as ruthlessly and totally as the altars upon which it was celebrated. The sublime Latin prayers of the traditional Mass, which dated back to the sixth century and beyond, into the mists of antiquity, were replaced by an English service from which every specifically sacrificial prayer had been removed. Because the Mass is a solemn sacrifice offered to God by the priest in the person of Christ, many of the prayers----- addressed directly to God----- had been spoken inaudibly. The Protestant Lord's Supper was not a mystical sacrifice, a mystery, but a meal and a service of prayers and instruction, so it was mandated that every word spoken was to be heard by all the people. Communion on the tongue was replaced by Communion in the hand to make it clear that the bread received was ordinary bread and that the minister who distributed it was an ordinary man, not a priest. Communion under one kind was replaced by Communion under both kinds, because in every meal there should be both food and drink. Above all, the never-to-be-sufficiently-execrated eastward position of the celebrant at Mass was to be abandoned forever.

One of the most appalling consequences of the change from a Latin to a vernacular liturgy was that it cut the Catholic people off completely from the entire liturgical and musical heritage of Western Christendom. Dr. Eamon Duffy comments:

The switch from Latin to English immediately rendered obsolete the entire musical repertoire of cathedral, chapel, and parish church. Not least of the shocks brought on by the Prayer Book at Whitsun 1549 must have been the silencing of all but a handful of choirs and the reduction of the liturgy on one of the greatest festivals of the year to a monotone dialogue between curate and clerk. [Duffy, op. cit., p. 465.] Has not this also happened today? At a time when young people in the West are flocking to record shops to buy compact discs by the million of our Gregorian musical heritage, that heritage has been banished from almost all the Catholic churches in the English- speaking world-----despite the fact that Vatican II mandated it as the norm for sung Masses. ["Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy," Art. 116]. One wonders why so many bishops claiming to be loyal to the Council do not obey it in this important matter. The Reformation in England by Msgr. Philip Hughes is the most authoritative account of the English Reformation yet written. Msgr. Hughes proves beyond any doubt that the faith of the Catholic people was destroyed primarily by liturgical changes, and he insists Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer was a prime instrument in this destruction:

Once these new sacramental rites had become the habit of the English people, the substance of the doctrinal reformation, victorious now in northern Europe, would have transformed England also. All but insensibly, as the years went by, the beliefs enshrined in the old, and now disused, rites, and kept alive by these rites in men's minds and affections, would disappear-----without the need of any systematic missionary effort to preach them down. [Hughes, op. cit., p. 111.] Monsignor Hughes is referring here to a principle fundamental to every form of liturgy: Lex orandi, lex credendi-----"The law of prayer is the law of belief." This means that the manner in which people pray will determine what they believe. As Msgr. Hughes has explained, when the traditional Latin liturgical rites were replaced by new vernacular services, when the altars were replaced by tables, and when the celebrant turned to face the people, then almost imperceptibly, as the years passed by, the people, who were praying as Protestants, began to believe as Protestants.

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

Steven S, you wrote to me: "I do not understand why you think some of the people in this form should go just because you do not agree with them, please explain."

SS, my November 10 posts on this thread will (I hope) explain it to you. You have the disadvantage of just arriving here recently, so you don't know the horrible history of these people. I don't seek their banning just due to some trivial disagreement. Three of the four (Jake/Regina/Isabel) referred to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass approved by Pope Paul VI as an "abomination." The last of the four (Emerald) failed to criticize them for this and for their attendance at illicitly celebrated Masses. All four of them hold heretical beliefs about the salvation of people.

Gene, you are a quadruple-jackass for saying the following and misleading Steven S: "Deleting them is useless. Just as we tolerate John's bad temper we must tolerate their carping."
First, you don't see a "bad temper" in me, but careful, tactical action.
Second (as you will learn some day, I hope), "deleting them" (i.e., banning them) would be a fantastic step forward for the forum.
Third, they are not merely "carping," but doing vastly worse things.
Fourth, Catholics at a discussion forum with rules are not obligated to "tolerate" the psedo-traditionalist schismo-hereticals. In fact, we are obligated to protect lurkers and ourselves from their filth -- by banning them.

Yes, "God loves them," but he wants them to be elsewhere. The great Fr. Damien, whose leper colony I visited, did not take the infectious people into the general population of Molokai, but maintained their isolation -- as we must do to the moral and doctrinal lepers like Regina's Raiders. Isolation = Banning.

God bless you.
John

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

Bubbles,

You're hoping for a picture is just a distraction. Is this another tactic to avoid having to actually debate the merits of your argument?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Emerald writes:

"You referenced upthread the text you posted from Lumen Gentium which, I suppose, is supposed to show exactly how traditionalists are in schism."

OK, Emerald, we're going to take this realllllly slow. You asked for me to find something in Vatican II that I thought schismatics don't assent to. Here is the exact words you used:

"Let's have those new doctrines laid out in Vatican II that are supposed to be there, to which traditionalists have not lent their assent."

I answered your question with a specific section of text. Am I wrong? Do schismatics assent to the text I posted?

Now, you are changing the question, trying to ask me to show that this text proves schism. You can't change the question after the fact and then claim that my argument failed because it didn't address a question you hadn't even asked. That's just dishonest.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Kiwi:

"Here is what Vatican II teaches on salvation, its clear and unambiguous, do you accept the Catholic Church’s full teachings as explained below on salvation, YES or NO?"

It is certainly not clear and unambiguous. That's that whole contention, kiwi. It's not a matter of being unwilling to lend assent to something... it's the skullcrushing confusion over exactly what is being assented to, and it flows from the very wording of the Conciliar documents themselves, which are so unlike any others in the history of the Church up until now.

If you'll be patient, I'm fully ready to explain exactly what I mean. You don't have to agree with me, but at least you might understand what I'm trying to get across.

Call it penance, but hear me out.

Am I willing to give you a yes or no answer? Yes.

Will I dodge your question? No.

I'm being very clear: this document IS ambiguous. What I will do is give a YES answer to one possible interpretation of the text which upholds existing Catholic Doctrine, and a NO to another possible interpretation which would result in a deviation from Catholic Doctrine.

Yes means I assent to, No means I don't. Here goes.

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation.

Ok, so far, nothing new; same as it ever was. Yes.

"Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church."

Same here; it says that same thing as the Church has always taught. Yes, I give me assent. Never mind the fact that I already did before reading this document the first time a while back, but it's ok if I do it again; couldn't hurt.

The thesis, then, is in place. The thesis is this, basically, that the Catholic Church is the only means of salvation.

Next:

"Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

A true statement, but the seeds of a pending synthesis are already being sown here. The writers of this document interject a qualifier: "...those who know of the necessity...", and speaks of these only and without regard to the rest of humanity who don't "know of the necessity".

One of two things is possible:

1. The rest that don't know, they could possibly somehow be saved without entering the Church.

2. The rest that don't know, they still cannot be save without entering the Church.

While it does not state #1 in the affirmative that the rest are possibly saved, it certainly is written in such a way as to invite the reader to assume that the possibility of salvation exists for some of those who don't know of the Church.

Logically speaking, in the meantime, case #2 is still a viable conclusion. It has NOT logically been ruled out.

There is an ambiguity, then, and it is generated by applying the truth to a part instead of a whole. The deviant interpretation of this ambiguity would be that while the truth is upheld for the part, that it doesn't necessarily apply to the whole. This would be interpretation #1 above. While the document attracts this conclusion, it still is a conclusion over and above what the document has actually stated.

Who makes this conclusion? The document, or the reader?

The reader makes this conclusion.

What do I, Emerald, personally do when I am met with this text? Well, being familiar with quite a few other documents of the Church regarding this subject... documents which are much clearer and more precise, I must go with interpretation #2 in order to hold to the doctrine always held by the Church and in order to reconcile the document with the perennial teachings of the Church.

So I choose #2, wishing to remain uncompromised in the holding of Catholic doctrine, because the Catholic Church has always taught the She was the only way of salvation. Period.

To interpretation #2, I answer Yes. To #1, I cannot give my assent or I have denied a perennial doctrine of the Catholic Church.

No matter which one I choose, though, at this point it is clear that a certain element of doubt has been sown regarding the thesis that the Catholic Church is the only means of salvation as stated in the initial paragraphs of this section of Lumen Gentium.

To continue:

"They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops."

Very clearly, this is a reiteration of Catholic doctrine. Do please notice the word "fully", though. "Fully" is somewhat extraneous, but it's there for a reason it, which becomes clearer in the document as it proceeds from here. It conveniently inserts the construct of a sprectrum.

We have, now, a thesis, and the seeds of a sprectrum which would place this thesis as an extremity. We have variation of degree now available to us. In this way, a continuum coming into the picture with the insertion of the word "fully", paving the way for a new ambiguity, which is the idea that this not an in-or-out type of incorporation, but one which admits of variation of degree.

Continuing:

"The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion."

Nothing new here, far as I can tell.

I'll pick up with the next paragraph tomorrow and look to see where this is going.

In the mean time, Mateo, I see your post. Sorry that I started with kiwi's first, but since I did let me finish with it tomorrow and then do yours.

It's going to be the same principle though, Mateo, and that's that the documents are ambiguous and generate multiple possibilities of interpretation. If and whenever this occurs, I will always side with the always-held doctrine of Holy Mother Church.

The section you provided, Mateo, off hand seems to be insinuating that there is a sort of infallibility that arises from the bishops teaching in union under certain circumstances.

Thanks for bringing it up. Maybe it's one of the texts that is partly responsible for the conciliar Church's misunderstanding of true assent to the ordinary magisterium that I've been complaining about. Maybe not; who knows.

Hoping this helps, I really do. Also hoping my html tags are in good order...

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

*whew* on the html tags.

Listen, Mateo and kiwi, I want to tell you something. I have read the documents, and have spent all the time I told you I have spent for the last couple years trying to dig into the question of what's going on in the Church.

I'm not pulling your collective legs here; I'm not dragging the above off any one of the supposed "schismatic" websites, nor did I derive these things from such sources. This is the result of my trying to find out what I'm supposed to think and live. I have discussed things, obviously, at length with various helpful people, and have consulted many resources.

Right or wrong, here it is; let's continue if you wish, but just as a matter of table manners, so to speak, please: The one thing you must do is never doubt my sincerity.

If you could do me that much, I would appreciate. If not, I can tolerate it. =)

Thanks in advance.

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

Emerald,

The one thing you must do is never doubt my sincerity

For myself, I don't doubt your sincerity, but then I don't doubt the sincerity of many others who post here, Muslims, Protestants, even athiests. They, and you, are sincere. The question for you is "are you REALLY looking for the truth, or are you trying to make the Truth fit what you want to believe"? There's a big difference between that and sincerity.

Frank

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

Gene, you are a quadruple-jackass

Gene! Are you just going to sit back & take that?!

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

Three of the four (Jake/Regina/Isabel) referred to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass approved by Pope Paul VI as an "abomination."

Since you all find that such a well-fitting, comfortable shoe, why not just wear it already?

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

Frank:

The question for you is "are you REALLY looking for the truth, or are you trying to make the Truth fit what you want to believe"?

Make no mistake, the accusation I am leveling at the conciliar Church is exactly this:

Taken collectively and not individually, but as whole, they are not really looking for the truth; they are trying to make the Truth fit what they want to believe.

When they are confronted with an ambiguity, they choose the interpretation of their convenience which matches their ways of thinking and living, and do so with great resolve because they feel as though they have an imprimatur for their actions and ideas. They feel they have permission. Some choose a broad road, some choose a narrow path.

It seems to me the case that the Holy Ghost was in fact active at the Council. He has allowed ambiguity to seperate those who would serve and those who would not.

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

But again, you didn't answer the question regarding yourself, you just tried to shift the focus to someone else.

Frank

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

I most certainly did answer the question, although I'm not entirely finished with the section of text that kiwi provided.

Yes I did answer the question, and at the same time, provided good cause for a justifiable shift of focus onto another party.

Go back upthread and read it. I answered the question of the YES or NO of my assent in absolute, complete detail for the sections I dealt with.

Frank, go look. Please.

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

Emerald,

I did read the upthread thread, I meant I didn't read the rest of your current post. Could you maybe copy the part your are refering to? I'm seriously not trying to make you do my work, but I think the points you are trying to convey don't always make it across to this end.

Thanks,

Frank

P.S. You know, I really DO believe you are sincere, no one would post as much or as passionately as you do who was NOT sincere in their belief. I'm just unsure as to whether or not you are willing to seriously consider whether you may be incorrect in your beliefs. After all Emerald, the Pope and Magesterium are what are correct, we either follow, and be correct also, or do NOT follow for whatever "educated" or "enlightened" reason, and become incorrect.

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

Do you follow the magesterium, and the pope? certainly do. JP2 says that somehow, someway, Protestants,Muslims, etc, are united to us. That was not so in the good old days. This was the teaching that you conciliars so like to avoid.

The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

-- Tony (Tony@the supermarket.com), November 11, 2003.

Dear Tony,
You tell us: ''Do you follow the magesterium, and the pope? certainly do. JP2 says that somehow, someway, Protestants,Muslims, etc, are united to us. That was not so in the good old days.'' It was always so, and these are the good old days, right now.

The Church is open to all men. Christ died on the cross for mankind; not just for Jews, Greeks, and males.

Yes; to be saved all must be in the Church. Who knowingly remains out of her is damned. But you cannot place that burden on just everybody who's a Protestant, Muslim, or any other thing.

The Church merely states the truth when she teaches only the Catholic Church has our salvation from Jesus Christ. Meaning, those other faiths have no saving power. No way to save anyone, not protestant sects, not Islam, or Buddhism, etc.,

The Pope hasn't changed that aspect. He never said Buddhists are saved by Buddha. He never said Muslims are saved by Muhammad. Or protestants by any non-Catholic church.

Many many Baptists will very likely be saved in the end. But not by their Baptist faith. If they're saved it must be by Jesus Christ, in favor of His apostles' faith; which is the Church!. The Pope is speaking truthfully saying all men are able to reach salvation if God wills. It may be a mystery, but a soul can enter the Catholic Church in the final moment of life on earth. There are just several qualifications the soul must meet.

One of these is NOT outward conversion. Only God will know what that soul has received; man can't judge. We leave it to God's infinite mercy.

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

eugene, Very, very well said. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 11, 2003.

Suprise! I agree with you. "At the final moment, or a bit beyond", they MUST be in the Catholic church. That's it!

-- Tony (Tony@the supermarket.com), November 11, 2003.

You should consider also: Our Lord said very clearly, whoever loses his own life for Him will save it. You stated: ''[Not] even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.''

If an unbaptised soul dies a martyr for Christ, he is seen by the Church as one of Christ's souls, who receives the Baptism of Blood; and actually becomes a member of the Catholic Church, even if he was outside during life. Since baptism infuses sanctifying grace and forgiveness of every trace of sin, that soul is saved inside the Church. Again, there have to be certain qualifying conditions. But we cannot claim to know that soul was outside the faith. God will know; and He will judge.

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

Eugene; I did not say it. Pope Eugene IV, said it Ex Cathedra.

It is a dogma of the Church! Whether you or I like it, is not relevant. We must believe it, or we are not Catholics.

-- Tony (Tony@thesupermarket.com), November 11, 2003.

Have it your way, Tony.

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

Shalom Kiwi,

You wrote:

>>>I didn’t realize it was THIS long…. >>>

Perhaps, but don’t you think it’s rather poignant as well? This is one of the points we use to drive home to our Religious Education students the importance to accepting the Holy See fully, whether we understand or not the Church’s positions on everything she teaches. Although we suspect we can Scripturally, historically and ecclesiastically prove most everything to prove in her defense whatever her doctrines are, we have always found doing these proofs tend to be complex and highly involved and your listing shows only a fraction of the research one must do to prove the truth of Vatican II. We would add to this:

1. All those documents used for (as well as from) Vatican II in their entirety 2. All the documents they drew those footnotes from 3. All the Documents that further interrelate (such as Florence in our own example to Emerald and Psyche) 4. The Holy mother’s visions at Fatima and La Salette 5. The history surrounding these visions and their timing of revelation (and Vatican II) 6. And the many Scriptural arguments we have studied that shows that Vatican II was highly likely to be a prophetic and sign of Messiah’s soon return- Halleluiah!

Usually with those categories above there is one of these groups that give the answer in the simple meaning. For example, the Eucharist is easily proven from the plain meaning of John 6 and this is why we tend to use this argument with Sola Scriptura Protestants. We suspect for Vatican II this was Fatima’s III vision, however no traditionalist here seems to willing to answer our challenges on our Blessed Mother’s choice of timing that revelation of this third vision and its content in light of Vatican II. Basically, it would seem prudent and quite beneficial to build a site (or sites) that have layers for evidences (like an onion, it keeps going until you reach the very root) for those who wish to see deeper and deeper proofs to combat the rhetoric from wolves and thieves.

This has been particularly frustrating for us because we recently lost all our research due to our system crashing (due to a hacker) and we cannot easily download this data again because already he is attacking the system we put in place of the one we lost (thus we are seriously considering contacting the FBI on this because we cannot afford these losses). Therefore, even if we can pull this information together in theory, which we expect we might be able to do, due to what we see in Scriptural prophecies and Our Lady’s Visions and our early attempts to correlate these to those ecumenical documents, we doubt we will be allowed to. Still, maybe someone here who has read our material and perhaps can see what we were trying to explain, might take up this challenge and build a strong foundational support through these tools that others could link those Catholics wandering away to as we were trying to do. We certainly hope so because if dreams are any clue to what we are facing, then we are still being fiercely attacked and we do not wish to lose the next system.

So thanks again for you support and help in defending our Church.

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), November 12, 2003.

Shalom Bubbles,

You wrote:

>>>The Sublime Latin prayers of the traditional mass, which date back to the sixth century and beyond…>>>

These Latin prayers once replaced the Hebrews prayers, which our L- rd and Savior used and that were the common prayers up and until about the second century and beyond…. We suspect those traditionalists of the third and fourth century were also frustrated with our Church replacing their original language of Hebrew with the universal language of that day- Latin. However, our Church needed that for her converts so they could UNDERSTAND what was going on! In this contemporary period English has replaced that universal language (whether one likes it or not) and by changing that Mass to accommodate the changing world our Church has proven that she indeed is open to the ENTIRE world. Still this doesn’t mean there cannot be traditional Masses, but it should not be demanded for all to abide this.

>>>Communion under one kind was replaced by Communion under both kinds, because in every meal there should be both food and drink.>>>

Really? We thought it was because Yeshua (Jesus) said:

“Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, you have NO LIFE in you.” Jn.6.53

The Greek word “kai” not only means “and” but also “moreover”, “likewise”, or “even”, so there was nothing wrong in her giving only one species of Blessed Sacrament down through the ages, though it is still good to offer both. We suspect one reason is because giving only one “kind” may potentially have hurt those who had Sprue (the inability to digest wheat-based products) because although this Gift possesses in Incarnation within, it also carries (as Jesus did Himself) the earthly aspect as well. And whether the Transubstantiation heals this, we do not know, as Jesus was FULLY HUMAN as well as fully Divine (therefore are we trusting or testing?). Still we do know of one woman who has an intolerance and does relish in the fact that she can fully receive Him (both species) in the wine alone if she so chooses and that earlier concern no longer applies!

And this is what we see wrong in your arguments. You seem to resemble the scribes and Pharisees of old because you tithe the Latin mass of antiquity; the altar turned around, the all male altar servers, and the one “kind” of the Transubstantiation, but you have “neglected the weightier matters of the LAW, JUSTICE and MERCY and FAITH, these you ought to have also done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Matt.23.23-24

Law, which was lowered to make the Mass and sometimes only prayer services open to as many believers in same Father as possible; Justice, which tells us not to measure another needs based upon our own; Mercy which those raised in falsehood need if they are ever are to find their way to truth, and Faith like that of child who does not understand everything, but is fragile and can be crushed by heaping high demands upon them while it is still so new, these are those weightier things you neglect. The father of the prodigal son went out to him while he was still far off, yet to those we read here, that child would have to come the full distance and if he could not, then he would be allowed to die upon the way.

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), November 12, 2003.

Shalom Emerald,

Your comment about accepting part “2” of our Church’s teaching at Vatican II, but not the implication of part “1” reminds us of the parable of the bridesmaids- when these woke up all began to trim their lamps (correct their understanding). The foolish noticed they needed “oil” and demanded this from the wise, but the wise could not afford to give them any. Now what is this oil that the foolish lacked but the wise still possessed?

In the Hebrew Scriptures olive oil was used to anoint the office bearers (Ex.25.6, 2 Kgs.9.6) and was used to provide light (Ex.25.6), it also had other uses, but we believe these two meanings fit the parable best. Taking the first meaning and putting this back into the context, the anointing for an office in our faith dried up when these bridesmaids began to correct their misunderstandings on something. This certainly has been true from many Traditionalists because when they began to try to make sense of Vatican II their initial conclusions have put them at odds with the present leadership of our Church and many have lost their rights to hold official positions in the Church as result. As to providing light, this meaning we believe is also subjective as each group believes they are the ones providing light whether they are or not.

Therefore, we see this oil as the anointing for positions of power to “teach” in our Church. The wise are the ones in our Church who accept her teachings, both those they fully understand and those they do not, and yet not these upheld by the leadership? For these wise bridesmaids, they will not be able to afford to give detailed explanations for their faith and trust (other than knowing Peter has the right to loosen and bind), therefore the foolish need to back to the original documents, visions and prophecies to figure this out for themselves, that is they were sent back to the “shopkeepers”.

So are those many documents really the “shopkeepers”? We suspect not, but rather the three shepherds who are prophesied to come in the end times. These shepherds are named immediately after that passage in Zech.11.7 that we explained here in depth on other threads. That passage seems to be strongly linked to La Salette and the third Fatima vision, and through that argument we drew a further link to the teachings of Vatican II, which you struggle so much to understand and accept. Among those items are the staffs of kindness (grace) and unions (pledges). Further, immediately following this passage these three shepherds die in a single month (Zech.11.8) and this is why we believe waiting for them and going for them to get PROOF will put these foolish bridesmaids outside that door! This is because by the time enough proof is given (possibly because they may have to peruse all the evidence themselves to explain all, like we explained to Kiwi above?) to fully understand this so they can form simple parables to teach those foolish bridesmaids about obedience, there will not be enough time to digest and understand it all before Yeshua (Jesus) comes. Yet doing this comes with price as is explained in the “no-prophet”:

“And if one asks, ‘What are these wounds on your hands?’ He will say, ‘the wounds I received in the house of my friends.” Zech.13.6

and this is why we read of those two witnesses (whom we believe are two of those three):

“And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends from the bottomless pit will make war upon them and conquer them and kill them, and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the Great City which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their L-rd was crucified.” Rev.11.7-9

And this is further why we see that staff of grace broken FIRST and the Covenant He made with us upon Calvary annulled because we judged those He did not, and He will now judge us as we had judged them! And further He will say to these bridesmaids:

“If it seems right to you (because before you demanded proof before you would believe why not now also), give Me My wages (“he should pay ALL his dept” Matt.19.23-35) but if not keep them (hell).” And they weighted out the wages thirty shekels of silver (what Judas was paid). Then the L-rd said to me, ‘cast it to the Potter’ –the lordly price at which I was paid off by them.”

And this we believe links to Rev.14.13:

“And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the L-rd henceforth.’ ‘Blessed indeed,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their deeds follow them!’”

That absolute proof you say you are seeking will come with the death of those three shepherds and when they rise three and one half days later there will be no longer doubt to their testimony, only the door will then be closed because you should have listened to His Church and His representatives on earth.

To be fair, there is one point we agree on, that one day the apostasy will infect even our righteous Church bringing persecution down upon the righteous in her flock and causing her blameless leadership to flee and many die in His Name. The Catechism (677) calls this day the “final Passover, when she will follow her L-rd in His death and resurrection” and prophecies of these times both in the visions of our saints and Scripture depict a time of violence and persecution where our “pope suffers greatly” and it becomes dangerous to be Catholic. Yet, where in the immediate events following Vatican II do we see that upheaval? Immediately following a man landed on the moon; Nixon went to China; and the Berlin wall fell, immediately following these there was hope for peace and not the fear of coming persecution and death of innocent lives.

So we see a very different picture, we see a flame diverted in 1960 because our Church repented as commanded. We see Yeshua (Jesus) in the Council taking hold of those staffs and leading His Church into the desert of Protestantism, Judaism, Muslimism, and other non- Catholic groups. During this time He gave her the heavenly Manna of the Blessed Sacrament to keep us united (something many of you have forgotten) and the one drawn from the law (water) our pope leads us though these difficult times with wisdom and love. However now we stand at end of those forty long years at the edge of the promise He made to our Church long ago. Yet, will we be like our ancestors in Israel and go into this promise seeing all the great fruit it has so far wrought for our Church in the solid exegeses that have arisen to challenge Sola Scriptura with fear of those Protestant arguments and seek to back out on what Yeshua (Jesus) called for us? Or will we listen to our Church and trust in G-d? This is the ultimate test we believe that will be settled when our Church reaches her fortieth year from the council’s end.

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), November 12, 2003.

Shalom Emerald,

You wrote:

>>>"Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." >>>

>>>A true statement, but the seeds of a pending synthesis are already being sown here. The writers of this document interject a qualifier: "...those who know of the necessity...", and speaks of these only and without regard to the rest of humanity who don't "know of the necessity". >>>

>>>While it does not state #1 in the affirmative that the rest are possibly saved, it certainly is written in such a way as to invite the reader to assume that the possibility of salvation exists for some of those who don't know of the Church. >>>

Maybe we can help you with this confusion with the following:

“The words bind and loosen mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with G-d; whoever you receive anew into your communion, G-d will welcome back into His. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with G-d.” Cat.1445

Loosening and binding not only includes issues of discipline as we pointed out to Psyche, but also exactly who is in communion with our Church and in the eyes of G-d. This includes those she once excluded but now welcomes back as the Catechism above teaches. We have seen much truth in this because without outwardly or covertly seeking the conversion of others we can often open a door that would otherwise stand closed and bring them into our faith. This in fact has been worked out in our own lives with a girl who was disenchanted by all religions and thought our Catholic faith was a cult. Yet she was also in great pain and had many difficult struggles. So instead of acting like an evangelist we became true friends accepting her as is and helping her out in any way we could without pressure. Further when she had a faith question we answered from the Scripture because this was the one text she had some trust in. Still despite these self-imposed restrictions this girl are now Catholic. We have this entire testimony in “Taters, what’s taters precious” which we linked you to (though this is in another post in that thread).

Still as we explained there, we firmly believe if we had taken the attitude that the Catholic Church is the ONLY way and she was damned without our Church we doubt she would be Catholic today or even our friend! Yet by showing her mercy and giving her salvation unto Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus the Messiah) she came not only to faith in Him but also in time (a few years later after accepting Him in fact) a Catholic as well. So might this be why Paul said we were to be “fools for Christ” because your thinking is purely logical as you stated, but G-d is greater than human logic. Still such a walk is not obvious or easy (it requires true non-judgmental love and full trust in G-d) which is why we believe the blessed Mother said in the third Fatima vision that this council and its fruit was a great mountain with a cross at the top, not a walk in the park.

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), November 13, 2003.

Hi Ca nd C you bring a nice balance to my rather less developed line of defence and give us all a more holistic view of the problems Emerald faces. Your use of scripture is very impressive, wow, I haven’t read any of the Old Testament beyond Job although I’m devouring theology books at a rapid rate. Give me another year and Ill have the basics of development of doctrine within my grasp. God Bless excuse me while I also reply to Emerald although in rather less prophetic prose than your words. Thank YOU Mr and Mrs Fogen

THE TRUTH: Reason and Faith

"Such a truth is attained not only by way of reason but also through trusting acquiescence to other persons who can guarantee the authenticity and certainty of the truth itself"

Pope John Paul II

Hi Emerald, thanks for your honesty,I only did this because on a number of threads you have been gloating and arrogantly strutting around for someone to go through the teachings and guidelines of Vatican II with you. “Pretty please” you even begged in jest. Im a poor excuse for a teacher but nevertheless ill just keep repeating what Ive said to Regina and Lady P. Look we all know where this is headed if you continue, there are a number of teachings where both you and I know you will be unwilling to give your assent (salvation is one of these, ecumenism is another). If you reject this assertion I ask you to continue with this unpleasant task and finish what you started with me as your first major stumbling block(one of many) is coming up. Assuming you don’t want to stretch out the inevitable, lets wind this up:

Johns original question was

“Who considers themselves opposed to the teaching of Vatican II?”

Answer: Emerald (at least some of them)

WHY is he opposed to some teachings?

Because according to Emerald s own private judgment( a very limited private judgment of an Internet armchair layman at that,), some of the Vatican II teachings deviate from pre-Vatican II doctrine! He in his great wisdom can see contradictions that the Pope cannot, wow amazing isnt he! Oh my, what parts of all previous Councils do you also reject Emerald, Im assuming you’ve read them all,… the notion is absurd! Its not exaggeration to say that it is very similar to someone whose mechanical knowledge is limited to changing a car tyre, attempting to tell a rocket scientist how to build a space craft. Multiply that gap in knowledge and understanding by a thousand and you start to get the sort of distance between Emerald and Co and a real Catholic theologian. The enormous ego and lack of humility /dignity/self respect for one to be prepared to make such bold and frankly feeble claims is simply staggering.

Emerald should realise that as a Catholic he must have faith in that this (contradiction)cannot occur, indeed the basis for the authority of the Church rests on this truth. In all of his hundreds of “contradictions” over many years he has not be able to prove even one single contradiction in Church teachings, it simply cannot happen, never has and never will.

While Emeralds musings may appear to be rational to the untrained eye (weve heard it all before), , while he tries to sound authoritative, his interpretations are very flimsy and extremely easy, if time consuming due to the detail involved, to refute. Ive been down this road with him before, where at every end he will be shown where he went wrong he will change the topic or more likely blandly proclaim “its not about knowledge anyway” “you wont budge me” “its deeper than that” bla bla bla …. it his conscience you see.

Like many a dissenter over the history of the Church Emerald is genuinely anguished and sincere he FEELS that teachings of Vatican II are wrong, but not wanting to reject the teachings outright he makes up imaginery inteprreations on his own. That the Church clearly doesn’t agree with his interpretation doesn’t matter one iota, his conscience tells him so.

Lifes to short to spend time telling people who should know better simple truths over and over again so Im just going to paste a few old quotes to Lady P. As for my objection re Father Mosts I re read Emerald thoughts and anyone who reads the link in full (which Emerald did not ), will see he is a true Catholic scholar and a man to be greatly respected. I forget when someone is prepared to reject both a Church Council and the authority of the Magisterium, including the Pope in favour of their own private judgment they have no trouble in twisting the words of a renowned Catholic theologian.

Emeralds “multiple” interpretation is simply a bad joke, there is only one way to interpret scripture and tradition and that’s through our Bishops joined with the Pope as Cannon law tells us:

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."

Its well worth noting :

"[a] schismatic is one who believes everything the Church teaches, but will not submit to the authority of its head--the Holy Father. Such persons do not long remain only schismatics; for once they rise up against the authority of the Church, they soon reject some of its doctrines and thus become heretics; and indeed, since Vatican Council I, all schismatics are heretics" (Balt. Catechism A 323).

From a functional viewpoint there is no legitimate protest against the primacy and supreme authority of the Pope in all matters pertaining to the universal church. Your current position of bowing only to what you perceive (incorrectly IMO) as needing assent, is doubly rottten as not only do you reject the authority of the Church and put your faith in your own personal Protestant fairy tale “paper magisterium” but also (unlike other protestants) you try and cover your dissent and pretend to be Catholic. In short then if you reject Vatican II in the way I believe youre attempting to do so then not only are youre schismatic heretic but dishonest and devious. If you accept ALL of Vatican II as binding then of course Ive made a mistake. Harsh words but that’s the truth IMO. Not that I can be upheld as anything great (as Isabel or someone else will gleefully tell you) ,yet apologetics isnt about personalities its about the truth.

Catholic Encyclopedia 1913

From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church...

Enough Said

Peace be with you Emerald

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

On the question of the Vatican II Council, it is easy to see how with so much errors contained in it, one could never accept it as a Catholic document.

One of the heretical documents of this council that I am speaking about, published on November 21, 1964, after watering down much of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, was Lumen Gentium.

This document Lumen Gentium, which has received much praise from the post-Conciliar Churchmen (including the un-orthodox "conservative" Joseph Ratzinger and the Great Royal Diplomat of Conversion-devoid Ecumenism, Karol Wojtyla) I have reviewed and found it to be not ambiguous as many conservatives have claimed. Instead this document is clear on what it says and what it is saying is nothing but heresy.

Here are a few examples from Lumen Gentium and another conciliar document:

Heresy: "This Church (of Christ)... subsists in the Catholic Church." "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines." Lumen Gentium.

Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. Dogma of Faith. "Subsists in" is a false belief, because it means that the Church is substantially an entity housing the Church of Christ, and is not singularly the church of Christ, which appears to have elements outside the Roman Catholic Church according to Lumen Gentium.

It is a SIN to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. Ven. Pope Pius IX

If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and that of those who have not yet come to the true faith is equal: let him be anathema. I Vatican Council

Heresy: "The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God." Lumen Gentium

Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church Muslims offer God false worship... with a form of worship He has never authorized, approved or sanctioned. - See Baltimore Catechism

A true worshipper is one whose mind has not been defiled with any false belief. Pope St. Leo the Great

Only Catholics worship the One True God. Gregory XVI

The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot truly be adored except within its fold. Pope St. Gregory the Great

Heresy: In certain circumstances, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren. Decree on Ecumenism, "Unitatis Redintegratio," Nov. 21, 1964

Teaching of the Catholic Church That the faithful and clergy should pray for Christian unity under the leadership of heretics can in no way be tolerated. Ven. Pope Pius IX

If any clergyman or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meetings of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of Communion. III Council of Constantinople (Ecumenical)

No one shall pray in common with heretics or schismatics. Council of Laodicea (Regional)

Comments: Vatican II broke the sacred trust, by preaching novelty and heresy thereby invaliating itself.

-- Brother Francis (Tradcath2004@yahoo.com), June 16, 2004.

On the previous post, the following:

Teaching of the Catholic Church That the faithful and clergy should pray for Christian unity under the leadership of heretics can in no way be tolerated. Ven. Pope Pius IX

Should read:

Teaching of the Catholic Church: That the faithful and clergy should pray for Christian unity under the leadership of heretics can in no way be tolerated. Ven. Pope Pius IX

Likewise all the "Teaching of the Catholic Church" should read:

Teaching of the Catholic Church :

-- Brother Francis (tradcath2004@yahoo.com), June 16, 2004.

Well, might as well answer a bit,

Heresy: "This Church (of Christ)... subsists in the Catholic Church." "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines." Lumen Gentium.

No, you don't understand it. Is Jesus Christ God? Yes. Are there people who believe Jesus is God but are NOT Catholics? Yes. Therefore SOME elements of Truth exist outside the Catholic church, but the WHOLE of Truth does not.

It is a SIN to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. Ven. Pope Pius IX

Yes and no. Yes it is true, it is through the Catholic church we attain salvation (not to mention the Grace of God!) but invincible ignorance has ALWAYS been recognized by the church, and you would be 100% wrong to say that non-Catholics MUST be going to Hell.

Heresy: "The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God." Lumen Gentium

Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church Muslims offer God false worship... with a form of worship He has never authorized, approved or sanctioned.

Again, not a heresy at all. The Moslems DO adore one God, as do we. They worship incorrectly, and do not understand what they do worship as they do not recognize Christ as God which is a most grievous error. Are the Moslems correct or on some sort of equal footing with the Catholic church? Of course not. Did the church ever SAY they were worshipping correctly? No, also of course not.

Heresy: In certain circumstances, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren. Decree on Ecumenism, "Unitatis Redintegratio," Nov. 21, 1964

Are you saying that a Catholic can't invite a Protestant to a Catholic prayer service? I think that's acceptable, and have never heard the church state otherwise. How else could you make converts if you forbade prayer with non-Catholics, and didn't allow them to attend part of mass as a part of RCIA? This does NOT say it's acceptable to worship Vishnu! "In certain circumstances" means what the church defines it as, not what some anti-Catholic defines it as.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 16, 2004.

Not quite sure I'm getting the entire gist, or point of Bro. Francis' post.

After attending Sunday Catholic Mass, my wife and I attended Sunday service at her father's Protestant church. There was no Lords Supper, just some blessings, prayers, handshakes, hymns, and a sermon.

According to content provided by Bro. Francis, am I to understand that this is a sin, or that we (my wife and I) should be "deprived" of Communion as a result of this? I think its very likely we will end up doing this again.

Common sense tells me that there is no sin here. But perhaps my sense is in error? Or has reading Bro. Francis' post ruined my much used invincible ignorance?

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), June 16, 2004.

By saying that "together with us" Muslims worship the same God, the Council is clearly sanctioning Muslims in their worship. I am not saying that it approves of the muslim religion. It sanctions Muslims in their false worship.

A statement can not be made based on half-truth! The Religion of Islam rejects the Divinity of Christ.

Sanctification cannot be found outside of Holy Church! period. On the topic of Truth: Revealed Truth came from the Church and belongs to it. Heretics, although they embrace some of what the Catholic Church teaches, it is given them by the Church. "All graces given to those outside the Church are given them for the purpose of bringing them inside the Church." St. Augustine

Clearly here, Vatican II Council deviated from Catholic Doctrine.

The next statement "indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren" is Conciliar novelty!!! It preached this idea which the Church clearly condemned.

Roman Catholic Teaching is clear on attending false worships and seeking communion with heretical sects.

On prayer service, if it is a protestantized gathering (e.g., Charismatic Renewal, e.t.c) or Orthodox or Protestant Sunday Services, you should not be there. The Rosary you can say with those not yet members of the Holy Faith. Your question of allowing protestants to come to the Church... well, it is their true home.

-- Brother Francis (tradcath2004@yahoo.com), June 16, 2004.

"Clearly here, Vatican II Council deviated from Catholic Doctrine."

A: The Holy Spirit, speaking through the assembled successors of the Apostles, cannot "deviate from Catholic doctrine". The specifics of the Holy Catholic Church's relationship to members of other faiths are not and never were matters of doctrine. They are matters of interfaith discipline, which is subject to change, and which thank God have been freed of the fear and suspicion of the dark ages and brought out into the light of Christ's love, thanks to the Holy Spirit's leading through the holy Council.

"The next statement "indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren" is Conciliar novelty!!! It preached this idea which the Church clearly condemned."

A: Yes! It was indeed a NEW, refreshing, and liberating approach to the Church's divine commission to make disciples of (not preach the condemnation of) all peoples! You have a problem with the Church preaching ideas which it formerly condemned?? You would prefer that the Sacrament of Confession be allowed only once during a lifetime?? Or do you support the Church's current teaching which allows frequent Confession - an idea it once soundly condemned? Would you prefer a return to public penance for mortal sin? Sack cloth and ashes? Or do you find it acceptable that the Church has reversed itself on this former policy? Do you object to the Church reversing any of its policies as the Holy Spirit leads, so that we all remain in the dark ages spiritually and theologically? Or is it just those particular policies which you personally liked which Holy Mother Church has no right to change??

"Roman Catholic Teaching is clear on attending false worships and seeking communion with heretical sects."

A: Yes, and the teaching of the Holy Council is part of that ongoing Roman Catholic teaching - the clearest and most definitive presentation of such teaching to date.

"On prayer service, if it is a protestantized gathering (e.g., Charismatic Renewal, e.t.c)"

A: Protestantized? Where do you suppose these modern denominational churches got their information on charismatic spirituality? From texts written by early Catholic Church leaders, compiled into book form by a Council of the Holy Catholic Church! Nothing that is described in the Bible can be anything but Catholic.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 16, 2004.

The Heretical document on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate.

Nostra Aetate's first outrageous statement: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions [Buddism and Hunduism]. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

There is nothing holy and true in paganism. Neither can any religion enlighten men which does not recognize Christ as the way, the truth and the life. (John XIV 6)

Nostra Aetate's second outrageous statement: "The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men."

Nostra Aetate here exhorts Christians to recognize, preserve and promote pagan cultural values. Instances of this is seen in the diabolic inculturation masses which has proliferated in different parts of the world since Vatican II.

Nostra Aetate's teaches that although, "as Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers"

Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance. 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10 For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire. - Matthew III 7-10

And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew VIII 11

Nostra Aetate in no way expresses any need to convert Jews or the other religions mentioned: "this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues."

-- Brother Francis (tradcath2004@yahoo.com), June 27, 2004.